Guns

[Nicksfix]

Why is everyone in this thread completely ignoring the fact that police exist.
It's not as if the police does nothing to stop criminals.

Police do exist,but ask any one of them and they will tell you this :

Their hands are tied by the law (lawyers who represent criminals),the criminals have more rights than us homeowners and the law officials.Watch the news and see.It's lawsuit city anymore because some dumb 🤬 is screaming harassment or unfair treatment as to how the police officer handled the situation.

 

[a6m5]

I don't know about "significantly", but with a stricter gun control, of course it will be harder for criminals to obtain guns.

Not siding with for/against gun control, but the statement is not wrong. Also, "black market" would be smaller with tighter gun control. Again, I'm not siding with anybody, but this is not exactly rocket surgery.

 

[Lasdul]

Well, one thing that is kind off ticking me off is that there are still plenty of gun crimes in the US.
Are you going to blame people who don't have guns for this? That would be silly.

 

[Keef]

Why is everyone in this thread completely ignoring the fact that police exist.
It's not as if the police does nothing to stop criminals. I'll tell you why people don't need guns, and it's because of prevention. The way I see it, if you have tight gun control in a country you also need good gun crime prevention. I guess your government wants less on their hands and instead lets citizens defend themselves.

Police only matter after the crime has already occurred. It is impossible for them to proactively protect you from crime.

The fact of the matter is that gun crimes always happen. They never go away. It's not possible to completely get rid of this stuff and I don't understand how people can't get that through their heads. The only way to defend yourself from a deadly crime is to protect yourself, right there as the crime is happening. Police are of no use after you've already been killed because you couldn't get a gun because it was too hard or too expensive to obtain a license.

 

[a6m5]

Police only matter after the crime has already occurred. It is impossible for them to proactively protect you from crime.

The fact of the matter is that gun crimes always happen. They never go away. It's not possible to completely get rid of this stuff and I don't understand how people can't get that through their heads. The only way to defend yourself from a deadly crime is to protect yourself, right there as the crime is happening. Police are of no use after you've already been killed because you couldn't get a gun because it was too hard or too expensive to obtain a license.

While I don't think gun control can effectively prevent stop gun crimes in this country, I disagree 100% with your police argument. Police prevents crimes by simply existing. My feeling on this is that most of the crimes are being prevented, because would-be criminals are afraid of the consequence: The police.

Edit:

I know of it, but didn't watch. I know all about the problem. I own a 700 SPS in .25-06 and the first thing I did with it was replace the trigger. A lot of people know the trigger that comes with this rifle is crap.

It's bad to hear for Remington. This could cause them a lot of problems. They recently had to recall their 597 rifles in .17HMR because of troublem with them blowing up. Same for the Remington ammo in this caliber.

They just launched a new .45 Colt pistol model that is fantastic from what I've read. I hope that can make them some money to handle any recall with the 700's.

I was bit interested in purchasing the Remington 700(CoD4 ), so I started reading about it online, then discovered this CNBC show thing on wikipedia. I've cried about my 597 in separate threads before. I think I have "zero" faith in Remington at this point.

 

[Lasdul]

Excuse me? I never said that gun crimes would ever go away, no matter what the measures.
And what he said^. Guns are not the only deterrent. Not to mention police are always actively trying to find the source of illegitimate guns/drugs etc...

 

[Keef]

While I don't think gun control can effectively prevent stop gun crimes in this country, I disagree 100% with your police argument. Police prevents crimes by simply existing. My feeling on this is that most of the crimes are being prevented, because would-be criminals are afraid of the consequence: The police.

Most is arguable, some for sure, but definitely not all. And because police presence does not prevent 100% of crime my point stands perfectly.

 

[Lasdul]

Beg to differ, but nobody ever said that the police would stop all or even most gun crimes.
We obviously can't get an idea of what "most" is, since we don't know who is a potential killer, but it's safe to say increased emphasis on gun crime prevention provides a good result, as to letting people carry handguns which works for some countries, but evidently not the US.

 

[a6m5]

Most is arguable, some for sure, but definitely not all. And because police presence does not prevent 100% of crime my point stands perfectly.

I know, that's why I stated it the way I did.

What's sad is that, while there are so many guns in the United States, it's the very small percentage of misuses that gives it a bad name. Sort of like drunk driving.

j/k

Edit:

We obviously can't get an idea of what "most" is, since we don't know who is a potential killer, but it's safe to say increased emphasis on gun crime prevention provides a good result, as to letting people carry handguns which works for some countries, but evidently not the US.

Well, remember I said most of the "crimes", not necessarily "gun crimes". Keef doesn't agree, but my view is that if there was no organized police, many people will be more likely steal, attack, etc. How about the DUI-type crimes?

 

[Lasdul]

Well, I've done a little research and apparently guns are used far more to commit a crime than to stop it. So no, it's not a "small percentage". :/

 

[Tornado]

2) Small teen girl mugged in dark alley. Pulls gun at approaching assailant. Kills him.

You lost me after you jumped from "Pulls gun" to "Kills mugger" without acting like there is anything in between. I can deal in absolutes too:

1) Small teen girl mugged in dark alley. Gives up wallet/property, villain rapes and kills her - maybe gets away, maybe gets caught. Girl dead.

See why it doesn't work in such discussions?

 

[Solid Lifters]

This is because of the people living there. What my main point is, is that I don't feel I need, or even want a gun to keep myself safe. But it's truly a moral argument, is it ever right to kill to save the lives of others?

Of course it's right to kill to save the life of an other. What kind of question is that?

If somebody was trying to maim or kill one member of my family, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them. I kill wild animals in my yard that I feel are a threat to my family. It's no different for humans, either. One is a threat to my family, I'd kill it.

I just don't think it necessary that people carry guns on their person all the time. For instance in AZ and some other states they now let people carry guns in bars. Smart idea?

It's a great idea. Not everybody who goes to a bar drinks. Those that drink at bars don't always get intoxicated. Not everybody who gets intoxicated would be dangerous with a firearm. Again, it's a great idea. I carry a gun all the time and have so for over 15 years.

Since lowering gun restrictions in their state, Arizonians have endured a safer community, increase home sales and increased tourism. Win, win, win.

EDIT EDIT: This is a fight that I can't win. You people are pretty good at debating, kudos.

When logic is on your side, it's hard to be defeated.

However the reality is that no matter how strict the control is, some people will always find a way to obtain guns.

100% true. That's why gun laws and gun restrictions are beyond worthless and stupid.

IF gun control is stricter, that will make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain guns in the first place, thus eliminating the need for people to carry guns on their person.

That's a very lame argument.

We don't carry to defend ourselves from criminals with just guns, it's criminals in general. Either with a knife, club, bat, tire iron, or whatever, we feel the need and want to defend ourselves from harm regardless of what type of weapon the criminal is using.

Also, restricting guns has only proven to increase violent crimes. Didn't you read what I posted before? Did you think I was lying? I wasn't. Plus, criminals get firearms in all sorts of illegal ways. Banning guns will only effect honest people. Criminals will still get whatever gun they want. Therefor, banning guns is a stupid, useless tactic for reducing violent crimes.

Strict gun control still lets people who want guns have them, it's just not easy.

Wrong. "Strict" gun control means not allowing any firearms at all. And people who have a hard time getting firearms often don't bother. Again, only hurting honest people who want a firearm for protection. Again, stupid, useless tactic for reducing violent crimes.

And people really don't need stopping power on them.

Imagine this, you're 5'10" tall, an average height, with medium but non-athletic build. You leave your office and go to your car in the parking lot. On your way to your car, a 6'6 265 dude without a ounce of fat on his body, pure muscles, sticks a blade in your face and demand your money, briefcase and car keys. What do you do? Punch him? Run? Do what he says?

If you were me, you'd reach for your S&W model 696 and put three .44 caliber bullets in his chest, saving you from any harm or death. But you...

You punch him and he stabs you in your throat. You die in 6-10 seconds.

You try to run away. He easily catches up to you, and stabs you in the stomach and chest at least a half dozen times and steals your stuff. You die at the scene or within minutes of receiving help.

You give him what he wants, and he stabs you in the throat to kill you so you can testify or alert the police. He gets away with your wallet, briefcase and car.


Fantasy: As you give your wallet over, Superman falls from the sky and whisks the bad guy away! Hurray, for Superman!

