General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

facepalm.jpg

Don, if you're not willing to confine the debate to something within the realm of reality, I see no reason to continue any further.

I am sorry that my ignorance offends.

Actually no, there's the Geneva Convention, though often times that gets ignored.

In a real war, no one gives a shit about the Geneva convention. Hell, just look at the Bush presidency.

Pepper spray's range is extremely short, nor is it guaranteed immediate incapacitation like you see on TV, many can function just fine even after being sprayed, and the period of incapacitation can also be very short. It's a last-resort type of defense that may or may not work.

Taser is the same. Very short range for the shooting type, which is also worthless when there are multiple assailants. The period of incapacitation is even shorter, which practically ends as soon as the charge is stopped. A taser is designed more for LE use where others can move in to subdue the target while he/she is incapacitated. Also, just like pepper spray, some people just aren't going to be affected by them, or they could just be wearing thick clothing, at which point your shooty taser becomes a toy gun.

Things like Rape happen exclusively at short range. Last time I checked, you can't have sex remotely. Same goes for assault.

As for other motives for crime, give up your money. Killing another man just to save a few shekels is what I call misplaced priorities.

transplant the population of the L.A. or Detroit or Chicago etc. metropolitan area to Ireland, and we'll see how long your police keep on not carrying guns

What do you know about Ireland? Don't assume things about other people's countries. The people here are no different from America, we just enjoy eating potatoes more.

fixed, do not confuse your ideals as everyone else's

Who are you to judge the worth of another man's life? Who are you to judge whether or not another man deserves death? Who are you to mete out justice?

Let me tell you, just like me, you are nothing, you know nothing and you can judge nothing. Your perception is limited to what is front in you. We are not fit to have the privilege of meting out the ultimate retribution that is death. We cannot be trusted with it.

Because that is exactly what a gun is, the ability to inflict death on any man quickly, easily, and whenever you like. When you give a man, you give the ability to do so without the other person even having the chance to defend himself (look at what happened at these places, these are people that felt their fellow man deserved death, and used the tools their society gave them)

And if we talk about defense, the blood of the man you kill just to keep your paws on a bit of money, will be on your hands, not mine. Will you feel guilt knowing you could have killed someone's father, brother or son? Knowing that maybe he had just fallen on bad times, and could have maybe reformed himself if given the chance, knowing that you killed him, just so he wouldn't take the measly hundred dollars in your wallet?

One should not spout off on the practical ability of nonlethal forces when one doesn't have a single clue as to their real-world performance and application potential. As I've already addressed earlier in this post, what you're claiming here is pure fantasy.

Same to you. All I know, is my police, well versed in matters of self defence can carry out their jobs quite well with only 4 things: A baton, pepper spray, tasers and a knife proof vest. If it's good enough for them, why isn't good enough for you? Why do you need to have the ability to kill other people?

Tell me, are you sure civilians would do so well in a gunfight, when even the police (who train extensively for this kind of thing) have poor accuracy?

Sometimes that is true, other times it is not, and that is the reality of the world we live in.

The ultimate sin to kill. When a man mugs you, he takes a week of your earnings. When you kill, you are taking decadesfrom him. You are stealing his life.

Tell me, how can it be right to kill another in retaliation for such crimes as stealing or robbery?

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Reagan wasn't shot by a sniper. The guy opened fire at him with a revolver at close range outside the hotel Reagan was leaving and MISSED all his shots. However one bullet ricocheted of the side of the president's limousine and struck him under his left arm and lodged itself in his lung. Additionally, three other people around, a policeman, a Secret Service agent and White House Press Secretary James Brady, were all hit once each. Brady became permanently disabled after that.

Sorry for the error.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Hear that, everyone? GundamFan0083 says that we have enough laws on the books. The ultimate authority on gun laws and the dictator of society says that we have enough, so wrap it up - no more gun laws.

Get real. Society determines whether we have enough laws - not you.

Nice childish start to your retort.
All of the relevent studies on the subject have shown that gun control has failed to deter violent crime.
Therefore, there is no need to pass any more useless laws.
"Society" as you keep referring to it, doesn't make the rules in a constitutional republic. The contract that created that republic does.
Our contract, the constitution, protects the right of citizens to own weaponry and SCOTUS has upheld that.
So stop with the useless claptrap about me being a dictator.
I didn't hold the SCOTUS at gunpoint to make them judge in favor of Heller and I wasn't even alive when the Miller case was decided on (1939).

For better or for worse, laws aren't set in stone.

Thank goodness, because there are many gun laws that need to be overhauled and/or repealed in this country.

Oh, how wonderful. I'm sorry that I don't live in that black and white world, as nice as it sounds. I support freedom, but I don't do so blindly. If misuse of guns begin to threaten people's freedom to live their lives without having to worry about some random madman gunning them down, then I think that their place in society should be re-evaluated.

That is a fallacy.
Freedom does not garauntee you any semblance of safety or protection from attack. That is propaganda perpetuated by morons like those at the DailyKos.
Freedom is not free, it's price is eternal vigilance and that includes in your daily life.

The way you've presented it, you're basically arguing for the freedom to own a toy that can injure and kill others. What a freedom to have.

Anyone who refers to a firearm, or any weapon, as a toy needs to do some serious growing up.

I don't claim that anyone is stupid. Have you never been in a movie theater? Have you never felt the adrenaline rush when you thought that you were going to die?

I'll stop you right there.
I've been in a similar situation, as I already mentioned and my instinct was to flee when I was not armed, and to fight when I was, so yes I would fight in that situation.
What others would do is known only to them.

I'm not...grounded to reality.

Clearly you're not, just by what you post.

How many times do I have to repeat this line? I am not arguing that a ban on guns will affect the rates of violence. Read that over a few times, I don't want any pro-gun advocate to try and argue that point with me again on this thread unless I really do use it as an argument.

That's because if you had to argue based on the effects of gun control on crime you would have to admit your argument is lost.
Non-partisan studies have already determined gun control has no effect on violent crime.
Suicides yes, it does reduce suicide of men over 55, but that's not the issue here.

I agree with you in terms of reducing violence and crime, but your waving off gun control only works if you assume that the purpose of banning guns is to reduce crime and violence.

And that's not what I've been arguing.

I don't think you know what you're arguing.
You come off like a hoplophobe because you want to restrict/ban firearms but not due to crime?
See, that's how I know you're not thinking logically about this.
You keep posting about how you don't want to hear about violent crime, and then start talking about how we need to reduce deaths by firearms because of violent crime.
Which is it?
Your argument is a nonsequitor, you lead in with "I'm not talking about violent crime," only to say later "if we can just stop all the deaths from firearm related violence."
It makes you look like a schizophrenic.

I'm not going to deny that some people - perhaps many people - operate based off of fear. I'd appreciate it if you'd be open enough to admit and accept that some people have moved beyond that, and are not primarily motivated by fear.

Why would I be open to accepting a lie?

The reason why it's a big deal is because the world has changed a lot since the country's founding. Weaponry and combat equipment has advanced. The weapons that the government holds cost too much for individuals to have access to, they require too much training to operate and maintain, and they're far too dangerous to allow into the hands of just anyone in society. (Go ahead and argue that last point - I know you want to - and tell me why you think your neighbor should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead.)

