chris in va
New member
IMO, a really bad idea.
Crime and Guns
- Thread starter BoringAccountant
- Start date
IMO, a really bad idea.
That's impossible, it's illegal to carry a gun in Maryland... 
I'm not really concerned with common crime or whether or not CCW reduces the crime rate, etc. To me it's statistically not a serious threat, I don't live in an inner city high crime area. I'm much more concerned with being able to defend myself from Democide.
That's one of the last things we need.
I'm not really concerned with common crime or whether or not CCW reduces the crime rate, etc. To me it's statistically not a serious threat, I don't live in an inner city high crime area. I'm much more concerned with being able to defend myself from Democide.
That's one of the last things we need.
BoringAccountant
New member
Tennessee,
Objections to my opinion are duly noted.
However, might I further clarify before I get labeled as some internet commando or something.
First, not true at all. I know of many who would "let" a fight continue assuming it is a fair fight to let the individuals work it out. Right or wrong, it happens all the time.
Completely agreed, hence the reason for this discussion. This is not about who has the bigger cajones, this is about a disagreement people have and them working out their own way. Do I encourage or suggest others do the same, of course not, that would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that it wasn't uncommon too long ago to get into an altercation with someone else, work it out and then move on. Today however, more people are finding it "easier" to shoot first then ask questions.
Again, completely agree. There would be no need to fight if you could just easily walk away. BUT...what if it can't be helped, the other is the instigator, the other person won't let go off the situation. Why does it automatically become a life and death situation today for minor things like traffic or road rage or minor things that should never warrant someone pulling a gun?
These are the things I am asking.
Again, I say this is what I am trying to figure out, why is it dumb to expect a fair fight with someone over something minor? What changed in society? Sure you will always have those who will kill, those who will be unable to refrain from any type of low blow, those who will surely kick you when you are down, but in general, what changed?
Lastly, here is a CLASSIC example. Couple is out at a bar, night club, concert, somewhere in public where there is a crowd of people and some of which who may be drinking too much. Drunk man A insults your woman. What do you do? According to some of the posters you just walk away, I know "it takes a bigger man to walk away" crap that some of you will say, but lets take it one step further. Drunk A will not stop harrassing, keeps it up, and I for one would not just leave, pride, my right to be there, her right to be honored and not disrespected, etc. are a variety of the reasons I would stay. I decide to approach Drunk A and a fight ensues, which doesn't matter who started it physically, it started regardless. In today's society, it would not be a stretch for some people to either 1) have a gun pulled on them during a said argument 2) pull a gun themselves during said argument. Why has it been taken this far? Why wouldn't the guys get in a fight, he has restored her honour, Drunk A gets some sense knocked in him, period end of story.
Where is the need to escalate it to a gun issue?
Please guys read the posts seriously...I get the gist of Tennessee's argument, there is just no need to be so blatantly rude about your opinions though...see STUPID, STUPID, and DUMB in the original.
Does anyone see where I am coming from? or am I just missing something?
Objections to my opinion are duly noted.
However, might I further clarify before I get labeled as some internet commando or something.
First, not true at all. I know of many who would "let" a fight continue assuming it is a fair fight to let the individuals work it out. Right or wrong, it happens all the time.
Completely agreed, hence the reason for this discussion. This is not about who has the bigger cajones, this is about a disagreement people have and them working out their own way. Do I encourage or suggest others do the same, of course not, that would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that it wasn't uncommon too long ago to get into an altercation with someone else, work it out and then move on. Today however, more people are finding it "easier" to shoot first then ask questions.
Again, completely agree. There would be no need to fight if you could just easily walk away. BUT...what if it can't be helped, the other is the instigator, the other person won't let go off the situation. Why does it automatically become a life and death situation today for minor things like traffic or road rage or minor things that should never warrant someone pulling a gun?
These are the things I am asking.
