| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (63)

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 3:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Actually, if I was a criminal, I'd be more likely to shoot you first if I thought you were armed." I guess you don't know much about guns or combat. The only way that could go down like that is if you got the jump on the homeowner. If you did get the jump then them having a gun wouldn't matter. Getting the first shot and being a good shot is what counts. If you didn't get the jump and I the homeowner heard a window break open I would have the advantage. Generally bedrooms are on the second floor so I would also have the higher ground. Anything can happen but that scenario 9 out of 10 times ends in the favor of the homeowner. If the robber gets the jump on me I will not be able to even get to my gun so why would he need to shoot me? You could say well he knows you have a gun so he would be better off shooting you rather than taking chances. If that was the case you would have to be okay with murder to break in since you know a fire fight is going to break out. All of this is so bs in the end because never will everyone own guns no matter how you spin it. I feel that I am honest, kind and have no bad intentions, so I have earned the right to own guns. As such I think that the right to not want to own a gun is just as valid as owning a gun. So everyone owning guns would never happen as it would be imposing on others freedom just as taking my guns away is imposing on my freedom. Life is a two way street if you can only have it one way you are an extremist and will never know the entire story. If you don't want to be forced to own a gun why would you force other law abiding citizens to not own one. If I follow the law I should not be treat with the assumption that because I own a gun I am a liability. This is supposed to be a free country.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 4:15PM Captain Obvious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Bobikcus

Wonderful discussion. We should get together for a beer sometime!

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 4:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Obvious

Thanks, but I have one last salvo in realation to your Canada/crime comment:

Don't change premise in mid-debate. Your article discusses gun-control and its possible relation to crime-rates. This is a sticky wicket which would get us quoting angry academics arguing about statistical methods (I tried getting into it, but the combination of stat and vitriol made me wish 'I' had a gun).

Your premise was relating ownership to gun violence. That is a different, though albeit related, issue.

The article does indicate increased ownership relating directly to increased gun violence, though it has to be extrapolated from the figures as shown below. the ownership numbers are probably off, but I don't think you'd argue that Canada has more households with guns, the rest are figures from your article.

US - 35-50% Gun Ownership?, 26% Violent Crimes use Guns, @ 500 Violent Crimes per 100,000 people,
130 Gun-Related Violent Crimes per 100,000 people

Canada - 29% Ownership?, 3% Violent Crimes use Guns, @ 1,000 Violent Crimes per 100,000 people,
30 Gun-Related Violent Crimes per 100,000 people

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 5:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#44

"You want to help the poor, the homeless, the starving? Give money to your local church or synagogue. Don't ask the government to do it for you, and please, do not ask them to take my money just because my wife and I make over $100,000.00 a year."

Actually your deisre to avoid taxes is in fact causing you to lose money in other ways, for example just becuse you aren't paying taxes to fund people's health insurance via a government plan doesn't mean you're avoiding the costs of treating the poor and uninsured, becuase where will those people go when they can't get insurance? To the ER at the local hospital, and those costs get shifted to the rest of us. In fact one of the reasons why many countries spend less on healthcare than us is due to the government's power to negotiate lower costs due to economies of scale.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 5:22PM Captain Obvious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Avinash_Tyagi

As I stated earlier, you're not going to convince me that the United States should do something just because other countries do it. I'd rather have expensive private health care than the aweful mess that is Canadian socialized health care. Need a knee surgery? Wait 28 months. Need a hip replacement? 4 years. There is a reason that so many Canadians actually come to the US for medical care. They can actually get treated.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 5:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Fear is a natural response, an emotion that all humans share. Fear is also a tool used by people in a position of power to control and manipulate our natural responses to get a predictable outcome.

My question is, and I'm sure the TIME article goes further into it, why are the majority of our fears irrational? It's true that in our modern times we spent a lot of time worrying or thinking about things that, when you take a step back and think deeply about it, aren't really harmful or effect us very little.

What do media outlets stand to gain by scaring us the way they do, and why do we blindly trust the validity of every new crisis that's shoved in our face?

When we point the finger at video game content, we're really pointing the finger at ourselves. Video games, like any media, are a mirror of our society. The violence that's depicted in video games in no way compares to real violence that happens everyday, and has, in fact, taken place throughout all of written history. When politicians, worried Moms, etc. blame video games for violent acts enacted in real life, they tend to ignore many other influences in the perpetrator's life. Do they come from a broken home? What's their daily life like? Video games don't MAKE anybody do anything; at most I give them credit as a single factor leading up to the given incident.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 6:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well Captain Obvious. There are study for and against people having guns. As well as there are study for and against Mauser's claims, to which you have provided a link. Of course, most people should know that Mauser's studies were funded by the NRA and in no way whould be seen as biased in favor of gun ownership.

As for the claim of higher crime rates in Canada since the "stricter control laws" this claim is greatly exaggerated. Property crimes have gone up it's true but homicides caused by firearms are still in a steady decline.

It all comes down to preferences.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 6:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Virus,

"You are just going with the meme that guns are sooooo bad yet no evidence exist that they are such a huge problem."

Don't put words in my mouth, and don't go so out of your way to make adversaries of people. I didn't say I wanted more gun control. Remember? "I certainly won't go so far as to say that more gun control is better..."

"If you fully agreed you would acknowledge that gun related deaths should be the least of our worries."

I didn't say it wasn't. Stop being so contrary. The only thing I openly disagreed with you and Obvious about was the comparison between guns and cars. I consider it woefully misapplied given the intended use (NOT latent capability) of the products. I don't care if you can kill someone with product x; if cars' intended consumer use isn't to kill things, then car companies have no responsibility in a case where someone used a car to kill someone else. Now, cars do have the CAPABILITY to kill people, but that doesn't mean they are DESIGNED to. Therein lies the primary difference, and the cause of my dissention.

In the future, please consider waiting for someone to express their opinion on something (i.e., whether guns are more dangerous than alcohol, fast food, etc.) before attacking it.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 6:24PM Captain Obvious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Zack

Cigarettes are not designed to kill people, yet they do. How are they different from cars, which are different from guns. Cigarette manufacturers have been found liable, when their product is not designed specifically to kill, while gun manufacturers are statutorily protected from liability, even though their product is, as you say, designed to kill. Please explain.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 6:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A clarification: I meant to say car companies have no responsibility in a case where someone *intentionally* used a car to kill someone else. Accidentally killing someone due to faulty equipment is an entirely different situation.

Posted: Dec 8th 2006 6:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#53

"As I stated earlier, you're not going to convince me that the United States should do something just because other countries do it. I'd rather have expensive private health care than the aweful mess that is Canadian socialized health care. Need a knee surgery? Wait 28 months. Need a hip replacement? 4 years. There is a reason that so many Canadians actually come to the US for medical care. They can actually get treated."

Oh i'm not saying adopt Canada/Europe's method's exactly, but there are aspects of those systems that work better and cost less than ours, for example the GOP made it so medicare cannot negotiate for lower prescription drug costs, why?

Posted: Dec 9th 2006 7:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here here. I have eaten at Taco Bell 3 times this week! I like to live on the edge.

Posted: Dec 9th 2006 12:57AM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Save one victim from one gun crime just to create 5 more from different methods. I'll take America's version of civilization over the rest of the world's where saving one person from a gun is worth creating loads more suffering for others.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW