Gun Control
Offline
I don't like guns, but I understand their purpose.
The problem with total gun control/gun restriction/outlawing is that if you tell people they can't own guns legally, people will STILL own them illegally, thus putting the "good" citizens at risk.
Let's say you live in a bad neighborhood in Detroit where this is plenty of gang activity and robberies. You know that many people have guns, legally or illegally, and will use them to their liking. If someone breaks into your house and you do not have a gun to defend yourself with, you're pretty much screwed.
It's like drugs: the more you outlaw something, the more CRIME becomes of it as people try to illegally traffic, sell and consume.
I don't like guns, but I'm not going to say that we live in a perfect, smiley happy world where people never need them for defense.
The thing is, if guns were gone, we'd find other ways to kill each other. If you want to kill someone, you will, gun or no gun.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
- Login to post comments
Agreed. If they figure out that it's the same person anyway. Since most criminals are criminally stupid, that's usually the case. There are some serial killers that were never caught though.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yes most likely you will not be armed so your gun will be pointless. Maybe surprise was the wrong word, but it is still the same. It is highly likely that the crimanals gun would of been drawn from the start (house break in) or drawn when you are not looking (muging) either way your gun is useless. I'm not saying there are no cases where a gun would stop you losing your stuff but the vast majority it is pointless and likely to get you shot. In the heat of that moment are you thinking clearly? Most likely not.
also
'Condition Yellow: You are armed but there is not specific threat. You are willing to use lethal force if called upon to do so.'
Sounds like a situation you could be suprised to me, No specific threat and armed
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Why would anyone want their government to ban guns? What is the point. We need our freedoms, every one of them. Smoking has been banned in too many states now. This is bad, it so close to a dictatorship, when the gov't can step in and control what the business owner does with their business. Banning smoking in bars is not going to help bars stay open, especially in the cold climates. Banning guns is not going to help businesses that deal with firearms. I know these are two different subjects wrapped together as one with the ban.
Well, hopefully a robber will not kill his victim to prevent them from testifying. That brings up another thing that the bulk of the civilized world wishes we would not do. In most states, killing someone while committing another crime against them is one of the qualifying tests that makes you eligible for the death penalty.
In an odd way, it actually makes more sense to have a death penalty than to not have one because some of our states do not have it. However, where the death penalty exists, there is a carefully controlled system in place to regulate who gets sentenced to death and why. Then there are appeals that can go all the way to the Supreme Court.
In states which do not have a death penalty, criminals are killed all the time but this is done by other criminals who are serving life sentences with no possibility for parole. When this happens, it often starts a national conversation on the question, turning on whether the dead person might have been tried and sentenced by a prisoner composed star chamber.
=
The freedom to own something that's only purpose is to kill? I think they are pointless, But really I hate guns and think they add nothing to society and take away alot but even I don't think they should be banned, I just think there should be stricter regulations. Expessially on ammunition.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Well, I am glad that you are granting that much.
Well, I could have gone into more detail there but I wanted to keep the post succinct and clean. The fact is that no one should ever make the decision to carry a gun lightly. That would breed exactly the problems that (I think) you are concerned about.
The only time that it is acceptable to go to condition yellow is if you do so with full awareness that you have become potentially a lethal agent. You must retain a full time situational awareness of your surroundings. The phrase that responsible gun owners us is “watching your six”, which means that you know what is around you in every direction at all times (literally from six o'clock meaning what is behind you).
So when you are in condition yellow, you simply do not walk into a situation that could be dangerous. For example, if you need to take a whiz, ducking into an alley to look for a dumpster is not an option.
A rough analogy could be constructed from those who know martial arts. One simply does not learn to fight so that you can run around kicking the crap out of people. One learns how to fight so that you can take care of yourself should you be called on to do so. If someone decides to impose themselves on a trained fighter, then they have a problem on their hands. It really matters little how the situation goes down once it starts.
Here I would ask you to think about the example that Vastet gave earlier. He was armed and in an unfamiliar setting. He was capable of taking another man's life if need be and when some asshole pulled a gun on his friend, he was ready and willing to do what was needed to take full control of the situation. The fact that he used a knife is of little importance. Had he not had a knife but rather a black belt, that asshole would still have been in a world of trouble.
=
I don't like the term "gun control" it makes it sound like guns are out of control and you're just making a reasonable request to get them under control. You want your gun to be under control don't you? You're not unreasonable are you? But it's deceptive because it really means disarming you.
If you type "shot during break-in" into google you'll get hundreds of articles about people defending themselves in their homes against unwelcome intruders. Disarming those people would not have made them safer.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
The problem is people do.
That is impossible, if it was there would be far less car crashes in the world. To the extent it is possible there are still unavoidable situations I will use what happened to my friend.
He was walikng home from work rounded a corner just to face a gun in his face. To people working together isn't uncommon. The fact that he didn't have a gun is besides the point here as it would of been useless, If he did have one and tried to use it... game over. He was on alert (watching his 6, as the street as empty)maybe crimanals are dumber where you are but some planing is genrally use here. They don't just walk infront of you take out a gun and say give me your cellphone.
See above, there are lots of unavoidable situations besides the example.