Again, I say this is what I am trying to figure out, why is it dumb to expect a fair fight with someone over something minor? What changed in society? Sure you will always have those who will kill, those who will be unable to refrain from any type of low blow, those who will surely kick you when you are down, but in general, what changed?
Lastly, here is a CLASSIC example. Couple is out at a bar, night club, concert, somewhere in public where there is a crowd of people and some of which who may be drinking too much. Drunk man A insults your woman. What do you do? According to some of the posters you just walk away, I know "it takes a bigger man to walk away" crap that some of you will say, but lets take it one step further. Drunk A will not stop harrassing, keeps it up, and I for one would not just leave, pride, my right to be there, her right to be honored and not disrespected, etc. are a variety of the reasons I would stay. I decide to approach Drunk A and a fight ensues, which doesn't matter who started it physically, it started regardless. In today's society, it would not be a stretch for some people to either 1) have a gun pulled on them during a said argument 2) pull a gun themselves during said argument. Why has it been taken this far? Why wouldn't the guys get in a fight, he has restored her honour, Drunk A gets some sense knocked in him, period end of story.
Where is the need to escalate it to a gun issue?
Please guys read the posts seriously...I get the gist of Tennessee's argument, there is just no need to be so blatantly rude about your opinions though...see STUPID, STUPID, and DUMB in the original.
Does anyone see where I am coming from? or am I just missing something?
That makes sense and in the emotion of the situation I would want to do exactly the same. However, we have a justice system in place to make sure you don't kill the guy that you think killed your child.
Now if the actual killer flat out admitted the crime to you and offered you a chance to kill him, I still think it would be best for you to let it be handled through the justice system. Namely because there's no telling if this guy happens to be a much better shot than you and not only do you not avenge your child's death but your other children are left fatherless.
Again, I understand the desire that stems from such emotion. My point is that if you're going to kill the guy that you saw kill your child, why on earth give him a sporting chance to kill you in the first place?
Question, why is everybody afraid of the thought of camera's? What would it have hurt the dead couple? What happened to the shooter? How many crimes do we have that have gone unsolved? Remember the bombs set off in the subways in London, the folks that set them were caught. Anybody heard about the bicycle bomber this morning in Times Square? He had a hood on, so they haven't caught him yet, but they know when he came by, and the chances of catching him are a lot better because they have camera's in New York since 9/11. It's life according to Dylan, "The times, they are a changin." Just my opinion. (Oh, and I do have cameras at my place.)
Edward429451
Moderator
By being obsequiously polite and yeilding to them (all the way up until they force you to shoot them). When it happens to me I just tell myself that their having an emergency, probably trying to get home to the pregnant wife or sick kid etc., smile, wave, and say sorry...
There's no such thing as a good old fashioned fistfight anymore since the cliche don't bring a knife to a gunfight got around. An armed society is a polite society is more fitting and appropriate cliche for the times we live in.
JuanCarlos
New member
How common are incidents like this anyway? Not in absolute terms, but per capita. Do we actually know that this wasn't just as common back in, say, the 1800's but simply not noticed because A) there were so many less people and thus less actual incidents, and/or B) instant, persistent, and nationwide/global media wasn't around back then?
With 300 million people running around, you're going to have a lot of crazies and a lot of crazy crap happening. With 24-hour nationwide media coverage, it's going to seem like it's happening even more often.
I could obviously be wrong, this really is more of a question than a statement.
With 300 million people running around, you're going to have a lot of crazies and a lot of crazy crap happening. With 24-hour nationwide media coverage, it's going to seem like it's happening even more often.
I could obviously be wrong, this really is more of a question than a statement.
Inspector3711
New member
Time to wake up.
Here we go again. The press has everyone worked up. People have always killed each other (with rocks before knives and knives before guns). Crimes commited with firearms are not a rampant issue in this country. Not even in the top 10 cause of death stats. Out of 300 million people (give or take) in 2005 for example, around 28,000 died in firearms R E L A T E D events. 44,000 died by car. Hundreds of thousands died from ilnesses caused mostly by poor nutrition. The press doesn't report it when Gramps dies from diabetes or a heart attack because it aint nearly as excitin'.... The problem in reporting the way they do is they cause fear in the uneducated.