Blind Stinking Luck (Almost): A cop sees the bad guy stick his knife in your face, and proceeds to intervene. The bad guy sees the cop and quickly takes you hostage. The cop and bad guy square off and the cop feels he has to shoot to save you. He misses, since he was under-trained and too nervous to shoot straight, and hits you square in the face. At least your loved ones can sue the city, now and your funeral was paid for by the police department. That was nice of them.

 

[jswilli1]

I never said guns should be taken away, just harder to obtain. I clearly said that I knew people who wanted to obtain guns could.
Why is everyone in this thread completely ignoring the fact that police exist.
It's not as if the police does nothing to stop criminals. I'll tell you why people don't need guns, and it's because of prevention. The way I see it, if you have tight gun control in a country you also need good gun crime prevention. I guess your government wants less on their hands and instead lets citizens defend themselves.

Lasdul,

It is a fact that police are in a position to provide protection, however they can't be everywhere especially when you need them. Case in point, I have an Albuquerque police officer that lives next door to me, A state cop that lives up the street 5 more houses. Up until a few months ago I had a drug dealer across the street from us dealing in broad daylight! I downloaded the crime reports app for my iPhone, wow didn't realize how much crime we had and the three sex offenders that live in my proximity. I am approaching my 40's and have a wonderful wife and four children, as the man of the house it is my responsibility and duty as a father to protect them! I do have a concealed carry permit, do I carry all the time - NO. My decision to get my permit was based on alot of variables particularly geographical. We live just over 250 miles form the mexican border, Juarez to be exact. The Drug Cartels are nothing short of ruthless and the death tolls are outrageous and this is just at the border (Mexico/USA). The gangs in NM and surrounding states are no better and I am mainly talking about MS-13 (Google it). Not just anyone can go get a CCW license, you have to have a clean record - No misdemeanor in five years or absolutely no Felony! I paid $135 for my CCW class (15hrs), $50 for .45ACP and .45 Long Colt ammo for practical, $100 for the actual State License. I had to submit 2 sets of full fingerprints to the state which go to the FBI and a small list of other documents. The only thing I did not have to submit was a DNA sample but I am sure that will be down the line!

See the police are a great thing, but generally arrive after the crime is commited. Let's talk gangs again, The number one crime that is up and coming is "Home Invasion". The perpetrators kick down your door (most cases) or come through a window and generally their intent is not good for you. Go ahead call the cops then get on your knees and pray, the average response time will be up to 5 minutes and thats more than enough time for them to do what they want and be gone! Today you are not dealing with a stupid thug in a gang anymore you starting to deal with highly trained gang members! Gangs are starting to send their members into the U.S. armed forces to get training on nothing other than how to "Home Invade". Look at what U.S. soldiers have been doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the past years - Kicking down doors and sweeping houses! In most cases most of these new gang members have better tactics than the Cops do unless of course they are dealing with a Cop who was Ex-Military.

The whole point of carrying concealed is to create a deterrent and even out the playing field even if you are not at home and carrying out in the public. I hope to God that I never ever ever have to draw my weapon (M1911) and shoot someone. If is comes down to the safety of me, my family, or friends then their safety comes first. I have a sign on my front door that states: "We don't call 911!"

I do have four children in the house and yes I do keep a loaded gun, but they are safely locked up in a safe and out of their reach. My children also like to shoot and KNOW GUN SAFETY. I take them out shooting at least once a month so they know how to handle various kinds of guns. Education is key but Ignorance is bliss.

I believe in exercising my 2nd Amendment rights, as a U.S. Navy veteran I have spent 10yrs as a Submariner protecting our rights as Americans. I also honor other peoples opinions about Guns but believe educating people about guns is the best course of action.