You just stepped on a landmine Legem.
The founders of this country owned cannons, and in some cases merchant-marine warships, so don't go into what kinds of weapons they owned. And don't give me the "the founders knew nothing of rapid fire weapons" because I already blew that stupid argument out of the water in this thread.

There is a litmus test for what arms are allowed and the US vs. Miller case created it.
That test is as follows.
Is a weapon useful to the militia?
To answer that, we need to know what kinds of weapons the militia are supposed to have.
That is determined by Article 1, section 8, of the US constitution.
The weapon must be:

a) In general use by military forces of the day.
b) Useful to uphold the laws of the Union.
c) Useful to put down insurrections.
d) Useful to repel invasions.

That's it.
Is a nuclear weapon good for any of that?
No.
Is a chemical weapon good for any of that?
No.
Is a biological weapon good for any of that?
No.
How about a tank?
Not all three of them, probably just one, so no.
How about a warship?
No.
How about a jet fighter?
Again, just one of them (invasion), so no.
How about an attack helicopter?
No.
How about an APC?
Maybe, depends what it is armed with, so that one is conditional.
Grenades?
Smoke only, frag or other types would only be useful to repel an invasion.
Assault rifle?
Yes, it can be used for all three.
Semi-auto military style weapon?
Absolutely.
Hunting weapons?
No, they cannot adequately perform two of the three tasks (invasion and insurrection).

The opinion handed down by SCOTUS in US vs. Miller is what set the presedence for that litmus test.

Do you really think that armed citizens could unite and organize enough to take down the government? Really?

Depends.
If only a few hundred thousand were to fight?
Then no.
If say, 10% of gun owners fought.
Then absolutely yes, this government would be overthrown.

If I'm a serf, what does that make you - a paranoid, antisocial man who needs the grown-up version of a security blanket in order to leave his house?

I'm not the one worried about somebody jumping out at me and gunning me down.
That paranoia belongs to people who are afraid of firearms and thus calling for gun control.
Secure persons aren't afraid of inanimate objects, they are only concerned with things that can actually hurt them--you know, other people.

Wow, I never expected to find this trash written on AnimeSuki.

Truth hurts doesn't it?
I've been comparing your arguments to those on BradyCampaign, GunPolicyCenter, and other sources of hoplophobic propaganda. Funny how your posts mirror what is on those sites.
You labeled yourself a collectivist, so you only have yourself to blame for that.
Collectivism is not compatible with the US constitution nor the Declaration as it protects "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (taken from John Locke).
So yes, collectivism by its very nature is anti-American.

I lean against it, particularly since I am keenly aware of police brutality.

Holy crap we agree.

But then I hear about these fools who talk about civil war, or our own home-grown terrorists who want to rip up the government. I do not identify with those people. They are not fighting for me, and I do not want them to impose their way of life upon me. They might as well be the Taliban, wanting to impose Sharia law. When I read those types of news articles, I begin to lean toward feeling that it's all right. I trust the police more than I trust those types of people.

This is why I fight so hard for the right to own arms.
I see it as a deterent to exactly that kind of scenario.
I don't want to live under a right-wing Theocracy any more than you do, and I sure as hell don't want to live under a statist government of any kind.

I know of the "armed society is a polite society" concept. I don't think that it's an unrealistic notion, either.

That quote was from Heinlein. He was a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment.

However, the way this is worded is revealing. The idea that an armed society is a polite society means that everyone treats everyone else with respect and care, because they know that a confrontation could lead to a worst-case scenario where someone dies or is seriously hurt. If you say "I feel at peace because if someone attacks me, I can defend myself," your statement indicates that you're already thinking about being attacked. This isn't about a polite society - this is now about you getting attacked, and being able to ward off your attacker. I think you know the definition of paranoia. I don't think that this man is paranoid, but those are some paranoid thoughts.

Being aware of your surroundings and being prepared at all times is the first rule of most Martial Arts (Tai Kwon Do, Krav Maga, Judo, Kung Fu, and Shotokan Karate).
Are those practitioners all paranoid?
My teacher of Krav Maga instructs all of his students to purchase a firearm and learn how to use it.
Does that make him paranoid?
No, it doesn't, nor does it make me or anyone else who wishes to be safe in our daily lives. You cannot take back a bad situation once it starts, and if you cannot escape, you must deal with it. If you face an attacker with weapon, and you lack equal force, you are probably going to be injured or killed.

Here we are back at violent crime again.
I thought your argument wasn't about homicide?

I don't need to make that claim, because your counter-argument makes absolutely no sense.

And your straw man burns because the small percentage that use firearms irresponsibly are...you guessed it...criminals.
You have said numerous times in your last post alone, that you ARE NOT CONCERNED about violent crime.
So stop trying to use it as a basis for your argument.
You cannot have it both ways.

Wow, "only 600 deaths per year." 600 is larger than my entire high school population was. I suppose you could have dropped a bomb on my school and people would have said "ah what ever, it was less than 600 kids that died."

600 get's you all weepy huh?
Gee, how many lives have been terminated by abortion?
Oh that's right, about 53 million, but that doesn't bother you correct?
That's a lot of fetuses that would have become people.
Now I ask you again, how can you support abortion on the one hand, but get bent out of shape by 600 people dying accidentally on the other?
I have no problem with the deaths of 53 million babies who were unwanted, I also have no problem with accidents since you know, they're accidental.

Are you out of your mind? The fact that the number is "only" 600 (a number seems damn big to be for being limited to accidental shooting deaths) means that gun legislation should be a low priority compared to other areas of society. We're not arguing about what legislative priority should be, though. This thread is all about guns.

No, this thread is about gun control.
The fact is, using that fuzzy logic of yours, we should ban everything from cars, to fatty foods, to unprotected sex, anal sex, anything that can cause death.
And you call me paranoid, that's funny.

So tell me, if those 600 deaths could be reduced to zero, don't you think that it would be worth it? Oh, we don't necessarily need to restrict guns in order to get that number down to zero... but don't you think it's worthwhile to avoid preventable deaths?

Not when the lives saved by guns considerably outweighs the number accidentally taken by them.
No.

I thought you said it was because I was an anti-American, freedom-hating socialist

No I said you were a hoplophobe, there's a difference.
And I would never call you a communist, they at least know the value of guns.
Mao: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Smart man, a monster, but smart nonetheless.

In all seriousness, what is so hard to understand here? A large number of people die or are seriously injured each year of multiple causes. If we can do something to prevent those from happening, why shouldn't we?

Of which guns are only a very small portion--accident wise--since you aren't talking about violent crime, right?

I don't particularly care about gun ownership. I care about guns that are used inappropriately.

Who cares what you care about?
Who appointed you dictator for life?

So deflate that sense of self-important authority and rejoin the rest of us.

Pot...meet kettle.

Seriously though, why do police have guns? Surely you realize that an armed police force is not a universal feature of societies that have police. So why do our police have guns?

Because of Richard Nixon's fucking drug war, that's why.
It turned the gangs in this country into millionaires overnight and allowed them the money to arm themselves to the teeth with military weapons.
You want to reduce deaths from firearms, end the drug war.

What do you mean, "not many"? Are the criminals in Colorado honorable or something?

No, they're just scared shitless of being shot.