Take the guns away and they'll still kill each other (and only the criminals will have guns).
Here we go again. The press has everyone worked up. People have always killed each other (with rocks before knives and knives before guns). Crimes commited with firearms are not a rampant issue in this country. Not even in the top 10 cause of death stats. Out of 300 million people (give or take) in 2005 for example, around 28,000 died in firearms R E L A T E D events. 44,000 died by car. Hundreds of thousands died from ilnesses caused mostly by poor nutrition. The press doesn't report it when Gramps dies from diabetes or a heart attack because it aint nearly as excitin'.... The problem in reporting the way they do is they cause fear in the uneducated.
Take the guns away and they'll still kill each other (and only the criminals will have guns).
BoringAccountant
New member
Assuming this was done in the heat of the moment with no reason involved, this crime would have happened regardless of cameras being in the city. (There are a ton of cameras in the city of Baltimore that were installed and praised because they assumed they would help reduce crime, when in fact crime has risen.) Cameras do little to help PREVENT things from happening, they merely make it easier to identify the bad guys after the fact. Same thing as a patrol dash cam, doesn't prevent the bad, just helps record it for court purposes.
BoringAccountant
New member
Well I am not claiming an epidemic here, just that one is more than enough.
Have to disagree there. Just because crime WITH guns is not as prevelant as death from other circumstances is irrelevant. People don't expect to die from disease, cancer, car accidents, etc. but they do and it is a sad thing that does not involve malice on anyone else's part. No one intentionally got them sick or caused an accident involving them, it just happened. Crimes with firearms, knives, etc. are the result of someone harming someone else through malice, intent, ill-will, etc.
So to say that because its not as prevelant as other deaths is not really a good argument, it doesn't tell me why its happening, it's just avoiding the issue altogether.
Are people scared or does the media cause fear? No, I think the reporting of the stories that actually happen cause the fear. They didn't make this up, it happened and to know that it can happen to anyone is somewhat scary, isn't it?
Its alot less likely to happen if you control your temper and road rage. If someone cuts me off in traffic and flips me off, I just ignore them, thats alot better than ending up in a deadly confrontation.
The first rule of all great self defense methods is to avoid trouble in the first place. If you can't control yourself and keep from responding to road raging idiots then I guess it is scary that some of them are killers.
Sorry BoringAccountant I didn't read your posts on page one.
Plz define fair fight?
In my world view the only fair fight is the one I win.
If you punched me in the head and I drove my stiffened index and middle fingers into your eye would that be fair?
If you and your friends want to settle arguments by fist fighting thats fine with me.
If a stranger attacks me with his fists, I'm going to severly injure or kill him. In my worldview I have to I don't know what intentions he may have.
No one ever trys to start a fight with me and they treat me with respect and I do the same for them.
Plz define fair fight?
In my world view the only fair fight is the one I win.
If you punched me in the head and I drove my stiffened index and middle fingers into your eye would that be fair?
If you and your friends want to settle arguments by fist fighting thats fine with me.
If a stranger attacks me with his fists, I'm going to severly injure or kill him. In my worldview I have to I don't know what intentions he may have.
No one ever trys to start a fight with me and they treat me with respect and I do the same for them.
BoringAccountant
New member
Again, I think you are somewhat missing my point.
I think it is only safe to say that people get pissed at some point or the other. Traffic, road rage, neighbor disputes, whatever the point that pisses them off is is not important, but the fact is they get upset.
My point is this, where did it come to be a winner take all type mentality where like you said in your own words...
(Note: I am not saying I do not agree with your assessment of what to do in case of being attacked, but the reason I agree with you is based on the society we live in, chances are greater than not that some people are out there to injure, maim, kill, or thrill kill)
Where did that change from people settle arguments to people fight to kill in order not to be killed?
