Crunker1337
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,168
Be honest, and please tell me how I did. I'm aware that I used obscene language, but that's just how I type. Kids these days! 
-------
Me: well it all goes down tuesday
Her: whats tuesday?
Me: the supreme court will hear the case heller vs columbus
i hope that it will be a landmark decision
Her: tell me about it
Me: well
there was this doctor
he was going around in dc
a bunch of people started to threaten him
so he pulled out his pistol
until they left
hes not a criminal
in dc
you cant register or carry handguns
he broke those laws
and long guns must be kept locked up or some ----
so a bunch of people sued dc
and won
the ruling was that right to bear arms applies to people
and not states
it got taken up to the supreme court
they're hearing it on tuesday
Her: wait
so they're ruling if the dr had the right to carry the gun?
Me: yep
because there was no way for him to do so legally
Her: ok
Me: where do you stand on the issue
Her: i dunno
i need more information
Me: like what ill try to tell you
Her: no
Me: well what would you like to knwo
ill cite my sources
Her: i dunno
i'm watching entourage
ok
Me: yeah in dc
Her: what kind of threats was this guy getting?
Me: you can only have pistols if they were registered prior to 75
Her: and why didn't he contact the authorities?
Me: well he did
just after he drew on them
i mean think about it
if he pulled out a cell phone instead of a pistol
Her: were the threats a continuous affair?
Me: they would have beaten or killed his ---
no
Her: is what i meant
Me: he was just walking around
bunch of peole threatened him
Her: i'm asking how the situation was brought about
and why he was threatened
Me: well i can't be expected to justify the actions of an aggressor
Her: ok
fine
well how did the dr try to calm down the situation?
why was the gun the only solution?
and what kind of threats were these?
Me: i do not know if he tried to de-escalate
Her: i mean was it a "i'm gonna shoot you right now"
Me: he drew on them because he felt that they were a clear and prsent danger to his life
yes, they were death threats
or threats of serious bodily harm
Her: well see here's the thing... i just don't feel comfortable with the idea of people carrying guns around
so while i sympathize with the man
i just wouldn't feel comfortable opening up avenues for other people
other people to carry around weapons
Me: but don't you agree that it's not your business if someone else wants to go armed
as long as he/she is not a criminal
Her: until people start getting shot for reasons other than "threats". things escalate very easily and get misconstrued.
its not hard to pull a gun in a moment of passion and thats not what i'm claiming the dr did
but others might
i don't trust them making rational decisions to use a gun
Me: you don't trust people in general?
Her: well it depends
i don't when it comes to how we react in empassioned moments, moments of rage or fear
psychologically we build ---- up (and again i'm not saying the dr did that)
Me: well, don't you agree that if you're scared for a legitimate reason
it's reasonable to use force or the threat of force?
i mean
id be scared as hell if a bunch of people started to threaten me
Her: yes
as long as other options have been attempted
like running the hell out of there...
Me: i don't think that's an option
granted it might give you safety
but what kind of message is that to aggressors
that we won't take a stand against them
Her: i don't want to die?
Me: because it's unsafe
Her: yeah but if its 3 to 1
taking a stand won't accomplish much
Me: unless, of course, you're armed
Her: no
Me: yes?
Her: cause then they also have the right to be armed
so both sides have guns...
its a shoot off
how does that end well?
Me: not necessarily
i mean
americans in general
have the right to be armed
but
how many of us exercise that right
besides
i don't believe that aggressors have the right to be armed
this is a sentiment shared by the law
that's why criminals aren't allowed to be armed
and even in vermont
where you can go armed without a license
Her: but you don't have to be a criminal to be an agressor
*aggressor
Me: the law specifically states that if you intend to kill or cause harm
you don't have the right to be armed
well aggression
meaning threats or actual acts
is a crime
hence aggressors are criminals
Her: but you don't find out their intention until after they've used their gun, or have been in a situation where they want to pull it out
(not in all cases)
but you can't go up to someone who has a gun
Me: i don't understand what you're trying to say
Her: and say "you have the intention of causing harm or killing, thus you can't own a gun" how do you prove that until they've all ready killed or caused harm? other than explicit written or spoken death threats?