 

[Prodigy122]

Lasdul,

It is a fact that police are in a position to provide protection, however they can't be everywhere especially when you need them. Case in point, I have an Albuquerque police officer that lives next door to me, A state cop that lives up the street 5 more houses. Up until a few months ago I had a drug dealer across the street from us dealing in broad daylight! I downloaded the crime reports app for my iPhone, wow didn't realize how much crime we had and the three sex offenders that live in my proximity. I am approaching my 40's and have a wonderful wife and four children, as the man of the house it is my responsibility and duty as a father to protect them! I do have a concealed carry permit, do I carry all the time - NO. My decision to get my permit was based on alot of variables particularly geographical. We live just over 250 miles form the mexican border, Juarez to be exact. The Drug Cartels are nothing short of ruthless and the death tolls are outrageous and this is just at the border (Mexico/USA). The gangs in NM and surrounding states are no better and I am mainly talking about MS-13 (Google it). Not just anyone can go get a CCW license, you have to have a clean record - No misdemeanor in five years or absolutely no Felony! I paid $135 for my CCW class (15hrs), $50 for .45ACP and .45 Long Colt ammo for practical, $100 for the actual State License. I had to submit 2 sets of full fingerprints to the state which go to the FBI and a small list of other documents. The only thing I did not have to submit was a DNA sample but I am sure that will be down the line!

See the police are a great thing, but generally arrive after the crime is commited. Let's talk gangs again, The number one crime that is up and coming is "Home Invasion". The perpetrators kick down your door (most cases) or come through a window and generally their intent is not good for you. Go ahead call the cops then get on your knees and pray, the average response time will be up to 5 minutes and thats more than enough time for them to do what they want and be gone! Today you are not dealing with a stupid thug in a gang anymore you starting to deal with highly trained gang members! Gangs are starting to send their members into the U.S. armed forces to get training on nothing other than how to "Home Invade". Look at what U.S. soldiers have been doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the past years - Kicking down doors and sweeping houses! In most cases most of these new gang members have better tactics than the Cops do unless of course they are dealing with a Cop who was Ex-Military.

The whole point of carrying concealed is to create a deterrent and even out the playing field even if you are not at home and carrying out in the public. I hope to God that I never ever ever have to draw my weapon (M1911) and shoot someone. If is comes down to the safety of me, my family, or friends then their safety comes first. I have a sign on my front door that states: "We don't call 911!"

I do have four children in the house and yes I do keep a loaded gun, but they are safely locked up in a safe and out of their reach. My children also like to shoot and KNOW GUN SAFETY. I take them out shooting at least once a month so they know how to handle various kinds of guns. Education is key but Ignorance is bliss.

I believe in exercising my 2nd Amendment rights, as a U.S. Navy veteran I have spent 10yrs as a Submariner protecting our rights as Americans. I also honor other peoples opinions about Guns but believe educating people about guns is the best course of action.

Everything you said here is pretty right on. And to comment on what Lasdul said above: It doesn't matter how hard you make it for someone to buy or obtain the guns, there is still what is called the black market. In fact (and I just learned this recently myself) most gun shows are part of the black market.

Here is a nice little site with some information about gun control: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

[jswilli1]

Everything you said here is pretty right on. And to comment on what Lasdul said above: It doesn't matter how hard you make it for someone to buy or obtain the guns, there is still what is called the black market. In fact (and I just learned this recently myself) most gun shows are part of the black market.

Here is a nice little site with some information about gun control: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Technically not "Black Market" but referred to as "Private Sale", some gun dealers do sell guns without paperwork but you still have to be over 21 to buy a handgun or ammo. Like anything though if you want it bad enough you will find it and buy it. Generally the people who go and "find" it are most likely shady or up to no good anyways. Hence the guy who is most likely to show up at your door and kick it down! I have attended several gun shows in this area and saw very few people who practiced "Personal Sale". When I bought my Springfield .45 M1911 I walked in to the gun shop and in 30min walked out with it. They do a small background check (which I checked out) and I was cleared to purchase the weapon. To date I have purchased 4 guns this year, 2 for hunting (youth Rossi.243/.22/20Ga shotgun and a Savage .270), one for CCW (Springfield .45), and a Yugo SKS. My next purchase will be a Ruger LCP .38 semi for CCW as this pistol just slips down in your pocket.

 

[a6m5]

Well, I've done a little research and apparently guns are used far more to commit a crime than to stop it. So no, it's not a "small percentage". :/

Would you say that 1% is a small percentage? Because I'm pretty certain that less than 1% of the gun owners are using it to commit crime.