I'm aware its a rough analogy but even so. As far as im aware no such extensive training is required to own a gun. (just basic firing practise, I'm not even sure about that) It matters alot as guns don't require physical contact they require one shot and the person puting the situation together will normally have the upper hand.
Yes a situation where It could do some good (I have never denied that they exist, I'm pretending that was a mugging situation) However I would not call this a regular situation. The guy was kidding around, the gun was not loaded. It is a good reason for him not to own a gun (the guy that pulled one) Genrally it is just anther reason guns are a bad idea. accedents happen, people stuff around etc.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
It doesn't mean disarming you, it just means the wrong people can't just go into a shop and buy them. I would suggest the main reason most of them were shot was because they ressisted. Im sure quite a lot of those did infact have guns. It would be stupid to say none did and look where it got them.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Tapey feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I suspect that you have a “victory condition”. Specifically, that you think that there is some way that you will eventually make a post that will convince me of the error of my ways.
The problem with that idea is that internet debating is not about winning but rather about learning from each other. You can feel free to post untenable situations and I can feel free to keep grinding you down. Either way, I will always have something to say in response to you.
If you want to learn about how responsible people handle guns I am fully willing to educate you in the matter. You can ask questions about things that you simply do not understand and I will try to help you out.
In all honesty, I would rather continue this discussion with Vastet as he is at least willing to admit that lethal force can be justified in some situations. From what I am seeing from you, you seem to think that a rape victim is morally superior to a gun carrying woman with a dead wanna be rapist at her feet.
=
That's exactly the sort of deception I'm speaking of. It's not about disarming you unless you're one of the "wrong people", then it is about disarming you.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
A better name would be marksman. It denotes someone with a degree of competance. I have been around firearms all my life. They are necessary tools. They put food on the table. They protect us from animals {both two and four legged}. Target shooting is a great hobby. One thing I would agree with MS on;he should never ever get his hands on a gun.
Two thumbs up for the Picard face palm.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
False dichotomy. Once someone has demonstrated that they are willing to transgress society's rules, you have no reason to think that they'll follow through on the exchange of wallet for safety.
Governments are known to make errors and be slow to correct them. If the state imprisons someone who is actually innocent, they can be released. Not so much with executions.
-Triften
Issue granted. Not everyone who dies should die at that moment.
My point is that if someone needs to die, there should be a full review of the case at hand. Sure, mistakes are made and that is a bad thing. People are killed who perhaps ought no to be killed. This is terrible. However, if we are willing to have terrible people killed, then we need to accept the fact that mistakes can be made.
=
Does all these arguments assume two things
1) there are decent non-violent peaceful people are basically 'good'
2) violent nasty people who are bad
Most of the civilized world has assumed that all human beings are violent animals that need to be controlled (social control = civilization). We try to focus our violent tendencies from war to sport, from killing each other for power/women to competing in the work place for the same thing.
All human beings are violent and while we can't really fix that (its part of being human) we can try to reduce the damage they do . Maybe its living in a city (London) but when I travel on the metro to work I see 90% of commuters as ticking time bombs angry and stressed. I'm just very glad most of them arent armed
... at a person? Because I wasn't saying it's not easy to fire a pistol. I was saying it's difficult to fire a pistol at a person knowing you could kill them. Different.
Really? How many times has this situation come up in your personal experience? How often do you have to make the decision to shoot someone?
You could learn how to disarm someone with a knife. That's another option. If that's too much work, why is it a good idea to attempt to end their life? Also, same question: does this happen to you a lot?
So, with an animal attacking you, you reach for your pistol, unbutton the holster latch, release the safety, aim ... seriously, this is taking too long. An animal that would attack you quickly, like a cougar or bear has already mauled you. Other animals, like raccoons, you could probably just kick.
What about four iguanas? What about a rabid giraffe? This is silly. Seeing as I will never, ever have a sidearm on me EVER, should I be surrounded by hungry wolves, I'd have to resort to killing one of them with a shovel, yes. But that's a last resort.
If one of you guys says, "but what if you don't have a shovel?" I'm going to lose it. These hypothetical situations are getting ridiculous. I don't know what I would do if I were in space, and an angry space dog came at me, okay? Fuck.
Have you ever seen those "caught on camera" shows, where guys go into a store and try to rob it, and there's a lot of shooting (because it's the states) and someone's shot four or five times, but they're still running around? That's generally what happens in reality, instead of the movie version of things where you shoot someone and they're instantly dead. So you shoot the guy with the knife, he freaks out, stabs the owner, and then rushes at you and stabs you. You all bleed out, despite surviving for quite some time. The end. That's how you end up with a death toll of three.
Anyway, the owner could "potentially" get injured, and you're deciding to kill someone. How does that make sense? Are you Batman in this scenario that your job is to save the day? Couldn't the situation "potentially" calm down once the robber gets the money and just leaves? Instead of thinking of your pistol, wouldn't it be best to take cover and memorize descriptive details for police?
I'm still convinced it's the lamest action tactically. I understand that you can kill someone with a handgun. I think that's obvious. I'm arguing that it's not your best option. What happens when you don't have a handgun available to you? Or if the thing doesn't work properly? Any of these scenarios would make kittens out of you lions if you don't have a working pistol.