*recorded death threats
Me: that's exactly it
but the sentiment imo is more important
Her: what do you mean
Me: well if it's proven
that you intended to cause harm
and you were armed
then you can be locked up for that
Her: ok
Me: and being that you're now a criminal
Her: but you can't always prove it
Me: you can pre-emptively be disarmed
well you can't always prove anything
hence you must have the right to defense
Her: yes but this is a matter of guns in the wrong hands
Me: no, it's not
Her: i don't feel comfortable with that
yes it is
Me: you do know that background checks are mandatory
on the federal level
every time you purchase a firearm from a dealer
Her: um yeah and we all know how effective they are
(SARCASM)
Me: how have they failed?
give me an example plz
Her: i don't know try the very many crimes that occur every day in Philadelphia/Camden where the criminal was armed. a background check didn't stop them from having that gun
Me: well okay
so what's your point?
you're only reinforcing mine
Her: my point is a background check is ineffective
Me: that you should be able to defend yourself
Her: no
i'm not
Me: well then what are you trying to say?
Her: i'm saying a background check is ineffective
Me: we should remove the right to bear arms from all for the actions of a few?
Her: yes. i just think that if no one had a gun minus police officers it would all be a lot simpler
don't tell me its our right to
Me: it's our right to!
Her: because the original intent of the right was different
Me: okay, what do you think was the intent?
Her: the intent was to support state run militias due to our country being simply a federation of states, not a unified country. thus each state needed the ability to go to arms and protect their individual state at a minutes notice (hence: minutemen). now that our economy allows it we have the national guard, army, navy, coast guard... blah blah blah. we don't need minutemen
we don't need guns
Me: wrong.
Me: how long does it take for a police officer to respond to a call?
minutes, no?
Her: i don't
Me: what will a police officer do to a serious threat to life?
shoot it.
what's the difference
if the cop shoots it
or an armed citizen shoots it
besides the fact that if you're armed
Her: the difference is what you do when you're not in danger with the gun
Me: threat is shot that much quicker
well you practice, obviously.
Her: no. thats not what i mean
Me: then?
Her: once again i'm reverting to the original argument: what happens when arguments escalate. a gun takes no thought whatsoever. it can mean immediate death. when people are impassioned (example: finding your wife having heated sex with the neighbor) they react by doing irrational things
they have a whole term in law that the defense tries to use
because people react that way
Me: well then isn't that a barrier to ----ing people off right there?
i mean
wouldn't you be less likely to ---- off an armed guy
Her: no... because you wouldn't know who's armed
and for all we know everyone could become armed
and what if you have a gun
then you might not care if someone else did
and you might not care about pissing off another guy with a gun
Me: you do know that firearms instruction classes
place emphasis on de-escalation right
the sentiment is that force is the last option
besides
i trust that most people are rational
Her: i don't
are you trying to tell me that everyone who has a firearm takes that class and actually follows what is said?
Me: okay, well then why don't you arm yourself in defense of the untrustworthy mass
im not saying that's true in all cases
but it's what's taught
and that's the best that can be done
Her: yeah
ok
example
in health they teach us about condoms
are their still teenage pregnancies?
yes.
tons
in firearm class you learn about de-escalation
Me: ah, you see
Her: does that mean it doesn't happen?
Me: that's a fallacy
unrelated
Her: not at all
Me: we are forced to take health class
firearms instruction is voluntary
Her: so what?