Security blanket. Were you safer when you were shot at in the Applebee's parking lot? Fat lot of good your gun did then, didn't it? And yet because that asshole was allowed to have a gun and because he couldn't keep his shit together, bullets were fired your way. Yet somehow you say you feel safer? This seems very short-sighted to me.

You butched that one.
I lived in Mass back then and couldn't own a gun, neither could the guy that shot at me.
He didn't follow the law, I did.
I had to run for my car and get out of there as fast as I could.
After that I promised myself I would never be a victim...ever.
That's part of why I moved out here to CO.
When I got accosted at the 7/11, my revolver saved my life.
Those two men were armed, and there is no way I was going to risk having to rely on their "kindness" to stay alive.
So yes, in my case, I'd probably be dead right now if not for my .357.

Based on the webpage that you linked, 600 people are killed from firearm-related accidents. The number of homicides linked to hanguns is approximately 8,000, and there's about another 3,000-4,000 homicides linked to "other guns". But go ahead and tell me about how 11,000-13,000 lives is nothing compared to auto accidents or some completely unrelated thing that people die from.

So now you're talking about homicides again?
See, this is why I told you you lost the argument.
You can't even follow your own line of thinking.
You're all over the place, jumping from safety, to crime, to society's duties, and all manner of other nonsense when only one thing needs to be addressed.
Does gun control effect crime?
No, every study shows it does not.
End of debate.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I am sorry that my ignorance offends.

I don't need an apology, I would rather you stick to facts and do your homework first when you participate in a debate.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

In a real war, no one gives a shit about the Geneva convention. Hell, just look at the Bush presidency.

The Geneva Convention as it exists today was negotiated and signed AFTER THE END of WW2.

On your second allegation, I have much less polite word I would like to use here with your not-so-thinly-veiled implications, but as someone who's actually spent time on the ground in those war zones, the Allied/US military very much followed the Geneva Convention most of the time, with some unfortunate exceptions. The insurgents however, indeed did not give a shit about the Geneva Convention

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Things like Rape happen exclusively at short range. Last time I checked, you can't have sex remotely. Same goes for assault.

You completely missed the point here, which is not a surprise considering you've more than demonstrated you have zero knowledge pertaining to how any of these things work in real life.

In extreme close quarters, the defender have much less time to make his/her move, and if the countermeasure failed or was ineffective, they are extremely unlikely to get another chance before being overpowered or for the engagement to turn into a melee fight. In the case of pepper spray, if the defender was unable to properly spray the correct area, he/she is unlikely to have the chance to aim and spray again. In the case of someone who's resistant to pepper spray, they simply would not have the chance to seek out alternative methods of defense.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

As for other motives for crime, give up your money. Killing another man just to save a few shekels is what I call misplaced priorities.

The issue isn't about money vs. life, it is about your life vs. the criminals. Last time I checked there was no mind-reading device that will tell you what exactly the criminal is planning or a time machine that shows you what would happen later. You're literally basing your entire argument on the assumption that every criminal will ever only want your money and would never hurt or kill you if you give them the money, which is not only patently false, but is also so far into the realm of fantasy even magic ponies would think you're nuts.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

What do you know about Ireland? Don't assume things about other people's countries. The people here are no different from America, we just enjoy eating potatoes more.

I couldn't care less about Ireland, but I make my statement based on the assumption that even in Ireland, police officers would prefer not to die, which they certainly will if they try to work while being unarmed in the scenario i laid out before.

Also, you more than anyone else in this thread have been assuming the most
about "other people's countries", hypocrite much?

edit:
Well, another buddy of mine from Ireland has this to say about your claim that Ireland police "almost never have to carry guns":

"Down south yea, it's mostly rural communities you see. Up north and near the bigger cities no way", and "...Rose tinted glasses there. Dublin's just like any other capital city in a first world country".

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Who are you to judge the worth of another man's life? Who are you to judge whether or not another man deserves death? Who are you to mete out justice?

Again, you've missed the point here. Nowhere in any of my post would you ever see me "judging" the worth of another's life, or whether they deserve to die. The only thing I've been advocating for is people's right to defend THEIR OWN PERSON and THEIR OWN LIFE.

The only person here that's doing any "judging" here is actually you, by placing the value of the criminal's life on a pedestal, while relegating the value of the victim's life to the second tier.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Let me tell you, just like me, you are nothing, you know nothing and you can judge nothing. Your perception is limited to what is front in you. We are not fit to have the privilege of meting out the ultimate retribution that is death. We cannot be trusted with it.

Oh ffs, get off your philosophical soap box, and then maybe you can actually start to read and comprehend what others are saying. Ideally I would agree with you that it'd be best if there is no need for weapons, no war, and no one would ever get killed, but that's not the debate here, which is about gun policy in the real world.

In the real world, humans aren't angels. We have wars, famine, the have and the have not, and yes, criminals who WOULD kill their victims, regardless of whether they complied with their demand or not.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

And if we talk about defense, the blood of the man you kill just to keep your paws on a bit of money, will be on your hands, not mine.

Yes, because ALL cases of self-defense is ALWAYS about the "bit of money" you have on your person

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Will you feel guilt knowing you could have killed someone's father, brother or son? Knowing that maybe he had just fallen on bad times, and could have maybe reformed himself if given the chance, knowing that you killed him, just so he wouldn't take the measly hundred dollars in your wallet?

Not one bit, because if I had drew my weapon and fired at someone, it would've been because I were protecting myself, my family, or another person from imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Same to you. All I know, is my police, well versed in matters of self defence can carry out their jobs quite well with only 4 things: A baton, pepper spray, tasers and a knife proof vest. If it's good enough for them, why isn't good enough for you? Why do you need to have the ability to kill other people?

Tell me, are you sure civilians would do so well in a gunfight, when even the police (who train extensively for this kind of thing) have poor accuracy?

police, train extensively for "this kind of thing"? lololol

you know even less about how police departments operate They're not exactly special force operators and gets to spend however much time training and shooting whenever they want (same in the military). Actual department required training/qualification is pitifully little, your typical civilian gun enthusiasts are likely to have FAR MORE range time than what normal police department's mandated training dictates.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The ultimate sin to kill. When a man mugs you, he takes a week of your earnings. When you kill, you are taking decadesfrom him. You are stealing his life.

Tell me, how can it be right to kill another in retaliation for such crimes as stealing or robbery?
Sorry for the error.

I'm not gonna keep repeating myself, I've already address these points earlier in this post.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'll stop you right there.
I've been in a similar situation, as I already mentioned and my instinct was to flee when I was not armed, and to fight when I was, so yes I would fight in that situation.
What others would do is known only to them.

I bolded that last part because I'd like to encourage that line of thought. That's intellectual honesty - you're able to say things about yourself, and you recognize that it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That's because if you had to argue based on the effects of gun control on crime you would have to admit your argument is lost.

Hey guy, how about instead of telling me about how arguments that I'm not making are bad, you stick to discussing the arguments that I am making?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I don't think you know what you're arguing.
You come off like a hoplophobe because you want to restrict/ban firearms but not due to crime?
See, that's how I know you're not thinking logically about this.

No, it shows how badly you want to talk about the crime argument.

