- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would cops be less trigger happy if guns were outlawed?
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:16 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:16 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
So in this scenario, would you assume that criminals would go against the police knowing they will be outgunned? I would think criminals would think twice about bringing at crappy Mexican peashooter vs a high end gun that most police carry.
You're assuming all criminals are poor? I don't think they are or would be worried about a quality comparison if you're referring to your typical street thug. A shitty revolver can kill you the same as an top end HK pistol.
quote:I don't see that perception changing much in any realistic scenario. There will ways be enough of a gun threat that police won't "know" one is unarmed. It will always be a variable multiplied by other factors, location, circumstances, etc.
ETA- To answer your question- the biggest problem I see is the percieved (real or not) threat to police by people who could be armed. Because of this, it escalates the situation when it doesn't have to be if the police know they are dealing with unarmed people.
0
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:18 am to 632627
quote:
Agreed 100%. Anyone who thinks that civilians need guns to protect ourselves against our own government is nuts, and it's fricking insulting.
The government can not just be blindly trusted to keep the best interest of the people at heart. You are a stooge if you believe that. I don't care if you find it insulting.
quote:
, if they would have wanted to turn on the American citizens there is nothing that a bunch of regular joes with glock 17's and ar-15s can do about it. I
And the people have vast numbers. Outside of completely destroying the entire population there is nothing that the military could do to stop an organized and widespread revolt. This situation is nowhere close to the current climate and culture, but it is foolish to think that it could never happen given the right motivation.
This post was edited on 8/4/15 at 10:19 am
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:19 am to 632627
quote:
Our military and police are well armed and trained, if they would have wanted to turn on the American citizens there is nothing that a bunch of regular joes with glock 17's and ar-15s can do about it.
They are doing a really effective job of hammering us now, just by using bread and circus. Why change what's already working? They just need to be patient. Keeping up with the Kardashians is working.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:21 am to Peazey
quote:
The economics are undoubtedly more complicated than you're making it sound. It just seems like you are making a blind assertion.
Aren't we all?
The logic in making more money by selling 20 cheap guns for $20 each over 3 guns for $60 each is pretty clear.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:25 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
The logic in making more money by selling 20 cheap guns for $20 each over 3 guns for $60 each is pretty clear.
What if there is a demand for only 10 cheap guns for at $20 but there is a demand for 5 guns at $60? I don't completely disagree with your overall point. It's just that you're treating something as a hard economic principle when it isn't. It's just kind of a pet peeve of mine because I studied the stuff as a major.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:28 am to 632627
quote:
Agreed 100%. Anyone who thinks that civilians need guns to protect ourselves against our own government is nuts, and it's fricking insulting.
So the Founding Fathers of our country were nuts and their beliefs on the issue are fricking insulting to you?
quote:
Our military and police are well armed and trained, if they would have wanted to turn on the American citizens there is nothing that a bunch of regular joes with glock 17's and ar-15s can do about it.
History is not on your side.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:35 am to Peazey
quote:
What if there is a demand for only 10 cheap guns for at $20 but there is a demand for 5 guns at $60? I don't completely disagree with your overall point. It's just that you're treating something as a hard economic principle when it isn't. It's just kind of a pet peeve of mine because I studied the stuff as a major.
Weren't we discussing it under the assumption of limited means? Not sure what aspect of what I stated vexes you so. I'll review and see where it went off track. In the mean time, go frick yourself.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:35 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
So the Founding Fathers of our country were nuts and their beliefs on the issue are fricking insulting to you?
not at all, but America has changed a lot in the 250 years since the 2nd amendment was written. What is insulting is to compare our government and leaders to hitler and the nazis.
If you people are seriously worried that our government might turn against us then there is nothing more i can say.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:39 am to 632627
quote:
What is insulting is to compare our government and leaders to hitler and the nazis
Its insulting to say that there is the realm of possibility that we could one day have a Hitler and Nazi party? (I assume you don't take the names literally here)
If you honestly believe I am talking about it occurring tomorrow you are a buffoon.
The founding fathers put that in there because they were not reactionary idiots and had some foresight into the realm of possibilities.
They had no clue who Hitler was or Nazis didn't they? But they knew that something that happened in Germany could happen here.