What about improvised weapons, a cellphone, avoiding dangerous situations, or learning some hand-to-hand combat? I mean, if you really think there's a danger of being attacked in all these ways, by such a wide variety of vicious wildlife and evildoers, you should probably take some classes.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
People will always find a way to kill. Its our nature as animals. However, I'd feel safer at night knowing that without guns, there'd be one less way for someone to kill me. I already worry bout cars and knives. I don't need a long range method that hurts a lot on my mind too.
I don't have the time to cater to your religious beliefs. Its much less time consuming to simply mock them, and, on occasion, give a reasonable explanation as to why I do so. But that's if I'm in a good mood.
Always good for a laugh.
My holster has no latch and my gun has no manual safety. The safeties are on the back of the grip and on the trigger. If you are holding the gun with your finger on the trigger both safeties are disabled. Also, if you are worried about safeties get a revolver. Revolvers never have safeties. I own a Springfield XD, also known as a Croatian HS. It has no manual safety. Or you could use a Glock. They also have no manual safeties. They do have a trigger safety, but merely touching the drigger disables it.
That being said you are royally fucked if a cougar pounces on you. They sometime will make VERY long leaps onto their prey. You won't even see it approaching. It will just crash down onto you suddenly. Luckily they (for the most part) only attack joggers. If you are hiking they will likely leave you alone. If you are jogging they might ambush you since they love to attack running animals.
Bears actually aren't much of a problem. More people are killed by moose every year than bears. Bears will kick you ass, but they rarely kill.
You doubt a gun's effectivness against wildlife, but advocate learning fistfighting? Are you going to punch that angry bear mother? I love learning Jiu Jitsu, but I'll still play dead if a bear atttacks me.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I don't want to bash the US again but there are comments being made that I think are really bad and I smell the ozone of US patriotism and rightous American individual freedoms.
Get rid of the guns you thugs, or at least regulate heavily, very heavily, like no assault rifles at all heavily. Take an objective look around the world. We would be laughing at you if the situation wasn't so serious. "Why so serious?" (Heath was an Aussie) Serious because your terrible approach to weapons effects (or arguably 'affects') the behaviour of your soldiers around the world as well as your unique domestic slaughter. Key there is unique.
Wake up. Guns are bad. There is no need to look into it further with your witty (not really) and desperate justifications. Are you really pro gun or do you like the thought of being a Cowboy in a Mad Max setting. Careful what you wish for US, you may bring it on yourselves. Again. Can I strike that point? Not sure where I was going.
Neo-cons in Atheist bodies. I was hoping for some more intelligent and nice people.
I suppose your religion or lack there of does not define your politics.
I am not angry, I am disapointed.
I am a raging lefty atheist.
A quick way for me to write you off is for you to be religious or have dumb gun control opinions. This shit is black and white. Like a pigeon's. If the diet is correct. Yes I shouldn't write people off, I have problems, I am trying.
Also, there are a few comments about it all being too hard. Why comment then nay sayers? Not saying you can not, just asking what is the point?
Mass disclaimer: I love the US (with qualification) and my tone is light hearted not insulting.
A failing arguement relies on personal insult. You pack of whankers.
Yes with an 'H', it slightly changes the pronounciation.
I think y'all should continue to think about this one, while I sit up here in my moral fortress in the clouds. Protected by US guns.
Regards.
PS Peppermint is hot.
Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?
Was that a metaphor?
Great. You could kill anyone any time you want. Congratulations.
That was the most enthusiastic way to miss the point ever. Yeah, I get it - there are lots of pistols. You have lots of pistol options. All will end badly, as you illustrate below:
My point exactly. I have no idea how a Glock would help you in any of those cases.
... which will only work with a certain type of bear. Points for knowing which one: brown or black?
I'm not advocating fist fighting, I'm advocating tactical awareness above tool selection. Furthermore, hand-to-hand combat isn't Jiu-Jitsu. Although, I have to say: Jiu-Jitsu is my favourite sport. Ever do tournaments? It's a rush - I love it. But there are rules in Jiu-Jitsu, not so much in hand-to-hand.
Anyway, a pistol has a function. It is not to diffuse or mediate a situation, it is an officer's last resort. It is neither an assault weapon nor a screwdriver. Nor is it a sword, for that matter, which would be more useful against wildlife, I'd imagine.
And yet, you have purchased several of these weapons, and for what, exactly? Because they are available and you are wealthy? Probably. Because they are actually practical self-defense options? I doubt that was part of your purchasing decision. No, you bought them because you believe in America, and America believes in emotionally charged products like cars, beer and firearms. Things that make you feel like a man when, apparently, nothing else can.
My argument, once again, is that killing someone is not only difficult, it's unnecessary, and the only apparent function of a pistol is to kill someone. Or a moose, because they're such marauding death machines. So what you have is a weapon that is not appropriate for any situation in which you are likely to find yourself, and it's the most popular weapon available to civilians. I smell marketing.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Ha ha. Good one.
This one is even funnier than the last. I own one gun, and it does not make me feel manly to own or use it. I like target shooting and I like having a weapon in my home. That's really it. I don't even have a CCW. I only care a knife in public. As for my purchasing decision, I bought this gun because it functions pretty well in target shooting. It is just comfortable to use. I would like a rifle, but there are no outdoor ranges anywhere in my local area, so I am stuck using handguns.