Let me try and explain this one to you. Crime is crime, and it occurs regardless of what weapons are available. Even if people had nothing but their fists, there would be crime. Agree? In some crimes it's simply a matter of property being stolen; in other crimes, people get hurt. Put a powerful weapon into people's hands, and what do you think will happen when those crimes take place? The magnitude of damage inflicted is increased. The ease with which a life can be taken is increased. This is pure logic.

Your argument against it is that allowing for force to be equalized is a method to guard against that. I have not argued that it isn't (although I take issue with the unrealistic manner with which you claim it protects you). However, the other argument is that we can guard against it by keeping these weapons out of people's hands. Now don't get too excited: this isn't stretching to say that firearms should be entirely banned from society. What it is saying is that if we reduce their numbers, the chances of their being used in crimes (but not the number of crimes) will decrease. This is also pure logic.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You just stepped on a landmine Legem.
The founders of this country owned cannons, and in some cases merchant-marine warships, so don't go into what kinds of weapons they owned.

Cannons were pretty powerful, but standard infantry could overrun them. And yeah, those warships were great on land, weren't they? Real terrors. No, the balance of military power between then and now can't even be compared, and as someone who knows about weapons, I'm surprised you even want to argue it.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'm not the one worried about somebody jumping out at me and gunning me down.
That paranoia belongs to people who are afraid of firearms and thus calling for gun control.
Secure persons aren't afraid of inanimate objects, they are only concerned with things that can actually hurt them--you know, other people.

Hold on a second. You said that you moved to Colorado specifically after your encounter with the armed shooter in Massachusetts, so that you could own a gun and "never be a victim again." And now you're saying that you're not the one worried about somebody jumping out and gunning you down? And somehow you're implying that I am afraid and insecure, even though I head out each day without a gun and without ever thinking that I'll be a victim?

I'd laugh at how absurd that is, but I'm more concerned because you don't seem to understand how disconnected your thoughts are. A bit of paranoia is good and healthy, and I'm not making fun of you for it, but let's call it for what it is, OK?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Truth hurts doesn't it?
I've been comparing your arguments to those on BradyCampaign, GunPolicyCenter, and other sources of hoplophobic propaganda. Funny how your posts mirror what is on those sites.

I'm not familiar with those sites that you've listed... however, that probably explains why you've had such a damn hard time letting go of the "guns = crime" argument that I never made. You're on autopilot, responding to those sites instead of to me.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You labeled yourself a collectivist, so you only have yourself to blame for that.
Collectivism is not compatible with the US constitution nor the Declaration as it protects "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
(taken from John Locke).
So yes, collectivism by its very nature is anti-American.

Um, dude? America is a country. Do you know what a country is? It's a society made up of people who live together to make life easier (or even possible). That I am a collectivist just means that I care about the people around me and am occasionally willing to put their needs above my own - that you seem to pride yourself on being self-centered and selfish doesn't make you any less a part of this society, as much as you might rail against it. You need society to live. It's a crazy world where the selfish who don't give a rat's rear about anyone but themselves can call their fellow countrymen who care deeply for the society "anti-American."

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

600 get's you all weepy huh?
Gee, how many lives have been terminated by abortion?

Nice distractor. Two points:

1) The abortion argument is totally separate from this, and hinges on your personal belief as to when life begins. No human can truly say when life begins, but many arrogant fools like to proclaim a certain time and then act as if their view is the ultimate truth. I clearly do not view life as beginning at the same time as you do, therefore I do not recognize your claim about "lives being terminated."

2) You've tried these types of distractors before, such as bringing up deaths related to automobile accidents. I know you're not stupid, so why are you acting like we can only focus on one thing at a time? If you want to discuss ways to reduce auto-related deaths, start a thread for it and we can discuss it there. We're talking about guns in this thread. A preventable death due to a gun is just as tragic as a preventable death due to some other cause, and I think we can all agree that we should always strive to eliminate those deaths as much as we possibly can.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The fact is, using that fuzzy logic of yours, we should ban everything from cars, to fatty foods, to unprotected sex, anal sex, anything that can cause death.
And you call me paranoid, that's funny.

Nope, it's about reducing to avoid preventable deaths. Should we ban cars? No, but we can set lower speed limits in areas with high incidences of accidents. Should we ban fatty foods? No, but we can encourage businesses to avoid using them, and we can encourage people to reduce their intake. Ban unprotected sex? No, but we can try to reduce its occurrence by teaching people about protection.

Ban guns? No, but we can reduce their numbers, and in doing so we might be able to knock out some of those preventable deaths that are related to them.

If anyone besides GundamFan0083 and LostCause thinks the line of reasoning I've prevented above represents "fuzzy logic" please say so. kyp275, I would appreciate your input and reasoning.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No I said you were a hoplophobe, there's a difference.
And I would never call you a communist, they at least know the value of guns.

Ah geez, the "c" word. For some reason, I hear that term when I know that Americans have stopped thinking. The term I used was "socialist." Let's see where we're at now: "Anti-American" and "freedom-hating" have made an appearance, and now it seems we're on the verge of being called communists... slow down, GundamFan0083, slow down.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Who appointed you dictator for life?

You didn't hear? The inauguration was yesterday. I would have invited you to the party, but you know... the guest list was pretty big, and the venue was only medium-sized, we could barely fit everyone in there, and I wouldn't have wanted a dear friend of mine to be seated outside...

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Because of Richard Nixon's fucking drug war, that's why.
It turned the gangs in this country into millionaires overnight and allowed them the money to arm themselves to the teeth with military weapons.
You want to reduce deaths from firearms, end the drug war.

Yes, that's one possible way. I agree with you here.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

So now you're talking about homicides again?
See, this is why I told you you lost the argument.
You can't even follow your own line of thinking.

Nah, I actually misread what you wrote and thought that you were trying to claim that there were only 600 firearm-related deaths per year. It would have fit along nicely with your narrative about how "more lives are saved by guns than taken by guns," backed by the gunssavelives.net website count of 500+ (speaking of which, I can't find their counter anymore - what happened?). This was my mistake, although I still think you're a bit of a callous jerk for thinking that 600 lives isn't a big deal, especially since those are deaths that we could really do something about and we don't have to ban or reduce guns to put a dent in them. Yet instead you're waving that number away completely, instead of coming up with ideas.

I didn't reply to a number of your paragraphs because I'm trying to keep my post length down. Rest assured, I didn't leave things out because I had no retort. If you felt that I bypassed a winning argument, let me know and I'll respond specifically to it.

[Daniel E.]

@ Ledgem, GundamFan0083: Please drop the sarcastic remarks already. I gave you both a warning by deleting your previous posts, but you are now back at each other throats.

Other people are also resorting to this and the same warning goes for them. Please stop doing this already.

[Ithekro]

You didn't hear? The inauguration was yesterday. I would have invited you to the party, but you know... the guest list was pretty big, and the venue was only medium-sized, we could barely fit everyone in there, and I wouldn't have wanted a dear friend of mine to be seated outside...

The food was terrible. I won't sit for a dictator that can't get food on the table.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Daniel E.

@ Ledgem, GundamFan0083: Please drop the sarcastic remarks already. I gave you both a warning by deleting your previous posts, but you are now back at each other throats.

Other people are also resorting to this and the same warning goes for them. Please stop doing this already.

Aw, it's all in good fun... but all right, I'll do my best to avoid it.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The food was terrible. I won't sit for a dictator that can't get food on the table.