This post was edited on 8/4/15 at 10:40 am
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:41 am to 632627
quote:
If you people are seriously worried that our government might turn against us then there is nothing more i can say.
A government that doesn't fear its people is a government that rules its people.
The ENTIRE point of the 2nd Amendment is to put a control on tyranny.
Its an ignorant thought and I don't give a rats arse if it insults you or not to believe that tyranny is simply not possible.
And again... I do not own a gun. But try and take guns away and I'm getting one really quick.
This post was edited on 8/4/15 at 10:43 am
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:42 am to 632627
quote:
If you people are seriously worried that our government might turn against us then there is nothing more i can say.
I'm not sure that our government has been "for" us in 100+ years. But, as I stated earlier, they have figured out better means than violence to control us.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:45 am to USMCTiger03
You stated it as a hard economic fact that selling cheaper guns has to be more profitable than selling more expensive guns. You even referenced it in implication of being simple economic reasoning as an appeal to authority. This bothers me because it is a false appeal to authority. There are lots of details that would determine this that are entirely situational. It is not some hard fast principle.
So much for having a civil discussion. You apparently aren't capable of it.
So much for having a civil discussion. You apparently aren't capable of it.
This post was edited on 8/4/15 at 10:46 am
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:45 am to 632627
You don't live in the real world you live in the world as you want it to be. You are clueless
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:46 am to Peazey
quote:
And the people have vast numbers. Outside of completely destroying the entire population there is nothing that the military could do to stop an organized and widespread revolt. This situation is nowhere close to the current climate and culture, but it is foolish to think that it could never happen given the right motivation.
in the 1770's combat was done with muskets, bayonets and canons. Times have changed, our military now fights with drones, rockets, etc. If the government and military wanted to turn on us, there's not much we can do to stop them. The 3 part checks and balances system protects us from tyranny, not my home arsenal.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:48 am to Catman88
quote:
And again... I do not own a gun. But try and take guns away and I'm getting one really quick.
I'm not for taking guns away, I'm 100% in favor or owning for home defense and sporting purposes. I just believe that the argument to own guns to protect us from our own government is a dated one.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:48 am to 632627
quote:
not at all, but America has changed a lot in the 250 years since the 2nd amendment was written.
Human nature hasn't changed. And part of that nature for some is to dominate and control, and of course absolute power...
Are you saying that we've evolved as a species such that there is no longer any present or future threat of tyranny or oppression by our govt?
quote:
What is insulting is to compare our government and leaders to hitler and the nazis.
Well yeah, but if you take the emotion out of it and the specific reference, is it insulting to state that our govt has the potential to become autocratic?
quote:
If you people are seriously worried that our government might turn against us then there is nothing more i can say.
I believe it is a fact of human nature that a group of people with too much power are likely to be corrupted by it and seek more and more power and control. You don't?
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:50 am to 632627
It's fun playing spot the Patriot movement kooks in here.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:54 am to 632627
quote:
The 3 part checks and balances system protects us from tyranny
That is eroding rapidly. The Executive and Judicial Branches have become quite fond of legislating these days, and the Legislative is eagerly allowing it.
Posted on 8/4/15 at 10:59 am to Peazey
quote:
You stated it as a hard economic fact that selling cheaper guns has to be more profitable than selling more expensive guns.
Was it when I said:
quote:? Because I said "probably" and in this scenario, which is pretty far from stating "hard economic fact." You read what was clearly stated as speculation as fact.
In this scenario, There's probably more money to be made by more cheap guns than less high end guns.
quote:
So much for having a civil discussion. You apparently aren't capable of it.
I thought that was funny. Posted on 8/4/15 at 11:04 am to steeltiger17
quote:
If less people had them I feel like the cops would less likely be on edge.
They would start assuming that you are reaching for your wallet in your pants instead of a gun.
British outlawed handguns in the 90s due to several incidents with kids.
Violent crime did not decrease. By 2011, British cops started to carry guns on patrol. British public opinion is starting to reverse where the public believe it should have a handgun for protection.
Just to show the extent, home robberies in Britain are likely to happen when people are actually home. Much easier to kick in the door when people are home because the thieves know the home alarm system is probably off. Since thieves are criminals by definition, only the thieves have handguns.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News