Me: if you're paying for it
you want to go to it
and you want to learn
not so in health
Her: or its court mandated
Me: no
Her: its probably the people who don't take that class that need to learn about de-escalation
Me: yeah but
to go armed
in most states
meaning
the VAST majority of states
you have to take firearms instruction
to go armed
Her: you just said it was a choice
voluntary
something you paid for
Me: yes
because
you chose to go armed
if you chose to go armed
you chose to take the class
if you don't want to take the class
you don't go armed
Her: not necessary
Me: how so
Her: in fact thats completely not necessarily true
because people could blow it off as unimportant
example:
Me: well you're dealing in complete theoretical here
Her: well so are you
Me: how so?
im giving you laws
Her: you are saying that people who don't want to take the class won't get armed
but they can
Me: ilegally, yes
so punish those that are ilegally armed
Her: but they could have taken the classs and not have paid attention
or not have cared
Me: then they fail the class
obviously
and can't legally go armed
Her: ok
but
what if they simply didn't care
example:
drivers license
you get tested on the info
but does everyone actually care about the rules?
no. example: my father
Me: but that's because there's a ---- load of ----
in fierarms instruction
it's
how to safely shoot
and
de-escalation
that's about it
Her: but if you buy it with the intent to harm (and there is no proof of that) then why the hell would you care about safely shooting and de-escalating
Me: well then the importance of an armed populace
and good policing
comes into play
im not saying that we will ever be able to totally stop gun violence
just that allowing people to defend themselves
will slow it
Her: i don't think it will
Me: well let's take a look at gun control
for the past
70 years or so
we've had nothing but more gun control on the federal level
crime has gone up
whereas
let's take florida for example
when it allowed people to go armed
crime went down
criminals got afraid of being shot, you see
Her: but you can't completely blame crime rates going up to gun laws, and by the way crime rate has been on the decrease since Roe v. Wade because mothers who couldn't care for their kids had abortions creating less kids growing up in the inner city with no father figure and surrounded by drugs, guns and violence
Me: well then you see how gun control doesn't stop crime
or hem it
people are smart
they will find ways to get firearms
the only way to stop an armed aggressor
is if you're armed
or if you call in an airstrike.
Her: unless you make a situation where the aggressor is not armed
Me: you can't, though
i mean
people get armed in prison
so unless you propose making this country less free than prison
i don't see how you'd do that
Her: i don't get what you're saying
if no one has access to guns because they stop being made
Me: how would you possibly enforce that?
Her: i dunno
Me: well then it's a moot point.
Her: you see someone with a gun and put them in jail?
like...
what else
Me: well let's think about this
guy's got a gun
STOP! YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL!
i can't see that working
criminals that are not armed don't listen to police
Her: yes and then they get shot by the police officer
Me: well that's rather elitist
we both have guns, but im a cop, so you're getting shot for having a gun?
that's not how america works
Her: oh please
Me: all men are in the eyes of the law equal
Her: "how america works"
Me: well then, it's not how american should work.
Her: cause it works so god---- well
yes
Me: well it's better than it would be if we went all elitist and authoritarian
Her: lets make it a free for all, everyone has the right to everything
there should be no control over anything
Me: liberal, that
Her: thats how everyone is equal before the law
Me: well i did tell you that criminals, and those that intend to harm shouldn't be allowed to go armed
we should be seperated by our decisions
Me: not our occupations
Her: but you can't prove a decision until someone acts on the decision
Me: exactly
so if an aggressor shoots at you
shoot back
Her: but thats horrible!
no
Me: why not?
Her: they shouldn't be able to shoot in the first place
Me: i agree
but they will
Her: not if they're restricted
not if they have incentives to put the ---- gun away
Me: can you give me an example of successful arms control?
any example
besides
would you really want to live in a world without guns
because then brute force would trump all
and like you said earlier
men are biologically predisposed to being stronger
Her: i just think a gun makes it too easy. and a man likely to use brute force would be just as likely to use the gun. and no i can't give you an example of successful arms control right now, i've never had to debate someone about this before. in fact i've never talked about gun control with anyone
Me: there are in fact no times
that arms control has really been succesful
prison?
failed
britain?