I like that you think I'm a wealthy gun collector though. The truth is that I am a college student who could barely save up enough money to buy one gun and I can afford to go to the gun range about once a month.
I'll have to disagree. Handguns are effective for self defense. It is true that they are not appropriate for most situations, but they are irreplacable for the few situations that they are useful for. As far as popularity goes, you meant to say that rifles are the most popular firearms. The number of rifles owned in the US far exceeds the number of handguns.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
As we are blessed with many non-US folks here this is not addressed to them. Many years ago I put together a definitive collection of materials from the US constitutional perspective. It can be found here.
http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/q0.html
It was completed in 1996 and does not include the latest USSC finding regarding the gun laws in the US capital.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
If the ease of getting guns is the measure of the crime rate then the objective measure says the easier the guns the lower the crime.
People are what we call adults. They take their chances with owning guns just as they do with owning cars, knives, prescription drugs, household cleaners, swimming pools, bath tubs, lawn mowers and a host of other potentially lethal items. What does that have to do with equality before a rapist?
BTW: You have a silly laugh.
I have no idea what conditions are like in the Land of Oz where you life. I only know what they are here in the US and in three major metropolitan areas where I have lived long enough to become knowledgable.
This is not a matter of "one life is too many" when the failure to deal with the bad guys has statistically meant more dead more raped and more injured than without the simple risk of self defense.
Let me repeat, in Florida the simple existence of concealed carry laws reduced violent crime. The risk that a potential victim might be carrying worked. Not 1 in 1000 has the license much less actually does carry.
The first thing to learn about psychology is that it is not a science in the sense of physics but a social science in the sense of religion. I have no idea what crap you were given in that course but if it was not preceded by a rigorous course in statistics and questionaire design and associated methodolgy you have no way to know the validity of anything you were spoonfed.
As for negating, 90% who showed a gun drove off the perp and never fired. There is no cause for a bluff in this case. Showing a gun works, period.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Sorry, but how does it read now? As long as religious nuts have [use of force] so will I. I know it's tounge in cheak, I'm just using you to make a point, it doesn't matter if it's a gun or not. as long as force is used in human relations someone is going to die or get hurt.
I completely misread your post, most likely because I read it too quickly, as implying that you owned all the firearms you were talking about. My mistake.
But the result of that self-defense is someone else dying. I suppose I can't repeat it enough that you can't anticipate the psychological effect that would have on you. Check out a copy of the book "On Killing" by Lt Col Dave Grossman. That gives you some idea. It's fine to look at these situations in movie terms, with you as the victor, but the truth is far less enjoyable. There's paperwork, court dates, lawyers, long conversations with police, looking the parents of someone you've killed in the eyes, and THEN dealing with the rest of your life as being responsible for someone else's death.
If that's the outcome you want, then go ahead, fire away. If you can think of another way to solve the problem, I'd go for that.
Actually, I was wrong twice: I meant to say urban civilians, but now that "urban" has come to mean "black people" somehow, I don't think that would have made sense. But the prevalence of pistol ownership in US cities is impressive, to say the least.
Now a rifle ... that's a different story. Rifles are extremely useful.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRZvtFurvho
This is anther point where do you think his stolen guns went? Did they suddenly dissappear? Nope now there are more guns in the hands of crimanals. Guns are one of the first things looked for, I would be suprised if it is different in America.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I agree. It must be horrifying to kill someone. That would haunt you for the rest of your life. And even if it is obvious self defense you could still end up in prison. Hollywood always shows people being shot and falling over dead. In reality most people survive being shot and most people who die from bullet wounds take hours to die. So if I ever shoot someone (which would be a nightmare situation), I will likely have a screaming and gasping person dying slowly while I watch. That would fucked up beyond belief. I'm not a cowboy or Mad Max. I know that shooting someone would be the most horrible thing that I have ever done. I know that it would haunt me for the rest of my life. But, and here is the big reason why I have a loaded gun in my apartment, the only situations in which I would turn a gun on someone are so horrible that dealing with the trauma of killing someone wouldn't be so bad in comparison. I will only use my gun on a person to stop rape or murder. If I am honestly fearing death, I'm not going to worry about future horrifying trauma.
Rifle are really useful. People who own a lot of land need rifles for dealing with pests. My aunt and uncle don't believe in owning guns, but coyotes butcher their goats every now and then. They are people who could use a rifle as a form of pest control. Not that most people will ever need to shoot at coyotes, but if someone wants to own a rifle and target shoot with it they should be allowed to (and if it happens to be useful for killing coyotes all the better).
Handguns are also really useful. People who value being able to use lethal force to defend themselves need handguns (or alternatively short barelled shotguns) for killing rapists and muderers. Not that most people will ever need to shoot a rapist, but if someone wants to own a handgun to target shoot with they should be allowed to (and if it just happens to be useful for killing rapists all the better).
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Yor rant against gun ownership and say it would cause trauma to live with killing someone. How would you feel to stand impotently by while your wife and children are raped and murdured? We got where we are because of technology. Why not use it? Did you know the corssbow was banned for use against christians? How did that work out? You have a right to self defense. No one can really depend on their government to save them all the time. There are bad people out there. Deal with it.