 

[Lasdul]

You know what, I think this is the only time an internet debate is going to change my mind. Maybe it's because there is next to nobody on my side, and I'm only hearing one perspective. But, all the points you bring up are valid to some extent (some spot on, some pretty sketchy).
It's logically fairly hard to argue for gun control, but there are some powerful arguments for it. For one, people who are not hardcore criminals will be greatly discouraged from buying a gun. For example, an 18 year old really hates his uncle, so he decides to kill him. With gun control, this will not be an easy task. Obviously somebody who is a real criminal will buy a gun regardless, but an office worker who wants to go postal will not have the ability to buy a gun in such cases.
"An individual’s right to own and bear arms must be balanced by the greater social needs of a society."
If a criminal wants to obtain a gun, might as well have to do it illegally
Gun control must be balanced with gun ownership. Maybe loose or moderate control would be wiser, no gun control or very loose control is just asking for trouble.

 

[a6m5]

I've said this before in another thread(or maybe this one, I don't know). I am all for gun control, if it make sense.

In the United States, it makes no sense. It's part of the culture. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns", they say. It is so true. Had that happened, it would be a scary scenario in the U.S. Yet, where I'm from, Japan, it totally works!

In Japan, guns are extremely rare, and for most citizens, only guns they will ever see in their lifetime will on the hip of police officers. Sure the "outlaws" have guns, but because gun control totally works in the culture of Japan, you will never be threatened, or shot by these outlaw guns.

In the U.S., while it's not like everyone will be victimized by gun violence, it will be a very realistic threat. Guns has been part of this country from the very beginning. It's in the culture here, and even in you were to ban it, there is no realistic way for the government to keep tabs on gun possession. No way.

 

[Tornado]

Obviously somebody who is a real criminal will buy a gun regardless, but an office worker who wants to go postal will not have the ability to buy a gun in such cases.

Unless he just decides to make a bomb.

 

[Azuremen]

Unless he just decides to make a bomb.

Which isn't particular difficult, and can be done for less than the cost of a gun I'd say.

 

[Lasdul]

I've said this before in another thread(or maybe this one, I don't know). I am all for gun control, if it make sense.

In the United States, it makes no sense. It's part of the culture. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns", they say. It is so true. Had that happened, it would be a scary scenario in the U.S. Yet, where I'm from, Japan, it totally works!

In Japan, guns are extremely rare, and for most citizens, only guns they will ever see in their lifetime will on the hip of police officers. Sure the "outlaws" have guns, but because gun control totally works in the culture of Japan, you will never be threatened, or shot by these outlaw guns.

In the U.S., while it's not like everyone will be victimized by gun violence, it will be a very realistic threat. Guns has been part of this country from the very beginning. It's in the culture here, and even in you were to ban it, there is no realistic way for the government to keep tabs on gun possession. No way.

I wholeheartedly agree. As I was getting at before, it works in some countries, for instance it works pretty well up here above Canada's pants.

 

[Danoff]

I've said this before in another thread(or maybe this one, I don't know). I am all for gun control, if it make sense.

In the United States, it makes no sense. It's part of the culture. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns", they say. It is so true. Had that happened, it would be a scary scenario in the U.S. Yet, where I'm from, Japan, it totally works!

In Japan, guns are extremely rare, and for most citizens, only guns they will ever see in their lifetime will on the hip of police officers. Sure the "outlaws" have guns, but because gun control totally works in the culture of Japan, you will never be threatened, or shot by these outlaw guns.

In the U.S., while it's not like everyone will be victimized by gun violence, it will be a very realistic threat. Guns has been part of this country from the very beginning. It's in the culture here, and even in you were to ban it, there is no realistic way for the government to keep tabs on gun possession. No way.

This is a very pragmatic approach. Restrict guns if it will work, if not, don't. However, the reason we do not restrict handguns in the US is not because it is not feasible or practical. Our lawmakers regularly try to restrict gun ownership, ammunition ownership, gun manufacturing, and sales. I'm sure somewhere right now someone is dreaming up a new way to restrict guns in the US.

One recent attempt at banning handguns was the city of Chicago. They did so not because they thought it was practical to do so, but because they thought gun ownership was something that should be regulated for the good of everyone. I'm not sure practicality factored in at all.

This law was properly stricken down by the US supreme court as a violation of our constitutionally enumerated human rights. The supreme court majority ruling did not rest on it being impractical to control handguns (I read it). It did not rest on any sort of practicality argument whatsoever. Neither does the constitutional guarantee that protects our rights to gun ownership rely on practicality (though some may try to argue that it does - indeed the minority in the Chicago opinion made that argument, I read that one too).