It... it wasn't me! I was set up by a group that just wanted to make me look bad so that they could try to tell the world about how I'm a failure and lack experience! Rest assured, the food...

... will be better next time.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

If anyone besides GundamFan0083 and LostCause thinks the line of reasoning I've prevented above represents "fuzzy logic" please say so. kyp275, I would appreciate your input and reasoning.

While I certainly don't agree with all the points you've made, but you do generally construct your arguments well

It does no one any good to have the debate devolve into another typical shouting match on the interwebs where everyone can only hear their own voice.

Ultimately it's a simple matter of where everyone drew their line. Gundam and Don represents the two opposite extreme ends in this thread, while me and you are more towards the center, albeit still on opposite side of the spectrum.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I don't need an apology, I would rather you stick to facts and do your homework first when you participate in a debate.

I make mistakes, I am only human. If I make an error, simply enlighten me in my ignorance. We all here have things we know and do not know.

The Geneva Convention as it exists today was negotiated and signed AFTER THE END of WW2.

Most of the salient points (like treatment of POWS) were negotiated long before that. The first Geneva convention was signed in 1864. In major wars (WW1, WW2) enforcement tends to go out the window. And the geneva convention does a fat lot of security when you're afraid that if you surrender you'll only get shot. But this is all beside the point. We shouldn't make our rules regarding laws and society based on warzones. We don't live in a warzone.

In extreme close quarters, the defender have much less time to make his/her move, and if the countermeasure failed or was ineffective, they are extremely unlikely to get another chance before being overpowered or for the engagement to turn into a melee fight. In the case of pepper spray, if the defender was unable to properly spray the correct area, he/she is unlikely to have the chance to aim and spray again. In the case of someone who's resistant to pepper spray, they simply would not have the chance to seek out alternative methods of defense.

How is this any different with a gun?
[quote]
The issue isn't about money vs. life, it is about your life vs. the criminals. Last time I checked there was no mind-reading device that will tell you what exactly the criminal is planning or a time machine that shows you what would happen later. You're literally basing your entire argument on the assumption that every criminal will ever only want your money and would never hurt or kill you if you give them the money, which is not only patently false, but is also so far into the realm of fantasy even magic ponies would think you're nuts.[quote]You are equally assuming that all(or most) criminals are sadists. The vast majority of your regular variety of criminals are only in it for free stuff.

The Sadists, are more likely to strike you in such a way that it's difficult for you to defend yourself, gun or no gun. Because they're not in it for the money, they're in it to see you squirm.
[quote]
I couldn't care less about Ireland, but I make my statement based on the assumption that even in Ireland, police officers would prefer not to die, which they certainly will if they try to work while being unarmed in the scenario i laid out before.[quote] Police officers can be given guns under certain circumstances, for instance if they're raiding a criminal and they have good intelligence indicating they're armed.

Well, another buddy of mine from Ireland has this to say about your claim that Ireland police "almost never have to carry guns":

"Down south yea, it's mostly rural communities you see. Up north and near the bigger cities no way", and "...Rose tinted glasses there. Dublin's just like any other capital city in a first world country".

I've never lived outside Dublin, and I've never seen an armed policeman in my life. And I live in a fairly rough part (Shankill, if he's familiar) of Dublin. It's no Ballymun of course. In Northern Ireland they're armed, but they regularly have to deal with these guys.

Again, you've missed the point here. Nowhere in any of my post would you ever see me "judging" the worth of another's life, or whether they deserve to die. The only thing I've been advocating for is people's right to defend THEIR OWN PERSON and THEIR OWN LIFE.

By killing other people?

The only person here that's doing any "judging" here is actually you, by placing the value of the criminal's life on a pedestal, while relegating the value of the victim's life to the second tier.

I don't. But I place the criminal's life above the value of my own property, definitely.

Oh ffs, get off your philosophical soap box, and then maybe you can actually start to read and comprehend what others are saying. Ideally I would agree with you that it'd be best if there is no need for weapons, no war, and no one would ever get killed, but that's not the debate here, which is about gun policy in the real world.

As I see it, the basis for our law must be logically based on our ethics. How we regard matters of self defence is based on how we place value on human life. My only question is this: Under what circumstances can we justify the taking of human life? Can we justify it in defence of property? Can we justify it defence of our values? Can we justify it in defence of our person?

Also, if we could remove the vast bulk
Yes, because ALL cases of self-defense is ALWAYS about the "bit of money" you have on your person

Read the statistics. Most crimes are Burglaries, and thefts. Only a tenth of crimes are Aggravated Assault or Rape. And of course, a lot of those aggravated assaults are robberies that were escalated.

And most of the violent crimes are committed against you by people you know, not total strangers.

police, train extensively for "this kind of thing"? lololol

you know even less about how police departments operate They're not exactly special force operators and gets to spend however much time training and shooting whenever they want (same in the military). Actual department required training/qualification is pitifully little, your typical civilian gun enthusiasts are likely to have FAR MORE range time than what normal police department's mandated training dictates.

And what about the young guy with way too little range time whose balls are bigger then his brain? Is he going to make the situation better? There are a lot of gun owners who are great and skilled with a gun. And a lot who aren't. I'd say the proportion is similar to the Police, though the Police have a mandatory minimum level of training. Gun enthusiasts don't (Also, plenty of Police officers are gun enthusiasts too you know...)

I put more trust in my police officer then my fellow neighbourhood "vigilante". For one thing, I don't know what his motives are. He might at some point use that gun of his against me for his own personal vendetta. How can I have a civil disagreement with someone if he can drive round my house and put a gun to my head?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

But this is all beside the point. We shouldn't make our rules regarding laws and society based on warzones. We don't live in a warzone.

Indeed we don't, but it's important to keep in mind that we also don't live in an idealistic version of the world either.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

You are equally assuming that all(or most) criminals are sadists. The vast majority of your regular variety of criminals are only in it for free stuff.

Actually I'm not. Nowhere did I say that every common criminal is out to murder and rape and pillage. But it does happen everyday, because of the sheer number of crimes that takes place everyday.

It's also not a simple clear divide between criminals that are just in it to make some quick cash and sadists that are serial killers in the making. Most of the time it's simply a someone who's high on drugs, or is simply very nervous. Many common criminals, even when armed, often runs away when their would-be victims suddenly turned out to be armed. Other times though the nerves breaks down in the wrong way. As an example, last year a local off-duty police officer was robbed at a gas station, the guy actually started shooting AFTER the officer identified himself as a police officer.

Was the guy a sadist? no, he simply lost his nerve and panicked.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I've never lived outside Dublin, and I've never seen an armed policeman in my life. And I live in a fairly rough part (Shankill, if he's familiar) of Dublin. It's no Ballymun of course. In Northern Ireland they're armed, but they regularly have to deal with these guys.

/shrug, I've never lived in Ireland, but excuse me if I decide to take my friend's words for it over yours, unless you can find some sort of documentations about Ireland police's gun-adverse policy.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

By killing other people?
I don't. But I place the criminal's life above the value of my own property, definitely.

