gun rights and gun control
Many gun posts lately and in BiA history, but none of us have ever talked about differing views. People can go on forever debating about the pro/cons of private gun ownership. I think I figured out how to sum up the political debate in a somewhat simple and rational manner.
This one's been in my head for a while. Are guns good or bad?
If you could uninvent the gun, would you? I'm not even sure how to answer that question myself. Guns make killing alot easier, but that same power allows weak and old people to protect themselves. It allows me to hold off multiple assailants in my own home. But I agree that guns are dangerous and can be very bad. So I won't bother to answer that question, so I'm answering this in light of the fact that guns will never be uninvented and that we live in a country where there is almost one gun for every person. So keep that in mind.
I realized the more important question is "are people good or bad"? For both political arguments, the answer is they are bad.People who are anti-guns and pro-guns don't trust other members of society, it just depends on which part of society.
Pro-gun people don't trust criminals, while by logic they HAVE to trust fellow lawfully owning gun citizens. The reason is because they know criminals don't follow laws, but must believe that fellow conceal carry citizens will use their weapons appropriately (avoid conflict) and accurately (if conflict cannot be avoided). Obviously in a state where conceal carry is easy like Arizona, there will be more "good guys" carrying than criminals. But liberals fear normal Joe Gun Enthusiast.
Anti-gun people obviously fear criminals but in addition are afraid of normal gun people. By outlawing guns, they hope to prevent mass shooting crimes from happening. I would agree that stuff like the theater shooting and Virginia Tech would decrease dramatically. They use legally bought guns because how is an unsocial college kid gonna find an illegal gun? You'd have to know shady people to tap into the black market. Sounds like the type of crowd that gangsters know.... leading to my belief that bad guys can always get guns if they really want them. They have to get it through the black market because any convicted felon would fail the security check. So by making guns illegal, you're only stopping good people from buying. Of course this also stops the lunatic mass shootings at least. In addition, you'd be stopping belligerent gun carriers from turning a bar fistfight into a shootout.
So the bottom line: is a person more afraid of regular criminals or mass shooting crazy killers?
An anti-gun policy enables criminals, while a pro-gun policy enables crazy killers.
There are basically three responses depending on the states:
A) No one can buy guns: New York city, Chicago, Washington DC banned guns before the Supreme Court made overruled and states like Massachusetts makes it a pain in the ass to buy one.
B) People can buy guns but not conceal carry in public: moderate-liberal states like CA.
C) You can buy and conceal carry: most states in America.
Which one would I like to live in? Find out below.
Both criminals and good guys like me would like to carry a gun around freely, but only a criminal does so. Concealed Carry permits are nearly impossible to get in California, the only people carrying right now are cops, gangsters, and super paranoid people who are doing it illegally. But they are already criminals for breaking the law. If CC was made legal, you're only adding people who respected and followed the law in the first place. Basically the number of guns in the right hands will rise, while the number of guns in the wrong hands stays the same. Selling guns legally but not allowing CC is asking for trouble. This allows crazy people to get the means to shoot people, while not allowing said people to defend themselves. In this view it would be better to not sell guns at all.
But if you don't sell guns at all, people can be assaulted in their homes by criminals with black market guns. And honestly, you could ban guns in 2012 and criminals would still have them in 2050. Cars and other products were embargoed to Cuba in the 1950s. Guess what? Cubans are still using those same old school cars. They're banged up but they work. And guns last way longer than cars. Forget new black market inflow, there's already millions of guns in existence in America.
In light of the two points above, having legal conceal carry makes sense. Of course, this permit should be given only after a thorough background check and passing grade on a mandatory shooting exam. The only downside here is if a killer starts shooting and three guys have CC guns, all hell will break loose because it's not obvious who is the bad guy. I've heard many stories of mass killings, and a few stories of a good guy stopping a bad guy (westminster store owner and that 19 year old with a baby are two examples) but not yet one story of a good guy shooting another good guy in such situation. It could happen, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to live in such a society. But I don't want to live in a society where bad guys are the ONLY ones with the guns (outside of cops).
You can now see that I am pro-gun. It makes sense to me. But even among gun enthusiasts, there's conflict.The bottom line is a fight between one's liberties and one's securities.This is where I'm middle of the line. There has to be some sort of compromise that allows one of protect oneself with a gun while also protecting those who don't want to carry guns.
Hardcore gun supporters don't want magazine limits. As much as I'd like to have 30 rounders at the range, I'll happily trade that for a fair fight between my 6 round CC revolver and a killer's 10 round pistol/rifle. Or if I'm not carrying, at least I have a better chance of running away or to charge during a reload.
