NY motorcyclists vs. SUV Merged Threadfest

All well and good, except even if everone was armed, with the exact same weapons, and equally skilled at using them, that wouldn't stop people from banding together and thereby being able to single out victims. Not forgetting that we all have various limits to when we would use force, and some will always be on a power trip and so on.

I'm sorry, but the notion that an armed society is a polite society is simply naive at best.

The whole post is worth repeating. I agree 100%.

"Robert A Heinlein

Canada is pretty good evidence that fewer guns = less violent crime.

And Texas, where I have friends and family, is a pretty good example, that more gun freedom equals less crime, as well as a stiffer judiciary system. TX doesn't slow down the death penalty, they fast track it.

A••holes roaming city streets like they own them, are actually lobbying for all sorts of new and expensive little gadgets to be required by law on new bikes. Gps-positioning is well underway "to collect road tolls" (and when integrated into the ECU, won't be so easy to remove as some might think, when the ECU is programmed to cut ignition, unless it has position signal).. and some sort of remote shutdown options are also developed to deal with those, who flee cops trying to stop them.

Costs serious money, and will naturally have to be installed on every bike.

the rest of the world is a good example.....
but, in the end.. guns don't kill people, people kill people.
it's cultural here in the USA I think, everyone's bat-shit crazy

Yes, the death penalty that doesn't work as a preventer of crime, but only as a means to have people with a 13th century mindset feel that "justice" has been served, regardless of the fact that sometimes, people actually are innocent of the crime they are in for.


And Texas does not in fact do well when it comes to violent crimes, not to mention accidental deaths and injuries because of guns.

I note your profile has no location. That's not polite, either.

Texas does not have a particularly low rate of violent crime.

The problem with our modern society in America is that we are such a litigious society, that no one takes responsibility for their actions, because it can't possibly be their fault...has to be someone else's fault.

Add to that over crowded jails and an ineffective corrective system. In this modern economy, three meals a day and a warm bed, is not a deterrent to most criminals.

Lastly...a good portion of our present day population, are just F'ed in the head. I live near Philly, and the most recent WTF story is of a POS beating and stomping the head of a blind man....he attacked him for no reason. :huh

Sadly, police are only here to clean up the mess after stuff happens, and not do their intended action of deterring the crime, from happening in the first place.

LOL, how is that relevant?

My profile doesn't have my real name either. What's the point?

it took 57 pages to turn into a gun debate....not bad... I expected it to start on page 3 or 4

Btw, to get this back a bit: Even if Lien had had a gun, at what point would it have been wise to pull it out, assuming it was legal (somewhere else but NYC), and at which point would it be likely that your and your lonesome would be able to outgun the douches on bikes?

We are trying to see exactly where you are on the issues?

I'm also a redhead, but now balding, which is equally important as my present location or place of birth. In other words, read the arguments.

About redheads?

I don't think anyone really believes that "everyone" should be armed. The Federal gun laws are sufficient "if" everybody was law abiding. Unfortunately, not everybody is law abiding.

If we allow the criminals to dictate law that makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to procure, keep, and bear arms, then only the criminals will have arms, after all breaking the law is what makes one a criminal. That's even more dangerous than everybody having arms.

If more law abiding citizens were armed it would be a more polite society. Maybe not on the internet, but face to face people would hesitate to show aggression or domination if they thought their intended victim was armed.

Just to follow up on this statement By Twoupfront:


"Btw, to get this back a bit: Even if Lien had had a gun, at what point would it have been wise to pull it out, assuming it was legal (somewhere else but NYC), and at which point would it be likely that your and your lonesome would be able to outgun the douches on bikes?"

It may have not been wise at any point but as a last ditch effort to save himself, right before he was pulled from the RR and took the beating. There was no other place that a gun would have been more appropriate than fleeing.

..

Yes, about redheads

And if you wear Birkinstocks.

THIS

Or, as have been shown time and time again, the criminal will simply shoot first, just to be certain that the law abiding citizen doesn't pull a gun.

Once again a sound-bite to make an argument, this time that then the criminals will be the only one with guns. Well, Australia had their crime rate down after they banned guns, and if you take a look at Scandinavia and most of Europe, they have lower rates of violent crimes than the US, and people aren't allowed to carry guns around, and can't just buy a gun to keep in their drawer.

THink "escalation" - that's the problem with everyone being armed.

In any case, if it was legal, at which point could the RR driver have prevented what happened by flaunting a gun, considering that "if everyone was armed etc."? If so, the bikers would have guns too. Do you think anything good would have come from bringing firearms into that, and if so, how would it be beneficial?