You're still not getting my point. The value of property is never even part of the consideration I'd make in that scenario. The only thing that would even be in my mind would be the protection of me and my family's life and person (or an innocent victim's), and in that equation, the criminal's life will always lose.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

As I see it, the basis for our law must be logically based on our ethics. How we regard matters of self defence is based on how we place value on human life.

a very important factor you're leaving out here is the value on the victim's life and personhood.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

My only question is this: Under what circumstances can we justify the taking of human life? Can we justify it in defence of property? Can we justify it defence of our values? Can we justify it in defence of our person?

This isn't really hard, just go take a look at the law pertaining to you, it's all written in there.

The long and short of it is all 3, depending on the circumstances. One key point you've seem not to notice so far: When you bestow upon the criminal an absolute inviolate protection, where they cannot be killed under any circumstances, you have effectively done the opposite to their victims. You'd grant criminals the guarantees that they will not be killed, yet say to their victims "tough luck"?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Read the statistics. Most crimes are Burglaries, and thefts. Only a tenth of crimes are Aggravated Assault or Rape. And of course, a lot of those aggravated assaults are robberies that were escalated.

again, so you'd tell those victims in 10% of all crimes (which btw, is actually a shit ton of people, especially since most rapes aren't even reported) "tough luck, hope the criminals were nice to ya"?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I put more trust in my police officer then my fellow neighbourhood "vigilante". For one thing, I don't know what his motives are. He might at some point use that gun of his against me for his own personal vendetta. How can I have a civil disagreement with someone if he can drive round my house and put a gun to my head?

So do I, but if you think your neighbor will pull a gun on you for a simple civil disagreement, I'd say you have bigger problems. If your neighbor is that crazy and is out to get you, you're in deep **** regardless whether he has a gun or not.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

It finally dawned on me the reason why random people commit random acts of pointless violence in the US; it is cultural issue. More specifically, it is the "I got mine, get yours, forget you" mentality that many Americans have, which causes people to dismiss the obvious warnings given by mentally unstable people before they go out on a rampage. Unless we are able to care collectively for each then there is no stopping these tragedies from occurring.

Where does this "epiphany" of mine fit into this thread? Simple, I believe that gun control laws will not prevent the root cause of the problem mentioned above. The root cause of acts of violence is individualism. If people believe that strict regulation will stop gun related violence, they are delusional. However, I do believe that regulating the kind of fire power a citizen should be allow to carry can make a significant difference in the number of lives saved.

Bill Clinton did just that, in 1994 he enacted the "Crime Bill" that limited magazine capacity to ten bullets. It sunset in 2004 and once again standard capacity mags were avilable to the public.
Speaking for myself here, I had no problem with the capacity limit, since neither if my carry guns were hi-capacity in the first place.

@Ledgem, I'm not playing your game anymore. I never said your logic was fuzzy, at least not in this thread. Now what I said to you in private, well that's between you and I. And my PM box is open!

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Indeed we don't, but it's important to keep in mind that we also don't live in an idealistic version of the world either.

Exactly. We can't use a magical rainbow pony model of the world. Nor can we think of the world as being so grim dark that everything is only ever brown or grey, and there's space marines everywhere.

The truth is somewhere in the middle (except for the ponies and space marines...).

We're arguing around a balance. On the one we have lives saved from guns. On the other Deaths caused by guns. I'm of the opinion that the former is negligible, and the latter is substantial. You may or may not disagree.

But I don't want this to devolve down statistics (for one thing, it's dull). But there is a balance here. Before I continue, I want to re-highlight that I am ignoring hunting and sport, which are entirely separate issues from guns for the purposes of self defence. Guns are used to inflict death, that is their purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shooting to wound is very difficult (and requires much better marksmanship then shooting to kill), and in a combat situation, most people will shoot to kill simply out of panic. With the flowing adrenaline, they're not going to be so careful to shoot for the legs instead.

My point is that we are fallible, and in our fallibility we will use our power where we should not. Better that we disarm our society, so that our mistakes are limited to wounding others, rather then killing them. And killing a criminal is a mistake. Even if his acts are wrong, he is still a human being deserving our empathy and even our compassion.

It's also not a simple clear divide between criminals that are just in it to make some quick cash and sadists that are serial killers in the making. Most of the time it's simply a someone who's high on drugs, or is simply very nervous. Many common criminals, even when armed, often runs away when their would-be victims suddenly turned out to be armed. Other times though the nerves breaks down in the wrong way. As an example, last year a local off-duty police officer was robbed at a gas station, the guy actually started shooting AFTER the officer identified himself as a police officer.

Was the guy a sadist? no, he simply lost his nerve and panicked.

Indeed. Real situations are rarely simple. But in this situation, this was a police officer (and presumably armed), and of course he still got shot. The problem in a gun fight is that it overwhelmingly favours the guy who shoots first(assuming he shoots straight...). The gun is an offensive weapon.

You might favour the idea of having a gun for self defence. But would you favour being the guy who shoots first? Consider if you were the police officer in that scenario. Should you have shot him before he had the chance to respond? Would you be able to pull the trigger so unhesitatingly? And what if you got spooked? You panicked and shoot a guy, but it turns out to be a misunderstanding?

Great power requires the judgement to use that power. I do not think most of us (including myself) have that level of judgement. Instances where guns are not required tend to outnumber those where they are, and I think the average person will over-react, and assume a minor threat is a mortal one.

You're still not getting my point. The value of property is never even part of the consideration I'd make in that scenario. The only thing that would even be in my mind would be the protection of me and my family's life and person (or an innocent victim's), and in that equation, the criminal's life will always lose.

The right answer. But does the saving of your(or others) life necessarily require the destruction of another's?

There may be such situations, but do these situations occur more often then situations where unnecessary misunderstandings lead to unnecessary loss of life? That I do not know.

a very important factor you're leaving out here is the value on the victim's life and personhood.

The victim's life has value. But the criminal's life also has value. We cannot know the entire value of their life from just a single encounter. They might be complete scumbags, or they may have been driven to their crime by poverty and desperation. You cannot know unless you have lived his life alongside him, which is not a possibility for us with our limited perception.

The long and short of it is all 3, depending on the circumstances. One key point you've seem not to notice so far: When you bestow upon the criminal an absolute inviolate protection, where they cannot be killed under any circumstances, you have effectively done the opposite to their victims. You'd grant criminals the guarantees that they will not be killed, yet say to their victims "tough luck"?

I say that the victim should not intentionally kill him. He must act in proportion to the danger presented to him. For instance, if you shoot and kill an unarmed home invader, that would be disproportionate. You could have phoned 911 and locked yourself into a closet, or beaten him with a baseball bat. You did not have to kill him.

Now if you accidentally kill him...

So do I, but if you think your neighbor will pull a gun on you for a simple civil disagreement, I'd say you have bigger problems. If your neighbor is that crazy and is out to get you, you're in deep **** regardless whether he has a gun or not.

Put it this way. Sometimes tempers flare, accidents happen. With guns around, I might get shot (if he's particularly unhinged ), without them around, I'm just going to have a bloody nose. Or I could get an attack of paranoia and convince myself he's about to shoot me, and shoot him instead. Our judgement is imperfect, and so we should not be allowed that kind of power.

Also, let everyone have guns, and some of those people will be crazy! I'm sure there are people you know in your life who you wouldn't trust with a gun. I know there are some in mine. There was one guy I knew for a while who had something of a temper, and often punched people for no good reason(and he did not seem to have a sense of his actions having consequences). What if he had had a gun? I could easily imagine him unflinchingly shooting another person dead.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Daniel E.