Better off running down hill. Even if you have a gun, as it happens. Bear skull can take quite a hit.
It would be a bad idea whichever you were encountering. If a bear is mad at you because you got between it and it's kids, playing dead will simply risk a lack of playing in being dead.
If that were the only calculation than I would have no choice but to agree. Unfortunately, it is not. It increases to up to 100% the chances of a dead victim. It increases the danger to passersby by 100%. The cost is not worth the benefit by any stretch.
In fact you haven't.
If you think using gun control examples in the states will get you any points, you're sadly mistaken. I have repeatedly said that the states is a special case. Get that through your thick skull. I'm quite tired of repeating myself.
Except that I've already said that gun control laws in the states will have no effect until both public perception AND the constitution AND the culture have changed. Seriously, if you refer to the US one more time I'm just going to cut that out of your response and ignore it completely as irrelevant and useless material not pertaining to the discussion.
Yes. Otherwise we don't have justice, we have a society based on revenge. A useless and inefficient emotion which is slowing down our progress.
Besides, we don't have one accident. We have nearly as many accidents as we have rapes.
They are taking chances with the lives of those around them. That is NOT within their rights, and should never be.
I'm also rather tired of your analogy. You can take a gun away, and the person will just get another. But when you put a rapist in jail, they are in jail and incapable of raping citizenry (or at least, they should be; yet another flaw in the justice systems of today). Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.
You have a silly argument.
You first. I doubt there's been a study done on that. Here's your ticket for a research grant.
Show proof and I'll believe you. Considering that it's a hundred times easier to wound than it is to kill, you'll need a lot of luck to pull it off.
Obviously you are the one living in a dream world.
Try expanding your horizons. I have. I'm aware of your nation, my nation, and most of Europe. My expertise therefore > your expertise.
Yes, it is. It's the same problem with the death penalty. If any innocent is put at risk, then the so-called justice is not justice at all. It's revenge, which is primitive and useless.
Ridiculous strawman fallacy.
I'm well aware of what psychology is and is not. Obviously you are not equipped in a similar fashion.
Nothing to counter what I said, so nothing to respond to.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I was shot at once. I was glad I was not armed at the time.
I was with my wife of the time, and our daughter, and my brother. My daughter was on my back in a backpack meant to tote kids, as we were walking the beach of some property I wanted. (The property was some beachfront in Southeast Alaska, and the State of Alaska was having a lottery, so it was going to be very cheap.) I had left my pistol in the truck. Walking the woods in Southeast, it's always good to go armed. Not because it's dangerous, exactly, but because you want something that can make a loud bang, in case you startle a bear. So, although I was not armed, my brother had his pistol in a shoulder holster.
I had just gotten out of the army, and was moving from Anchorage to Oregon. We had stopped off in Southeast to visit my dad and brothers, and to relax a little bit where I had grown up. My brother volunteered to take us out to look at the lots on which we had bid. So there we were, walking the beach.
We heard some folks shooting .22s somewhere ahead of us. We made a lot of noise, so we would not be accidentally shot. Rounding a point, we saw the shooters across a small bay, two young men with .22 rifles. They stopped shooting as soon as they saw us.
There was an otter on our side of the bay. We assumed that was the intended target, which is illegal, but it's not like I cared much. Sure, I thought it a waste to shoot the otter, but whatever. As we moved forward, the otter ran across the beach and into the ocean, swimming away from us, almost directly towards the two young men.
The idiots started shooting. The bullets were striking the brush behind us; I could hear the leaves rustling behind us. I turned to put myself between my daughter and the idots with firearms, and reached for my pistol. I had intended, in that split-second before action and thought meet, to shoot them, to kill them dead. After I realized I didn't have my pistol, I reached over and pulled my wife down.
My brother, being a little more careful than me, pulled out his pistol (a 9mm) and shot into the air. If you've never heard a 9mm before, it makes an impressive sound, much more impressive than a .22. The idiots weren't quite as stupid as they appeared; they stopped shooting, and quietly and quickly walked away, around the point on their side of the bay.
I'm sure the idiots were just shooting at the otter, which was halfway between us and them. I'm sure the bullets were simply bouncing off the water, and were not intended to come close to us at all. A .22 is not terribly threatening from 30 yards -- at least, not for an adult.
My daughter, on the other hand, could have been seriously injured. That was the only thought I had at the time: protect my daughter. My way of protecting her was to kill the idiots shooting at her.
After I had calmed down enough to think clearly, I started to freak out. I realized how close I had come to taking another person's life. If I had worn my pistol, a .357, I would have shot at them, not in the air. A .357 can do considerable damage, and I grew up with firearms. I know how to use them safely. I know how to shoot them accurately. I had no doubt in my military mind I would have injured one or both severely, at a minimum.
Just the thought that I am both capable and willing to kill another human changed who I am. I am extremely glad I was not armed. I'm not sure I could live with myself for killing another for the crime of stupidity.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I don't think that I'd like that, no. But where is this happening that you think it's probably going to happen to you? If you think a pistol is going to deal with that situation, I'd take another look. If you're in a neighbourhood where rape and murder are the norm, I'd suggest either moving, or finding another way to avoid the situation altogether.