Me: failed.
i agree that someone intent on doing harm
will find a way to do it
but if you're the victim
you don't know how you're going to be attacked
until you are in fact attacked
and in the current world
the best defense against a threat
is in fact a firearm
Her: i can't agree with that
i just can't
like
Me: why not?
if you're being shot at
Her: we're not going anywhere
Me: what the hell else can you do?
i mean
run
but bullets move faster
take cover yeah
but then they'll just walk on over
and shoot you at close range
call the police
they'll come
in a few minutes
defense will not take us forward but it will prevent us from going backwards
Her: i don't know
because
there really aren't that many situations when i've been shot at
(joke)
Me: perhaps not
but what if you are?
wouldn't you rather have a gun and not need it
than need a gun and not have it?
Her: no
i don't want a gun
Me: your decision
i can't understand it
but it is your decision
so allow the rest of us
to make our own decisions as well
Her: dude... thats fine. make your own decisions. keep a gun. but you damn well better find ways to get guns out of the hands of criminals first.
Me: no i dont
i have already said that it's impossible
Her: no
Me: to make sure that every single criminal
Me: is unarmed
Her: oh god
i never said every single
Me: i only want to be able to defend myself
from those that are
Her: cause that is impossible
Me: well fine
Her: but bring the rates down
seriously down
Me: i will, by using deadly force against threats
i imagine that the fear of being shot
Her: oh god
Me: is a good detriment to crime
i mean
let's think
Her: ok look
Me: okay.
Her: while this debate was enjoyable
Me: *looking*
Her: i'm done
Me: well how would you propse to bring down crime
background checks
i agree with
policing i agree with
Her: well background checks need to be waaay more thorough
Me: like how?
an interesting idea
Her: like really look into people's psychological needs, problems, whatever. medical records.
i don't care if you think thats discrimination
cause its common sense
you don't give a schizo a gun
you don't give someone with a personality disorder a gun
Me: you do know that that's already the case?
on a federal level
it is illegal for those that are deemed a threat to themselves or others
to buy weapons
Her: yeah but thats ambiguous
Me: ?
Her: some people could argue (as a psych patient) that they really aren't a threat
it needs to be more clear cut
Me: the human mind is anything but clear cut, lol
and im no physcologist
Her: plus whats this bull---- that in some state a blind person can buy a gun
Me: well yeah
they can buy them
just not carry them
in public anyway
one blind guy tried to get a license to go armed
he got ----ing refused
as well he should have been
firearms are ranged weapons
sight is a ranged sense
no sight = no effective firearms use
Her: ok
Me: knives imo
are best for the blind
and mace i guess
Her: i think there needs to be a waiting period between applying for a gun and getting it. like a long ass one.
cause if you want it. and you want it for defense
then you can ---- well wait
Me: crime doesn't wait though
Her: oh shut up
Me: why?
what if someone threatens you
wouldn't you want a gun
like
right away?
Her: but you're not always going to have a gun
Me: ?
Her: there's always going to be a time in your life when you won't have one
so you can damn well wait a little longer
this means people in a rage don't buy one and go out and shoot someone
Me: what business is it of the governments if you want a firearm today or tomorrow
besides
you haven't answered my question
what happens if you're threatened
wouldn't you want one ASAP
how long would this proposed waiting period be?
Her: what happens if i'm threatened?
well surely i want to go into wawa fill out a little application and get my little revolver
Me: no application
just background check
i think it's a hpone call
Her: oh even ----ing better
Me: but yeah wouldn't you want one ASAP
Her: listen. plenty of people have managed to survive their lives without a gun
i too will try to manage
Me: perhaps but
it's still a personal decision
so while you may chose to not go armed
if others do
they have the right to
Her: (my name)... we're going in circles
i'm tired
Me: well you keep saying
"i don't want one"
Her: JESUS CHRIST
I DON'T WANT ONE
OK
FINE
Me: your decision.
Her: I DON'T
Me: well im not telling you to get one
Her: i got that
Me: im saying that you shouldn't tell others not to get one
that's about it
Her: i never knocked on your door to tell you, you can't have one
i just don't understand anyone wanting one
the end.
thats it
Me: you don't need to understand
Her: i'm not responding you starting: now
*to you
Me: i don't pretend to understand your desire to not go armed
i just respect it
and i expect you to respect my decisions as well
------
-------
Me: well it all goes down tuesday
Her: whats tuesday?