@ Ledgem, GundamFan0083: Please drop the sarcastic remarks already. I gave you both a warning by deleting your previous posts, but you are now back at each other throats.

Other people are also resorting to this and the same warning goes for them. Please stop doing this already.

Party pooper.
We were having fun.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Aw, it's all in good fun... but all right, I'll do my best to avoid it.


It... it wasn't me! I was set up by a group that just wanted to make me look bad so that they could try to tell the world about how I'm a failure and lack experience! Rest assured, the food...

... will be better next time.

Legem, I'll get back to your post on Saturday or Sunday of this week to allow things to blow over a bit.
I've enjoyed our banter very much, but I don't want to get us banned over it.

Besides, I'm behind 8 pages of the chapter I need to finish this week.

To avoid being sentenced to the gulags I'll be sure to post this weekend, Mein Furer!

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Exactly. We can't use a magical rainbow pony model of the world. Nor can we think of the world as being so grim dark that everything is only ever brown or grey, and there's space marines everywhere.

Indeed, though I certainly never implied that the world is all grim-dark either, and I hope you weren't trying to say I was.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

We're arguing around a balance. On the one we have lives saved from guns. On the other Deaths caused by guns. I'm of the opinion that the former is negligible, and the latter is substantial. You may or may not disagree.

Without any reliable statistics, there's no way to know for sure either way. However, the issues goes beyond purely statistics.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shooting to wound is very difficult (and requires much better marksmanship then shooting to kill), and in a combat situation, most people will shoot to kill simply out of panic. With the flowing adrenaline, they're not going to be so careful to shoot for the legs instead.

You're both right and wrong in this case. There is no "shooting to wound" in most cases, nor are bullet wounds to the legs always non-fatal. On the other hand, often times gunshot wounds are just non-fatal wounds, it all depends on where you get hit. In this regard it's very much like knife wounds, it all depends on what's cut on the inside - a stab to the stomach that misses the vital organs wouldn't kill ya, but a stab to the leg that severs an artery is gonna do you in in very short order.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

My point is that we are fallible, and in our fallibility we will use our power where we should not. Better that we disarm our society, so that our mistakes are limited to wounding others, rather then killing them. And killing a criminal is a mistake. Even if his acts are wrong, he is still a human being deserving our empathy and even our compassion.

You cannot disarm a human to where they are unable to kill. Man have been killing each other since the stone age, well before the advent of firearms. And no, killing a criminal in self-defense is not wrong, self-preservation is about as basic a right as it gets. You continue to hold the life of criminals as sacred, yet you continue to ignore the life of the victims, are they worthless to you?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Indeed. Real situations are rarely simple. But in this situation, this was a police officer (and presumably armed), and of course he still got shot. The problem in a gun fight is that it overwhelmingly favours the guy who shoots first(assuming he shoots straight...). The gun is an offensive weapon.

Funny enough, the only reason he lived was because the officer was armed, as he managed to return fire with his own weapon and wounded the robber.

and no, a gunfight doesn't overwhelmingly favors the guy who shoots first, it only favors the guy who hits his target. And a gun is a tool, it can be used for offensive or defensive purposes.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

You might favour the idea of having a gun for self defence. But would you favour being the guy who shoots first?

If the other side demonstrates the intent or is in the process of using deadly force, absolutely.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Consider if you were the police officer in that scenario. Should you have shot him before he had the chance to respond? Would you be able to pull the trigger so unhesitatingly? And what if you got spooked? You panicked and shoot a guy, but it turns out to be a misunderstanding?

Yes. Pulling a gun on a police officer is a very bad idea if you don't want to get shot, the very act of drawing and aiming a weapon at someone constitute an intent to use deadly force.

As for whether I'll be able to pull the trigger, yes. You don't draw your weapon unless you're ready to fire if you have to.

And why would I get spooked and panic and shoot a guy? you'll have to be more specific.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Great power requires the judgement to use that power. I do not think most of us (including myself) have that level of judgement. Instances where guns are not required tend to outnumber those where they are, and I think the average person will over-react, and assume a minor threat is a mortal one.

It's your prerogative to have so much faith in the restraint of the criminals not to kill their victims, yet so little faith in the non-criminals to exercise good judgement, but you'll have to excuse me if I disagree.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

But does the saving of your(or others) life necessarily require the destruction of another's?

Not always, but sometimes it does.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The victim's life has value. But the criminal's life also has value. We cannot know the entire value of their life from just a single encounter. They might be complete scumbags, or they may have been driven to their crime by poverty and desperation. You cannot know unless you have lived his life alongside him, which is not a possibility for us with our limited perception.

You started going off-track as soon as you started to compare the values of their life. Regardless of the lifestyle they've lead, neither the victim nor the criminal's life is worth more, they're both equal.

However, the criminal is the aggressor, he/she initiated the encounter, to say that the victim does not have the right to fully defend themselves is ludicrous. If that meant that the criminal, the aggressor who initiated the attack, loses his/her life, then so be it, it is a result of their own making.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I say that the victim should not intentionally kill him. He must act in proportion to the danger presented to him. For instance, if you shoot and kill an unarmed home invader, that would be disproportionate. You could have phoned 911 and locked yourself into a closet, or beaten him with a baseball bat. You did not have to kill him.

In most cases, the goal of the victim is to incapacitate and stop the attacker, whether through injury or death is irrelevant.

Something else you're also still not getting. Life is not a video game, just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they can't kill you with their bare hands or whatever weapons of opportunity they can fight, like a lamp or your kitchen knife. I find it amazing that you've continued treat the life of a criminal as if it's the second coming of Jesus, but gives it absolutely no thought as you continue to pile on unreasonable and impossible expectations on the victims.

Lock yourself into a closet? what good will that do? delay them by all of 2 seconds as they kick it down? attack them with a baseball bat? there's probably nothing more dangerous and foolhardy than trying to engage in a physical melee with a weapon when you're untrained. Not everyone is a MLB slugger either, you think an old man or old (or young) woman for that matter will be able to do all that much with a bat? especially if there were multiple assailants?

You continue to have the problem of setting up one specific scenario under which your ideas might work, but fail to consider the broad implication such ideas would have outside of your specific scenario.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Put it this way. Sometimes tempers flare, accidents happen. With guns around, I might get shot (if he's particularly unhinged ), without them around, I'm just going to have a bloody nose. Or I could get an attack of paranoia and convince myself he's about to shoot me, and shoot him instead. Our judgement is imperfect, and so we should not be allowed that kind of power.

Or he'd just as likely to stab you in the eye and cut your head off if he's that unhinged. I hope you realize you're just throwing out strawmans here at this point. Doctor's judgement is imperfect, police's judgement is imperfect, politician's judgement is imperfect, the justice system's judgement is imperfect, the government's judgement is imperfect, would you say we shouldn't have any of them too?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Also, let everyone have guns, and some of those people will be crazy! I'm sure there are people you know in your life who you wouldn't trust with a gun. I know there are some in mine. There was one guy I knew for a while who had something of a temper, and often punched people for no good reason(and he did not seem to have a sense of his actions having consequences). What if he had had a gun? I could easily imagine him unflinchingly shooting another person dead.