See my point? I am by no means suggesting that you and/or I should just get together and start throwing it down, because in this day and age I do not know to what extent you would go to injure me, but how has it come to that?
Am I ignorant and it has always been that way as JuanCarlos suggested? Does the MSM only pick up on it more because of the ease of reporting, severity of the cases, etc.?
I guess part of the hinting I am doing without just mentioning the phrase is where did it go from a "gentlemanly" type of fighting to a survival type instinct.
Last edited:
Inspector3711
New member
Of course the media causes fear. People feed on it. It's how the broadcasters improve their ratings. Furthermore, I don't know anyone that has a good depth of hands on knowledge about firearms that thinks all guns should be taken away. I do know many people that have not been exposed to my hobby that believe all guns are evil and peole with guns are always a threat. I showed a relative my stock ruger 10/22 and he got a funny look on his face... I asked him what was wrong and he said "isn't that an assault rifle?".
Now... If you don't think that major corporations produce food by using harmful pesticides, preservatives, and chemicals then you need to read up on what causes some of the diseases that are killing folks. Still plenty of trans fats in some foods too. Is not removing harmful ingredients from our food killing people? Do these companies know that ingredients are harmful? Of course they do. Don't even get me started on what the tobbacco companies did. Or Ford and the exploding Pinto. Never underestimate greed... Especially if you are an accountant (I'm married to one).
My point was (before my words were dissected) that if everyone focuses on a bad thing (like people shooting each other) instead of a bigger problem (car wrecks) then aren't we wasting energy? In my world I try to fix the big problems first. Also while you the hobbiest focuses on negativity about firearms(especially displaying it in a public setting), you may be helping to give our hobby a bad rap by repeating the bad press. Keeping it fresh in their minds might not be a good thing. They'll take away the guns but keep feeding us crap because it's more profitable.
Now... If you don't think that major corporations produce food by using harmful pesticides, preservatives, and chemicals then you need to read up on what causes some of the diseases that are killing folks. Still plenty of trans fats in some foods too. Is not removing harmful ingredients from our food killing people? Do these companies know that ingredients are harmful? Of course they do. Don't even get me started on what the tobbacco companies did. Or Ford and the exploding Pinto. Never underestimate greed... Especially if you are an accountant (I'm married to one).
My point was (before my words were dissected) that if everyone focuses on a bad thing (like people shooting each other) instead of a bigger problem (car wrecks) then aren't we wasting energy? In my world I try to fix the big problems first. Also while you the hobbiest focuses on negativity about firearms(especially displaying it in a public setting), you may be helping to give our hobby a bad rap by repeating the bad press. Keeping it fresh in their minds might not be a good thing. They'll take away the guns but keep feeding us crap because it's more profitable.
I guess I'm ignorant or too young (43) to be familiar with the freindly fist fight where bygones are bygones.
Lets consider the duel of the past 'gentelmen choose your weapons'. Burr-Hamilton ring a bell?
To me its always been a matter of respect and of honor, its like DeNiro said in the movie Casino in reference to the character Nicky Santoro, who incidently was based on real life mobster Anthony'The Ant' Spilotro.
'No matter how big a guy might be, Nicky would take him on. You beat Nicky with fists, he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead.'
If someone makes me angry enough to want to black their eye or break their nose, why is killing them such a stretch?
If someone broke my nose or knocked some of my teeth out, I could not let it end there, I'm not built that way. I would escalate until I won.
Most of the people I grew up with think the same way. Thats why we treated each other with respect and avoided violence, not be cause we were cowardly or somehow unmanly, but because we didn't want to insult someones honor and have things escalate.
Remember Hamilton and Burr? Violence is not a good way to 'blow off steam' or settle arguments.
BoringAccountant
New member
Inspector,
Interesting take, sorry for dissecting your post, I do that just to address what you brought up, nothing more.