Me: the supreme court will hear the case heller vs columbus
i hope that it will be a landmark decision
Her: tell me about it
Me: well
there was this doctor
he was going around in dc
a bunch of people started to threaten him
so he pulled out his pistol
until they left
hes not a criminal
in dc
you cant register or carry handguns
he broke those laws
and long guns must be kept locked up or some ----
so a bunch of people sued dc
and won
the ruling was that right to bear arms applies to people
and not states
it got taken up to the supreme court
they're hearing it on tuesday
Her: wait
so they're ruling if the dr had the right to carry the gun?
Me: yep
because there was no way for him to do so legally
Her: ok
Me: where do you stand on the issue
Her: i dunno
i need more information
Me: like what ill try to tell you
Her: no
Me: well what would you like to knwo
ill cite my sources
Her: i dunno
i'm watching entourage
ok
Me: yeah in dc
Her: what kind of threats was this guy getting?
Me: you can only have pistols if they were registered prior to 75
Her: and why didn't he contact the authorities?
Me: well he did
just after he drew on them
i mean think about it
if he pulled out a cell phone instead of a pistol
Her: were the threats a continuous affair?
Me: they would have beaten or killed his ---
no
Her: is what i meant
Me: he was just walking around
bunch of peole threatened him
Her: i'm asking how the situation was brought about
and why he was threatened
Me: well i can't be expected to justify the actions of an aggressor
Her: ok
fine
well how did the dr try to calm down the situation?
why was the gun the only solution?
and what kind of threats were these?
Me: i do not know if he tried to de-escalate
Her: i mean was it a "i'm gonna shoot you right now"
Me: he drew on them because he felt that they were a clear and prsent danger to his life
yes, they were death threats
or threats of serious bodily harm
Her: well see here's the thing... i just don't feel comfortable with the idea of people carrying guns around
so while i sympathize with the man
i just wouldn't feel comfortable opening up avenues for other people
other people to carry around weapons
Me: but don't you agree that it's not your business if someone else wants to go armed
as long as he/she is not a criminal
Her: until people start getting shot for reasons other than "threats". things escalate very easily and get misconstrued.
its not hard to pull a gun in a moment of passion and thats not what i'm claiming the dr did
but others might
i don't trust them making rational decisions to use a gun
Me: you don't trust people in general?
Her: well it depends
i don't when it comes to how we react in empassioned moments, moments of rage or fear
psychologically we build ---- up (and again i'm not saying the dr did that)
Me: well, don't you agree that if you're scared for a legitimate reason
it's reasonable to use force or the threat of force?
i mean
id be scared as hell if a bunch of people started to threaten me
Her: yes
as long as other options have been attempted
like running the hell out of there...
Me: i don't think that's an option
granted it might give you safety
but what kind of message is that to aggressors
that we won't take a stand against them
Her: i don't want to die?
Me: because it's unsafe
Her: yeah but if its 3 to 1
taking a stand won't accomplish much
Me: unless, of course, you're armed
Her: no
Me: yes?
Her: cause then they also have the right to be armed
so both sides have guns...
its a shoot off
how does that end well?
Me: not necessarily
i mean
americans in general
have the right to be armed
but
how many of us exercise that right
besides
i don't believe that aggressors have the right to be armed
this is a sentiment shared by the law
that's why criminals aren't allowed to be armed
and even in vermont
where you can go armed without a license
Her: but you don't have to be a criminal to be an agressor
*aggressor
Me: the law specifically states that if you intend to kill or cause harm
you don't have the right to be armed
well aggression
meaning threats or actual acts
is a crime
hence aggressors are criminals
Her: but you don't find out their intention until after they've used their gun, or have been in a situation where they want to pull it out
(not in all cases)
but you can't go up to someone who has a gun
Me: i don't understand what you're trying to say
Her: and say "you have the intention of causing harm or killing, thus you can't own a gun" how do you prove that until they've all ready killed or caused harm? other than explicit written or spoken death threats?