That's silly. You could make the same argument for nuclear weapons.
I didn't know that. When was this? And where? Obviously, I don't know how that worked out.
Legally, in Canada, I have somewhat of a right to self-defense. If I feel threatened, it's not okay for me to kill. Maybe it's different in the states.
Okay.
I suppose I should deal with it by shooting them? You'll have to tell me which ones are the bad ones, so I can shoot them.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That was a good account. It says a lot about human personality. I have used a handgun twice in self defense, and feel good about both. I was hiking in Western Montana with my dog. He began barking and came up to me without his backpack.
So I went off the trail to lookfor it. About 50 yards off the trail he began barking, not a normal bark, if you know dogs. I looked around and saw about 25 yards away, a mountain lion. He was in heavy brush and doing a stalk, on me. You know how nice kitty puts one paw very slowly forward with the rest of his body perfectly still. Then the other. To this day I do not remember drawing my Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum, but there it was in my hand. I said"Not one more step." He took another step. I love living here and I have respect and affection for other predators. I put a 240 grain jacketed hollow point bullet 10 feet in front of his nose. He ignored it and kept comming. I put another one 1 foot in fornt of him showering him with debris. At this point my dog charged him, dodged a vicious roundhouse,and circled behind the cat. Mr cougar realized he may be out numbered and the human can make a lot of noise. He growled, spat, and departed. I later found the dogs backpack. It had a huge gash in it. My ears rang for two days.
The other time I had a day or so to kill before taking a chopper offshore to the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. I took my motor home into the bayou country south of New Orleans. I took a shell road to the end where the locals put their freezers and dryers when they don't work. They make an excellent place to hang a target. As evening approached I went inside for beers and a movie. Soon a tribe of Africans arrived, in two cars,and began making ugly noises..They were drinking foaties and smoking the same cigarette. "Hey you got any women in there?" I am silent. Then "I think that spare tire would fit my truck. One of them began to shake the spare tire mounted on the back. Rembering the incident with Mr. cougar I put my earplugs in. I opened the window over the kitchen sink, threw two beer cans out and shot each one three times with the same 44 magnum. Almost instantly I was alone.
Happy ending both times. Unarmed it could have been tragic. We all have the right to defend ourselves. No one has the right to tell me I can't.
Yeah, that would have been bad. Probably a lot of self-recrimination. But what morons!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yep. My wife (not the one from the narrative) thinks stupidity should be a prosecutable offence, with the optional death penalty for extreme cases.
I was mostly just responding to the whole thought of the psychological aspect of killing someone. I realize that I was affected just by that instant of murderous intent, no matter the provocation. It changed who I was, and I never pulled a trigger.
On the other side of the coin, I was glad my brother was armed and rational.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
If only all gun owners were as responsible and intelligent as yourself, I wouldn't have set foot in this topic to begin with.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Ah...well...alright. That's true.
Zero, but I don't see why this is important.
I'm thinking I would have a better chance with a firearm.
I didn't say it was a good idea (did I?). In every scenario, firing in self-defense would be an option, not a necessity. The fact that I have a pistol attached to my waist doesn't mean I am obligated to start emptying it into anything that moves. In a dangerous situation, I would much rather have the option available to me.
If I do use my gun, I don't have to kill someone. In many cases, the presence of the firearm will be sufficient to deter the attacker. If not, you could still shoot them in the leg or something.
What? No. Dangerous situations are rare. Dangerous situations where a gun might be useful are even rarer. But, when you need a gun, you really need a gun.
What Jormungander said. Also, most animals wouldn't automatically jump out of a bush and maul, they might stare you down, circle you, etc. Either way, you'd have a much better chance if you had a gun than if you didn't have a gun.
But, I have to admit, these hypotheticals are getting pretty ridiculous.
Oh, wow, exactly what I just said. Hmmmm...
Sigh...yeah.
Lmao.
Sorry, we're just trying to create situations where it might be beneficial to have a firearm. Home invasions? Rapists?
Yes, of course, every imaginable scenario has a potential for happening.
If you don't have a gun and are unable to defend yourself, the robber might knock you out, take you to his dungeon, and torture you to death. If you have a gun, you might accidentally shoot yourself in the balls while pulling it out.
I just think there are many scenarios, like home invasions, where it would help to have a gun.
Sure, what if it explodes in your hand? What if the criminal is a super-villain with a body made out of titanium?
"Improvised weapons." "Hand-to-hand combat." If you're going to fight back anyways, what's wrong with a gun?
"Cellphone." Wait for the police to come and pull the bear off of you?
"Avoiding dangerous situations." Aren't we assuming that we're already in a dangerous situation?
All of these are useful tactics, but don't you think it would be nice to have the option of a gun, especially in certain cases?
What? I'm not paranoid. I'm just trying to give examples of when it would be useful to have a gun.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Sigh. No I am talking very specifically about the best philosophy to base gun laws on, not use of force. An excellent attempt to rescope to avoid the issue and it still reads poorly. I blame the original author. Maybe try substituting "bleeding corps of gun shot victim".