Since when did I advocate that everyone should have guns? stop with the strawman please.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

You're both right and wrong in this case. There is no "shooting to wound" in most cases, nor are bullet wounds to the legs always non-fatal. On the other hand, often times gunshot wounds are just non-fatal wounds, it all depends on where you get hit. In this regard it's very much like knife wounds, it all depends on what's cut on the inside - a stab to the stomach that misses the vital organs wouldn't kill ya, but a stab to the leg that severs an artery is gonna do you in in very short order.

Indeed. People obviously come away from gun shot wounded and not killed, but it's impossible to predict.

You cannot disarm a human to where they are unable to kill. Man have been killing each other since the stone age, well before the advent of firearms.

You can knock them out. Or, run away.

Funny enough, the only reason he lived was because the officer was armed, as he managed to return fire with his own weapon and wounded the robber.

and no, a gunfight doesn't overwhelmingly favors the guy who shoots first, it only favors the guy who hits his target. And a gun is a tool, it can be used for offensive or defensive purposes.

If both participants are equally skilled, it favours the man who shoots first. Let's say we have two rounds of fire, where there's a 30% chance of either man hitting on a given shot, and once you're hit you can't return fire(a hit being a wound that incapacitates). The probability of the defender being hit is 30%. The probability of the offender being hit is only 21% (and he only gets hit if he misses), 49% chance of neither being wounded. Up the accuracy of the shots and it becomes more drastic. At a 70% accuracy rate the probability of the defender being hit is 70%, the probability of the offender being hit is still only 21%, there's a 9% chance of neither being wounded.

Now if the defender is more accurate then the offender, say 70% vs. 30%, we get a 30% chance of the defender being hit, and a 49% chance of the offender being hit. So while the defender is more likely to hit in this circumstance, the advantage is not as great as their skill levels would indicate, as the defender first has to "dodge" that first shot.

Flip those skill levels around and make the offender more skilled then there's a 70% chance of the defender being wounded, but now only a 9% chance of the offender being wounded.

Now obviously, this is a simplified model, for one thing I pulled those numbers right out of my ass, I don't know what the real life accuracy levels of marksmen are. But there's no reason to believe a hypothetical criminal will be more or less skilled with a gun then the defender. He has equal access to practising at his local gun range(or the cans on his porch) as the other guy after all. But the more skilled the offender is, and the more effective the weapons, the more the guy who shoots first is benefited.

The other imperfection of the above model is that it assumes that they return fire in turns. In reality, he may have time to get off two or three shots before you have a chance to draw your weapon. Real life situations are more complicated.

And why would I get spooked and panic and shoot a guy? you'll have to be more specific.

Let's say a guy looks suspicious and you see him drawing something from his pocket that looks like a gun. Turns out, it's his wallet. These kind of things happen. Can't really say how often.

However, the criminal is the aggressor, he/she initiated the encounter, to say that the victim does not have the right to fully defend themselves is ludicrous. If that meant that the criminal, the aggressor who initiated the attack, loses his/her life, then so be it, it is a result of their own making.

Something else you're also still not getting. Life is not a video game, just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they can't kill you with their bare hands or whatever weapons of opportunity they can fight, like a lamp or your kitchen knife. I find it amazing that you've continued treat the life of a criminal as if it's the second coming of Jesus, but gives it absolutely no thought as you continue to pile on unreasonable and impossible expectations on the victims.

It's a lot easier to kill with a gun then without a gun. If neither the assailant or the defender is armed with a gun is armed, the likelihood of death is far lower.

Lock yourself into a closet? what good will that do? delay them by all of 2 seconds as they kick it down?

It's more about hiding. A "home invader" is there for your valuables, and likely isn't even aware you're awake.

attack them with a baseball bat? there's probably nothing more dangerous and foolhardy than trying to engage in a physical melee with a weapon when you're untrained.

A hit to the side of the head will knock most everyone out.

Not everyone is a MLB slugger either, you think an old man or old (or young) woman for that matter will be able to do all that much with a bat? especially if there were multiple assailants?

If there are multiple assailants your situation is fairly hopeless anyway. If everyone has guns it's hopeless, if no one has guns it's hopeless. If you have a gun and they don't you might be able to scare them off, but that can only be ensured if the gun laws are tight. With the lax gun registration regulation in the US, you're basically guaranteeing every potential criminal will be armed.

You continue to have the problem of setting up one specific scenario under which your ideas might work, but fail to consider the broad implication such ideas would have outside of your specific scenario.

Perhaps my scenarios are poorly thought out, I can't think of anything. But think of the dozens of countries with low rates of gun ownership and high gun control. Look at the countries that are similar in wealth to the United States, look up their homicide rates. Are people more likely to die, be assaulted or be raped in those countries, where they "can't defend themselves" or in the United States where they "can"?

At best you can argue that your likelihood of being raped, assaulted or killed is unrelated to gun ownership, and only related to social factors. But that means that guns don't help americans on the whole defend themselves at all! Just as many (if not more) Americans are the victims of violent crime as in any other country with or without guns. The amount that your guns make you safer is more then outweighed by the amount you're endangered by almost every tom dick and harry being able to get a gun due to their abundance.

Since when did I advocate that everyone should have guns? stop with the strawman please.

Then you agree that guns should be restricted correct? That all guns should be registered, and that all gun owners should be submitted to a psychiatric check to ensure they are of "sound mind". If you do, there isn't much debate. But if you want there to be no such mandatory registration, no resale bans, you just give carte blanche for every crazy and criminal to just go down to a gun fair and buy a gun second hand. James Holmes did it, Seung Hi Cho did it, and more in the future will do it. Both of these men bought their guns legally, even though both were mentally disturbed.

[Lost Cause]

Don, there already are restrictions, background checks, and a registration of sorts!
First you must posess a valid I.D. In your state, second pass a criminal background check, and third fill out a form 4473 when you purchase a firearm. That form will be kept by the dealer and at some point the ATF will come in and check them. The bachround check is instantly done over the phone.

[Ithekro]

Such things vary state to state.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Such things vary state to state.

True, but I think the Form 4473 is mandatory.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

True, but I think the Form 4473 is mandatory.

Even in Alabama or thoses gun show? I thought than one could get his gun right away after bare minimum check ( if any) there.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by kyp275

So do I, but if you think your neighbor will pull a gun on you for a simple civil disagreement, I'd say you have bigger problems. If your neighbor is that crazy and is out to get you, you're in deep **** regardless whether he has a gun or not.

Just dropping by to address a matter here.

Some people say that if someone is crazy enough to get you, then it doesn't matter if he doesn't have a gun or not. While this is somewhat true, I think that's not quite the whole story.

A gun is an enabler. An empowering tool. With an enabler as strong as this, you don't have to be as "determined" to go on a crime spree with a gun than with your bare hands or with a knife.

Similar to how you can feel safe and won't need to spend excess effort defending yourself with a gun (assuming your assailant(s) don't have one either), the assailant(s) also won't need to work out as much effort to go on an assault (compared when not using guns).

I don't think guns should be banned, but guns shouldn't be sold free for all either. There have to be regulations for it. Similar to how driving licenses are handled. Proper screening, training, and education have to be in order for someone to have the right to own and shoot a gun. Of course, there will always be hiccups and ways around it, as with any other governmental procedures, but it's always better than to have no regulation at all.