*recorded death threats
Me: that's exactly it
but the sentiment imo is more important
Her: what do you mean
Me: well if it's proven
that you intended to cause harm
and you were armed
then you can be locked up for that
Her: ok
Me: and being that you're now a criminal
Her: but you can't always prove it
Me: you can pre-emptively be disarmed
well you can't always prove anything
hence you must have the right to defense
Her: yes but this is a matter of guns in the wrong hands
Me: no, it's not
Her: i don't feel comfortable with that
yes it is
Me: you do know that background checks are mandatory
on the federal level
every time you purchase a firearm from a dealer
Her: um yeah and we all know how effective they are
(SARCASM)
Me: how have they failed?
give me an example plz
Her: i don't know try the very many crimes that occur every day in Philadelphia/Camden where the criminal was armed. a background check didn't stop them from having that gun
Me: well okay
so what's your point?
you're only reinforcing mine
Her: my point is a background check is ineffective
Me: that you should be able to defend yourself
Her: no
i'm not
Me: well then what are you trying to say?
Her: i'm saying a background check is ineffective
Me: we should remove the right to bear arms from all for the actions of a few?
Her: yes. i just think that if no one had a gun minus police officers it would all be a lot simpler
don't tell me its our right to
Me: it's our right to!
Her: because the original intent of the right was different
Me: okay, what do you think was the intent?
Her: the intent was to support state run militias due to our country being simply a federation of states, not a unified country. thus each state needed the ability to go to arms and protect their individual state at a minutes notice (hence: minutemen). now that our economy allows it we have the national guard, army, navy, coast guard... blah blah blah. we don't need minutemen
we don't need guns
Me: wrong.
Me: how long does it take for a police officer to respond to a call?
minutes, no?
Her: i don't
Me: what will a police officer do to a serious threat to life?
shoot it.
what's the difference
if the cop shoots it
or an armed citizen shoots it
besides the fact that if you're armed
Her: the difference is what you do when you're not in danger with the gun
Me: threat is shot that much quicker
well you practice, obviously.
Her: no. thats not what i mean
Me: then?
Her: once again i'm reverting to the original argument: what happens when arguments escalate. a gun takes no thought whatsoever. it can mean immediate death. when people are impassioned (example: finding your wife having heated sex with the neighbor) they react by doing irrational things
they have a whole term in law that the defense tries to use
because people react that way
Me: well then isn't that a barrier to ----ing people off right there?
i mean
wouldn't you be less likely to ---- off an armed guy
Her: no... because you wouldn't know who's armed
and for all we know everyone could become armed
and what if you have a gun
then you might not care if someone else did
and you might not care about pissing off another guy with a gun
Me: you do know that firearms instruction classes
place emphasis on de-escalation right
the sentiment is that force is the last option
besides
i trust that most people are rational
Her: i don't
are you trying to tell me that everyone who has a firearm takes that class and actually follows what is said?
Me: okay, well then why don't you arm yourself in defense of the untrustworthy mass
im not saying that's true in all cases
but it's what's taught
and that's the best that can be done
Her: yeah
ok
example
in health they teach us about condoms
are their still teenage pregnancies?
yes.
tons
in firearm class you learn about de-escalation
Me: ah, you see
Her: does that mean it doesn't happen?
Me: that's a fallacy
unrelated
Her: not at all
Me: we are forced to take health class
firearms instruction is voluntary
Her: so what?