Anyway please continue with most of the others with their self justifying tedious war stories. Most of the justifications sound nervous. Intelligent people can fool themselves into anything with their advanced argumentative techniques and excellent reverse rationalisation.
Religious and Gun Nut goes together, not atheist. You guys are killing me.
It is not your fault USA, you just don't know any different. *pats head*
Could people start defining themselves so I know who to ignore in future?
This is me:
EVERYONE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN.
GUNS SHOULD BE VERY HEAVILY REGULATED.
Not hard.
Disclaimer: I am a stand up comic that is heavily medicated.
Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?
The founders of the US were a little obsessed with preventing tyranny. Tyrants tend to make use of a monopoly of force to keep their power. So, the US Constitution includes a little provision to prevent the government from having a monopoly on force. I appreciate the idea.
Unfortunately, the US is filled with entirely too many highstrung, scared, insecure, and/or apocalyptic nutcases... who, almost sadly, have the freedom to be highstrung, scared, insecure, and/or apocalyptic nutcases with guns.
So, consider me an overly idealistic Constitution nut if you must.
Oh, and I'm also an agnostic atheist, by the way.
-Triften
After considered this issue for a while, having largely remained a fence sitter, I've arrived at the conclusion that I do not like personal firearms.
People are presumably familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma? This is what you are effectively creating when you draw a firearm on an assailant. Will is precisely correct: you will only ever succeed in escalating the situation.
I mean, let's consider the 2 different scenarios:
1) You are not armed, your assailant is armed. Your assailant is aware that they have the advantage over you and that there are considerable complications and consequences if they kill you. Their best bet, therefore, is to simply maintain the advantage while accomplishing their agenda.
2) You are armed, your assailant is armed. Now things are much more dicey - neither party has the advantage by default (unless we go for some scale-tipping scenario, but then we're not making an objective measurement), so it is a bad move to simply withdraw your own firearm because you're giving the other party the advantage. Now the complications and consequences that may have held the assailant at bay in scenario 1 no longer hold their own weight because there are much greater consequences if you opt not to shoot while the other party does.
You'll even note that this is exactly what gun proponents argue for - having the opportunity to shoot first (in otherwise, absolute admission that escalation would be their preferred means for ending the situation).
To put it simply: If you are met by an armed assailant while you are unarmed, you may be shot, but it is not likely because it is not in the best interest of said assailant. If yo are met by an armed assailant while you yourself are armed, you are all but guaranteed to be shot at, as it is in the best interest of said assailant.
Even giving the armed victim the benefit of the doubt and presuming they would be the victor after the bullets are done flying, it would not be a particularly heroic moment. You'll have just killed or maimed someone's child, someone's friend, possibly someone's spouse and/or parent, and scared the living Hell out of anyone in your proximity. It's easy enough to say, 'Well, them's the breaks,' right up until you hear the story of the person you decided to take the liberty of blowing away and discover that they were not the one-dimensional movie extra bad guy that you thought they were.
In the instances of sociopathic rapists or murderers (or both), the kind of assailant that you'd likely feel the least sympathy for and is arguably the most dangerous to an unarmed person, you might consider:
Ted Bundy never used a gun, and a firearm is not helpful after you're already unconscious from a blow to the head by the cast the man used to deceive you into helping him with his bags of groceries. It is not typical for someone who's intent is strictly to kill or otherwise do harm to offer a victim any opportunity to retaliate or scream for help; while it's fun from a literary perspective to fantasize about the notorious serial killer breaking into the wrong house or surprising the wrong lone girl and having a baretta unloaded into his gut, it never happens, even in countries where gun ownership is high (likes the States), and it's obvious why after one does some reading. Guns are not a significant asset when one is ambushed, drugged, attacked while asleep in bed, etc.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
You are incorrect.
You are walking down the street just to enjoy the weather, firearm holstered. I'm a sociopathic serial killer with a simple kitchen knife I have held behind my back, leaning against a bus stop shelter and just smiling while I wait for you to get within arm's reach. As you walk by, I stab you in the back, and proceed to repeat this process until you are dead.
How has your firearm conferred an advantage to you?
Again, this is incorrect.
Please review the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Moreover... what does shooting a person in the leg do, by chance (aside from perhaps causing them to bleed to death from a severed artery after they have shot you in turn a few times)?
And where would you simply 'need a gun'?
You're a girl at a bar. You have a firearm holstered at your side. The rapist who's been flirting with you buys you a drink, drugs it, and you drink it. He hauls you out of the club, rapes you in his vehicle, and leaves you naked in the back alley.
How was your firearm beneficial to you?
You're Joni Lenz. In a short distortion of the original story, you have a gun loaded and ready to go right under your pillow. While you're sleeping, Ted Bundy enters your home, walks into your room, bludgeons you with a metal rod from your bed frame and rapes you with a speculum, leaving you nearly dead.
How was your firearm beneficial to you?