I definitely agree with focusing on the big problems, things like car wrecks, trans fat, cancer, things of that sort...however the thing I see different with those issues is that to some degree they are 1) people's fault for ingesting things that are harmful, everyone does it and to some degree its all too common 2) car accidents are the fault of everyone at large who drives a vehicle, and the "fault" I am referring to is just that its accidental, nothing criminal.
Do some of these companies you mention commit crimes, or rather use questionable means or products in order to generate a profit at the expense of the consumers, of course.
But the thing I am referring to is just crimes with guns.
And finally, I do not see me as giving ammo to the pro-gun control crowd, but rather would like to understand why things happen so to either one try and figure out a way to address it, two to know why it happened, and three, what the logical step after this is.
As far as I can see it there is no answer to this problem other than "it just happens" and with it just continuing to "happen" at an ever increasing pace, more people will continue to push for more gun control because thats what they see as the problem. Sure there are wrong, but if we dont know the problem and other reasonable ways to prevent these things we will be left with our typical response..."Well the BOR says its supposed to be like this"
Interesting take, sorry for dissecting your post, I do that just to address what you brought up, nothing more.
I definitely agree with focusing on the big problems, things like car wrecks, trans fat, cancer, things of that sort...however the thing I see different with those issues is that to some degree they are 1) people's fault for ingesting things that are harmful, everyone does it and to some degree its all too common 2) car accidents are the fault of everyone at large who drives a vehicle, and the "fault" I am referring to is just that its accidental, nothing criminal.
Do some of these companies you mention commit crimes, or rather use questionable means or products in order to generate a profit at the expense of the consumers, of course.
But the thing I am referring to is just crimes with guns.
And finally, I do not see me as giving ammo to the pro-gun control crowd, but rather would like to understand why things happen so to either one try and figure out a way to address it, two to know why it happened, and three, what the logical step after this is.
As far as I can see it there is no answer to this problem other than "it just happens" and with it just continuing to "happen" at an ever increasing pace, more people will continue to push for more gun control because thats what they see as the problem. Sure there are wrong, but if we dont know the problem and other reasonable ways to prevent these things we will be left with our typical response..."Well the BOR says its supposed to be like this"
BoringAccountant
New member
Well...we will just have to agree to disagree then nate45.
I just don't take the leap from this guy punched me and broke my nose to I want to continue fighting this guy until I win. I think it would be better to just let it go.
Now of course there are circumstances when thats not an option, intruder in the house trying to physically harm me and/or the Mrs., mugging, robbery, things of that sort, but with incidents similar to the road rage in the OP I would never make that leap into fighting to the death or fighting with whatever weapons, objects, things I could find laying around.
Then I should have NO idea anything about this, I am almost HALF your age
I just don't take the leap from this guy punched me and broke my nose to I want to continue fighting this guy until I win. I think it would be better to just let it go.
Now of course there are circumstances when thats not an option, intruder in the house trying to physically harm me and/or the Mrs., mugging, robbery, things of that sort, but with incidents similar to the road rage in the OP I would never make that leap into fighting to the death or fighting with whatever weapons, objects, things I could find laying around.
Then I should have NO idea anything about this, I am almost HALF your age
Then don't stop and try to fight someone, you already stated in one post that you pulled over by the roadside and the other person pulled a gun on you. Well thats they way they fight with a gun, some people use knives, some use bats, ect.
Like I said in my first post its not the grade school playground its real life. Have you ever heard of the Richard Kuklinski the Iceman?
I'd hate to get in a road rage incident with him.
I don't know where you came up with the idea of the friendly fight, outside of the activities of children.
However I can assure you the there hasn't ever been a time when you could engage strangers in physical combat and not risk serious injury or death.
Edward429451
Moderator
I was taught that there is no such thing as a fair fight.
JuanCarlos
New member
Pretty much. Anytime two reasonably sized grown men get into a fistfight, even if one of them doesn't fight dirty and try and intentionally injure/maim the other, you're looking at a pretty high risk of some pretty serious injuries.