The reason the US does not ban handguns is one of principle. It is because of the principles enumerated at the front of our constitutionally guaranteed human rights.

 

[Lasdul]

Well, yeah. The constitution gives people the right to bear arms. While it's certainly not some sort of global "human right" to carry arms, it's a right within that particular country.

 

[a6m5]

This is a very pragmatic approach. Restrict guns if it will work, if not, don't. However, the reason we do not restrict handguns in the US is not because it is not feasible or practical. Our lawmakers regularly try to restrict gun ownership, ammunition ownership, gun manufacturing, and sales. I'm sure somewhere right now someone is dreaming up a new way to restrict guns in the US.

One recent attempt at banning handguns was the city of Chicago. They did so not because they thought it was practical to do so, but because they thought gun ownership was something that should be regulated for the good of everyone. I'm not sure practicality factored in at all.

This law was properly stricken down by the US supreme court as a violation of our constitutionally enumerated human rights. The supreme court majority ruling did not rest on it being impractical to control handguns (I read it). It did not rest on any sort of practicality argument whatsoever. Neither does the constitutional guarantee that protects our rights to gun ownership rely on practicality (though some may try to argue that it does - indeed the minority in the Chicago opinion made that argument, I read that one too).

The reason the US does not ban handguns is one of principle. It is because of the principles enumerated at the front of our constitutionally guaranteed human rights.

I never really understood what "right to bear arms" actually meant. I can kind of see why this becomes hot topic in politics though. It does say a lot towards total gun ban, but not that much on the degree of gun control.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Well, yeah. The constitution gives people the right to bear arms. While it's certainly not some sort of global "human right" to carry arms, it's a right within that particular country.

I don't need some government piece of paper to tell me I can own a firearm. I have the born right to defend my life with a firearm. No matter what country I'm in, I have that right.

What other countries have done is blocked my born essential right to defend my life from harm. How despicable.

 

[Lasdul]

I don't need some government piece of paper to tell me I can own a firearm. I have the born right to defend my life with a firearm. No matter what country I'm in, I have that right.

What other countries have done is blocked my born essential right to defend my life from harm. How despicable.

I'm sorry you see it that way. You don't have the right to own a firearm in any country. While you have a right to defend your life with a firearm, that is not a legitimate purpose to buy one in some places (like here). I think you're not looking at the whole story if all you see it as is an incursion on your right to self defense.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I'm sorry you see it that way. You don't have the right to own a firearm in any country. While you have a right to defend your life with a firearm, that is not a legitimate purpose to buy one in some places (like here).

Not a legitimate purpose? To preserve my right to life? To safety and security? That's insane. If you truly feel that way, you're insane.

I think you're not looking at the whole story if all you see it as is an incursion on your right to self defense.

No, I'm in the know. It's nothing but an incurison on my right to self defense if I'm blocked from owning a firearm. And, a pretty huge one, too. That's the only picture here.

 

[Nicksfix]

I'm sorry you see it that way. You don't have the right to own a firearm in any country. While you have a right to defend your life with a firearm, that is not a legitimate purpose to buy one in some places (like here). I think you're not looking at the whole story if all you see it as is an incursion on your right to self defense.

( United States )
2nd Amendment

 

[Lasdul]

Not a legitimate purpose? To preserve my right to life? To safety and security? That's insane. If you truly feel that way, you're insane.

Actually, I never said that was my personal opinion, it's just the law in some countries.

No, I'm in the know. It's nothing but an incurison on my right to self defense if I'm blocked from owning a firearm. And, a pretty huge one, too. That's the only picture here.

Well, there are reasons for gun control. It's not as if governments would implement such systems if it didn't benefit their country, after all, all it does is cost them money, so why would they do that if there wasn't a reason?

I think it is silly for people to say gun control kills.

^ I mentioned the 2nd amendment. It's not a human right to own firearms, it's a human right to defend yourself. It's only a right to own guns in countries where they say so.

 

[Tornado]

Well, there are reasons for gun control.

There are "reasons" for a lot of things governments do. That doesn't mean the reasons are rationally sound, or were made for logical reasons.