If this were true than the evidence would correspond with it - and yet it doesn't. We have no contemporary accounts at all of a home invasion being thwarted by a home owner with a firearm, and again, it's obvious why: the perpetrator of a home invasion is not going to be interested in affording you the opportunity to use a weapon against them. Most home owners are surprised in their sleep or therwise caught in at an unprepared time (Consider even the most simplistic of scenarios: I ring your doorbell. You answer. I stab you in the gut. Even if you have a firearm holstered right at your side, it's been rendered completely useless)
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Oh my God! More hypotheticals. Of course the gun didn't help me in any of those examples. Why do you even ask? You already typed out the entire event. I end up getting slaughtered in all of them without even having the chance to draw my firearm.
What does this accomplish?! I can just as easily whip up a batch of counterexamples, featuring me gunning down my attackers or resolving a situation peacefully with a firearm.
Why does the assailant have to have a gun? Why does he have to know that I have a gun? How does he know I have a gun?
How is it a bad move to withdraw my firearm? I only have two choices. Either I withdraw or don't withdraw. If I withdraw, I'll have a scenario identical to the scenario in 1). This gives me a choice of firearm or no firearm, whereas, in the first scenario, I didn't even have a choice.
What consequences? Moral consequences? What? People will get mad at me? I'll hate myself for withdrawing? If I thought the assailant was going to shoot me if I withdrew, then I wouldn't have withdrawn. At every single step, you're just manipulating the situation to make it as beneficial as possible for your position.
I'm almost certain that you're incorrect here, but I'm too lazy to research it.
I'll come back to this.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Liar. There is no nice way to say it, you are just a liar. Come on, man. At least pick beleivable lies. Was this serious? Maybe you were joking. Please tell me you don't really believe this.
You never used game theory at all. Have you ever noticed that the prisoner's dilemma has more than two outcomes? Did you somehow forget to set up the other two possible outcome? If we are really going to use game theory here lets do it right. There needs to be four outcomes, depending on who is or isn't armed.
Outcome 1: no on is armed; tie (I know, not really a 'tie,' but we have to define better or worse situations for game theory, this is a middlish one)
Outcome 2: you are not armed, burglar is; you lose, but they will probably just take your stuff and leave or rape you and leave, so you aren't going to die
Outcome 3: you are armed, burglar isn't; you win (again, you haven't 'won' anything, that's just the way things will be described here)
Outcome 4: both people are armed; tie, but a different kind of tie than the first one since someone might die, a rape might become a murder or a rapist might be shot who knows, lets keep in mind that burglars and rapists aren't trying to get into gun fights, even if they are armed they would likely flee rather than get into a shootout with you
I have chosen to place my selves in outcomes 3 or 4. Other people chose outcomes 1 or 2. If you think that outcomes 1 and 2 are best for you then don't get a gun, but don't tell me not to own one.
And can we all stop the silly situations? Lets all just agree that everyone can think up a lot of bizarre scenarios in which a gun would be worthless or bad or scenarios in which a gun would be a life saver (ie, tweaker breaks into your place to steal some stuff, he sees you and draws a knife, he then notices you have a gun, he runs or is killed, end of problem). We can all dream up these wacky situations, but they honestly have nothing to do with gun control laws or the utility of owning firearms. I will never dream up a scenario that convinces anti-firearm ownership people here that owning guns is a good idea. No one here will ever dream up a scenario that convinces me that I need to get rid of my gun for my own safety.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Rubbish. I am well aware of the outdated constitution you cling to. Get with the times. You as much as admit it, by saying the US is filled with entirely too many highstrung.... etc.
Are you dutifully obeying your constitution or do you just like having a gun?
The moronic link between an armed populace and tyrany prevention is outdated paranoid crap. You all know it. So let us not speak of it again.
Here is a snap. An armed population of fucktards is a perfect environment for the rise of a Tyrant not the prevention of one.
Here is another one for your gun metal grey matter. Your government DOES have a monopoly on force, domestic and global, and IS behaving like a Tyrant. Where is the mob? Upsizing their Big Mac meal.
So -Armed populace prevents tyrany and a monopoly of force by government? Fail.
The way you prevent that is by educating. Like I am doing to you know. (I require a contraversial audience response here like when Peggy says something antagonising to Al on Married with Children)
There is no argument.
You are not allowed to speak anymore.
It is fun to get personal.
Please don't over react, I am being light hearted.
Or perhaps do over react, and let the exchange continue.
I think I may refer to your genetic health in my next tirade.
Anyway, the founders of the US were against taxes, not tyrany. The powers of the US President are massive compared to us sensible nations who limit our leaders and don't like guns.
I am agnostic sober and atheist when drunk.
Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?
I'll definitely try. It's really starting to piss me off.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
This is going to be off topic, but I just noticed this signature. What are you trying to accomplish here? This doesn't address Pineapple's theism; it seems to be nothing more than a personal attack.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Entirely on topic photo that is in no way ment to express a well thought out point...
It's one thing, of course, to simply spout, 'LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!', and another entirely to defend that charge.
So, by all means:
Give examples of contemporary accounts where a home owner has driven-off a home invader with a personal firearm.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It's addressing her social views, in which all fun things are bad, terrible and dangerous. I thought that quote summed-up most of her arguments in a nutshell rather nicely.
And, of course, it's also poking fun at her, as you pointed-out.
EDIT: *facepalms*
Wait. You were asking a rhetorical question. What you were implying was that the signature offended you, correct?
Here. I'll change it to something else.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940