Me: if you're paying for it
you want to go to it
and you want to learn
not so in health
Her: or its court mandated
Me: no
Her: its probably the people who don't take that class that need to learn about de-escalation
Me: yeah but
to go armed
in most states
meaning
the VAST majority of states
you have to take firearms instruction
to go armed
Her: you just said it was a choice
voluntary
something you paid for
Me: yes
because
you chose to go armed
if you chose to go armed
you chose to take the class
if you don't want to take the class
you don't go armed
Her: not necessary
Me: how so
Her: in fact thats completely not necessarily true
because people could blow it off as unimportant
example:
Me: well you're dealing in complete theoretical here
Her: well so are you
Me: how so?
im giving you laws
Her: you are saying that people who don't want to take the class won't get armed
but they can
Me: ilegally, yes
so punish those that are ilegally armed
Her: but they could have taken the classs and not have paid attention
or not have cared
Me: then they fail the class
obviously
and can't legally go armed
Her: ok
but
what if they simply didn't care
example:
drivers license
you get tested on the info
but does everyone actually care about the rules?
no. example: my father
Me: but that's because there's a ---- load of ----
in fierarms instruction
it's
how to safely shoot
and
de-escalation
that's about it
Her: but if you buy it with the intent to harm (and there is no proof of that) then why the hell would you care about safely shooting and de-escalating
Me: well then the importance of an armed populace
and good policing
comes into play
im not saying that we will ever be able to totally stop gun violence
just that allowing people to defend themselves
will slow it
Her: i don't think it will
Me: well let's take a look at gun control
for the past
70 years or so
we've had nothing but more gun control on the federal level
crime has gone up
whereas
let's take florida for example
when it allowed people to go armed
crime went down
criminals got afraid of being shot, you see
Her: but you can't completely blame crime rates going up to gun laws, and by the way crime rate has been on the decrease since Roe v. Wade because mothers who couldn't care for their kids had abortions creating less kids growing up in the inner city with no father figure and surrounded by drugs, guns and violence
Me: well then you see how gun control doesn't stop crime
or hem it
people are smart
they will find ways to get firearms
the only way to stop an armed aggressor
is if you're armed
or if you call in an airstrike.
Her: unless you make a situation where the aggressor is not armed
Me: you can't, though
i mean
people get armed in prison
so unless you propose making this country less free than prison
i don't see how you'd do that
Her: i don't get what you're saying
if no one has access to guns because they stop being made
Me: how would you possibly enforce that?
Her: i dunno
Me: well then it's a moot point.
Her: you see someone with a gun and put them in jail?
like...
what else
Me: well let's think about this
guy's got a gun
STOP! YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL!
i can't see that working
criminals that are not armed don't listen to police
Her: yes and then they get shot by the police officer
Me: well that's rather elitist
we both have guns, but im a cop, so you're getting shot for having a gun?
that's not how america works
Her: oh please
Me: all men are in the eyes of the law equal
Her: "how america works"
Me: well then, it's not how american should work.
Her: cause it works so god---- well
yes
Me: well it's better than it would be if we went all elitist and authoritarian
Her: lets make it a free for all, everyone has the right to everything
there should be no control over anything
Me: liberal, that
Her: thats how everyone is equal before the law
Me: well i did tell you that criminals, and those that intend to harm shouldn't be allowed to go armed
we should be seperated by our decisions
Me: not our occupations
Her: but you can't prove a decision until someone acts on the decision
Me: exactly
so if an aggressor shoots at you
shoot back
Her: but thats horrible!
no
Me: why not?
Her: they shouldn't be able to shoot in the first place
Me: i agree
but they will
Her: not if they're restricted
not if they have incentives to put the ---- gun away
Me: can you give me an example of successful arms control?
any example
besides
would you really want to live in a world without guns
because then brute force would trump all
and like you said earlier
men are biologically predisposed to being stronger
Her: i just think a gun makes it too easy. and a man likely to use brute force would be just as likely to use the gun. and no i can't give you an example of successful arms control right now, i've never had to debate someone about this before. in fact i've never talked about gun control with anyone
Me: there are in fact no times
that arms control has really been succesful
prison?
failed
britain?