On the other hand, I'm against things like caliber restrictions and banning tactical add-ons. No one has ever robbed someone else with a .308, why the hell would they use a .50? As useless as Barretts and Ferraris are, they should be legal because this is a free country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up my opinion, I would like to give an example.
Some stores/restaurants have signs that say "this place is gun-free". Would this make you happy to go in there? Then you are anti-gun. I would avoid the place. It's not because I don't respect their political views, they can think however they want. It's because that sign says "Rob this place please" to criminals or "you can get alot of victims here" to crazy killers.
This one's been in my head for a while. Are guns good or bad?
If you could uninvent the gun, would you? I'm not even sure how to answer that question myself. Guns make killing alot easier, but that same power allows weak and old people to protect themselves. It allows me to hold off multiple assailants in my own home. But I agree that guns are dangerous and can be very bad. So I won't bother to answer that question, so I'm answering this in light of the fact that guns will never be uninvented and that we live in a country where there is almost one gun for every person. So keep that in mind.
I realized the more important question is "are people good or bad"? For both political arguments, the answer is they are bad.People who are anti-guns and pro-guns don't trust other members of society, it just depends on which part of society.
Pro-gun people don't trust criminals, while by logic they HAVE to trust fellow lawfully owning gun citizens. The reason is because they know criminals don't follow laws, but must believe that fellow conceal carry citizens will use their weapons appropriately (avoid conflict) and accurately (if conflict cannot be avoided). Obviously in a state where conceal carry is easy like Arizona, there will be more "good guys" carrying than criminals. But liberals fear normal Joe Gun Enthusiast.
Anti-gun people obviously fear criminals but in addition are afraid of normal gun people. By outlawing guns, they hope to prevent mass shooting crimes from happening. I would agree that stuff like the theater shooting and Virginia Tech would decrease dramatically. They use legally bought guns because how is an unsocial college kid gonna find an illegal gun? You'd have to know shady people to tap into the black market. Sounds like the type of crowd that gangsters know.... leading to my belief that bad guys can always get guns if they really want them. They have to get it through the black market because any convicted felon would fail the security check. So by making guns illegal, you're only stopping good people from buying. Of course this also stops the lunatic mass shootings at least. In addition, you'd be stopping belligerent gun carriers from turning a bar fistfight into a shootout.
So the bottom line: is a person more afraid of regular criminals or mass shooting crazy killers?
An anti-gun policy enables criminals, while a pro-gun policy enables crazy killers.
There are basically three responses depending on the states:
A) No one can buy guns: New York city, Chicago, Washington DC banned guns before the Supreme Court made overruled and states like Massachusetts makes it a pain in the ass to buy one.
B) People can buy guns but not conceal carry in public: moderate-liberal states like CA.
C) You can buy and conceal carry: most states in America.
Which one would I like to live in? Find out below.
Both criminals and good guys like me would like to carry a gun around freely, but only a criminal does so. Concealed Carry permits are nearly impossible to get in California, the only people carrying right now are cops, gangsters, and super paranoid people who are doing it illegally. But they are already criminals for breaking the law. If CC was made legal, you're only adding people who respected and followed the law in the first place. Basically the number of guns in the right hands will rise, while the number of guns in the wrong hands stays the same. Selling guns legally but not allowing CC is asking for trouble. This allows crazy people to get the means to shoot people, while not allowing said people to defend themselves. In this view it would be better to not sell guns at all.
But if you don't sell guns at all, people can be assaulted in their homes by criminals with black market guns. And honestly, you could ban guns in 2012 and criminals would still have them in 2050. Cars and other products were embargoed to Cuba in the 1950s. Guess what? Cubans are still using those same old school cars. They're banged up but they work. And guns last way longer than cars. Forget new black market inflow, there's already millions of guns in existence in America.
In light of the two points above, having legal conceal carry makes sense. Of course, this permit should be given only after a thorough background check and passing grade on a mandatory shooting exam. The only downside here is if a killer starts shooting and three guys have CC guns, all hell will break loose because it's not obvious who is the bad guy. I've heard many stories of mass killings, and a few stories of a good guy stopping a bad guy (westminster store owner and that 19 year old with a baby are two examples) but not yet one story of a good guy shooting another good guy in such situation. It could happen, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to live in such a society. But I don't want to live in a society where bad guys are the ONLY ones with the guns (outside of cops).
You can now see that I am pro-gun. It makes sense to me. But even among gun enthusiasts, there's conflict.The bottom line is a fight between one's liberties and one's securities.This is where I'm middle of the line. There has to be some sort of compromise that allows one of protect oneself with a gun while also protecting those who don't want to carry guns.
Hardcore gun supporters don't want magazine limits. As much as I'd like to have 30 rounders at the range, I'll happily trade that for a fair fight between my 6 round CC revolver and a killer's 10 round pistol/rifle. Or if I'm not carrying, at least I have a better chance of running away or to charge during a reload.