Me: failed.
i agree that someone intent on doing harm
will find a way to do it
but if you're the victim
you don't know how you're going to be attacked
until you are in fact attacked
and in the current world
the best defense against a threat
is in fact a firearm
Her: i can't agree with that
i just can't
like
Me: why not?
if you're being shot at
Her: we're not going anywhere
Me: what the hell else can you do?
i mean
run
but bullets move faster
take cover yeah
but then they'll just walk on over
and shoot you at close range
call the police
they'll come
in a few minutes
defense will not take us forward but it will prevent us from going backwards
Her: i don't know
because
there really aren't that many situations when i've been shot at
(joke)
Me: perhaps not
but what if you are?
wouldn't you rather have a gun and not need it
than need a gun and not have it?
Her: no
i don't want a gun
Me: your decision
i can't understand it
but it is your decision
so allow the rest of us
to make our own decisions as well
Her: dude... thats fine. make your own decisions. keep a gun. but you damn well better find ways to get guns out of the hands of criminals first.
Me: no i dont
i have already said that it's impossible
Her: no
Me: to make sure that every single criminal
Me: is unarmed
Her: oh god
i never said every single
Me: i only want to be able to defend myself
from those that are
Her: cause that is impossible
Me: well fine
Her: but bring the rates down
seriously down
Me: i will, by using deadly force against threats
i imagine that the fear of being shot
Her: oh god
Me: is a good detriment to crime
i mean
let's think
Her: ok look
Me: okay.
Her: while this debate was enjoyable
Me: *looking*
Her: i'm done
Me: well how would you propse to bring down crime
background checks
i agree with
policing i agree with
Her: well background checks need to be waaay more thorough
Me: like how?
an interesting idea
Her: like really look into people's psychological needs, problems, whatever. medical records.
i don't care if you think thats discrimination
cause its common sense
you don't give a schizo a gun
you don't give someone with a personality disorder a gun
Me: you do know that that's already the case?
on a federal level
it is illegal for those that are deemed a threat to themselves or others
to buy weapons
Her: yeah but thats ambiguous
Me: ?
Her: some people could argue (as a psych patient) that they really aren't a threat
it needs to be more clear cut
Me: the human mind is anything but clear cut, lol
and im no physcologist
Her: plus whats this bull---- that in some state a blind person can buy a gun
Me: well yeah
they can buy them
just not carry them
in public anyway
one blind guy tried to get a license to go armed
he got ----ing refused
as well he should have been
firearms are ranged weapons
sight is a ranged sense
no sight = no effective firearms use
Her: ok
Me: knives imo
are best for the blind
and mace i guess
Her: i think there needs to be a waiting period between applying for a gun and getting it. like a long ass one.
cause if you want it. and you want it for defense
then you can ---- well wait
Me: crime doesn't wait though
Her: oh shut up
Me: why?
what if someone threatens you
wouldn't you want a gun
like
right away?
Her: but you're not always going to have a gun
Me: ?
Her: there's always going to be a time in your life when you won't have one
so you can damn well wait a little longer
this means people in a rage don't buy one and go out and shoot someone
Me: what business is it of the governments if you want a firearm today or tomorrow
besides
you haven't answered my question
what happens if you're threatened
wouldn't you want one ASAP
how long would this proposed waiting period be?
Her: what happens if i'm threatened?
well surely i want to go into wawa fill out a little application and get my little revolver
Me: no application
just background check
i think it's a hpone call
Her: oh even ----ing better
Me: but yeah wouldn't you want one ASAP
Her: listen. plenty of people have managed to survive their lives without a gun
i too will try to manage
Me: perhaps but
it's still a personal decision
so while you may chose to not go armed
if others do
they have the right to
Her: (my name)... we're going in circles
i'm tired
Me: well you keep saying
"i don't want one"
Her: JESUS CHRIST
I DON'T WANT ONE
OK
FINE
Me: your decision.
Her: I DON'T
Me: well im not telling you to get one
Her: i got that
Me: im saying that you shouldn't tell others not to get one
that's about it
Her: i never knocked on your door to tell you, you can't have one
i just don't understand anyone wanting one
the end.
thats it
Me: you don't need to understand
Her: i'm not responding you starting: now
*to you
Me: i don't pretend to understand your desire to not go armed
i just respect it
and i expect you to respect my decisions as well
------