On the other hand, I'm against things like caliber restrictions and banning tactical add-ons. No one has ever robbed someone else with a .308, why the hell would they use a .50? As useless as Barretts and Ferraris are, they should be legal because this is a free country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up my opinion, I would like to give an example.
Some stores/restaurants have signs that say "this place is gun-free". Would this make you happy to go in there? Then you are anti-gun. I would avoid the place. It's not because I don't respect their political views, they can think however they want. It's because that sign says "Rob this place please" to criminals or "you can get alot of victims here" to crazy killers.
follow up to chris' post
the one time that vietnamese news has more info than normal ones. i'm surprised most media did not say what ethnicity the robbers were. this woman clearly says @ 37 second mark that they were "hai dan ong da den"
Guess what this picture is!
Last Time's Answer:
What all Ballers really fear
(LMAO MAC)
Can you guess what this picture is?
Friday Flashback [26]
video i made for time crisis 3, which i sold on ebay. I bought it for 40ish and sold it for 70. success!
Glock Lawsuit
Is this as dumb as a lady suing McDonalds for coffee burning her? I say dumber! #1 rule is keep your guns locked up!
A California appeals court has reinstated a now-retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer's product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court has reinstated a now-retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer's product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.
Enrique Chavez was paralyzed from the waist down when his 3-year-old son accidentally shot him with his service pistol.
The lawsuit claims the .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol lacks adequate safeguards against accidental discharge.
The Glock has no grip safety, a device attached to the pistol grip that the shooter must deactivate before firing.
A Los Angeles judge dismissed the suit two years ago, saying a Police Department review of the gun's design found the Glock's advantages outweighed any inherent risks.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/NRKilg ) the 2nd District Court of Appeals on Tuesday reinstated the suit, saying a jury could conclude that a grip safety strong enough to withstand a child's grasp would minimize the risk of accidental discharge.
Vlog 1: Triple Windsor
Audio is pretty bad, I'll use a USB mic next time. But anyway, here's the order of ties from smallest to largest:
Thieu Nhi < Pratt < Half Windsor < Full Windsor < Triple Windsor (my creation)
BTW, I am inviting all of you with video cameras to do random vlogs. you can directly record onto youtube so it easy. Continue using whatever number the last person used and tag the post with the label "vlog".
Friday Flashback [25]
Paintball at Hollywood sports park in 2005. Let me walk you through this video:
Tony is standing next to me in the observation area.
at 20-25 seconds, Jon waves to the camera. to his right is Joe wearing a dark sweater with white lettering. to Joe's right is Chris, wearing a Scorpion-like paintball suit.
at 1:35, the whole team rushes. Jon and Chris turn right into the maze area, Joe looks like he got pinned down so he takes cover in the center.
at 2:20-2:25 Chris goes to Joe, then goes back to the right. not sure where Jon is, he might he the dark figure taking cover on the right side.
at 4:12, probably because he saw so many teammates die, Joe leaves his position.
at 4:30 it appears the whole center portion of the team is gone, leaving only the right flank
at 5:50, the refs end the game because there's too much camping
at 6:00 you notice joe's head pop up in the right maze area, and he walks off the field. no hero, but he's alive
I have no idea what happened to Jon or Chris. Can you guys comment if you remember?
Guess what this picture is!
Last Time's Answer:
Two Twins Too Dep!
Two Twins Too Dep!
Can you guess what this picture is?
Ever wonder why V-Pop isn't popular?
Because instead of swag, these guys give off be-de-ness. I think all of you have seen this before in the past like I had, but I stumbled on it again
watch from 0:30-0:50
"Alo? Em ah, nho anh khong? Nho Ah. Lam gi day? Den voi anh nay. Hoi em yeu, dung co buon phen. Aloo? ALLLOOO?
Bad Movie Monday [3]
Andrew introduced me to West Side Story, which has the greatest fighting scene ever.
side effect of FB deactivation
There's at least one positive thing about Andy's FB being deactivated, his comments have been removed, resulting in this funny monolog I print-screened awhile back.
Kobe-Fu
Kobe passed Shaq (four rings) with five rings. But can Kobe make a more popular video game than Shaq's Shaq-Fu? Here's Kobe's new look to promote the game.
Guess what this picture is!
Last Time's Answer:
Mr. Nebraska getting ink from the gangsters
Mr. Nebraska getting ink from the gangsters
Can you guess what this picture is?
Friday Flashback [23]
Andrew visits me in the dorms, and loses his quarters. It's okay, Andrew got his revenge over Duncan by being better in Starcraft 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)