2012-08-29, 12:27 | Link #261 | ||||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
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? Quote:
Tell me, how can it be right to kill another in retaliation for such crimes as stealing or robbery? Quote:
|
||||||||
2012-08-29, 12:36 | Link #262 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
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). Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
No. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Who appointed you dictator for life? Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2012-08-29, 13:45 | Link #263 | ||||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
I don't need an apology, I would rather you stick to facts and do your homework first when you participate in a debate.
Quote:
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 Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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". Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Last edited by Daniel E.; 2012-08-29 at 15:01. Reason: Stop doing that. |
||||||||||
2012-08-29, 15:05 | Link #264 | ||||||||||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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... Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
||||||||||||
2012-08-29, 15:14 | Link #265 |
AniMexican!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
|
@ 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.
__________________
|
2012-08-29, 15:14 | Link #266 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-29, 15:21 | Link #267 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
... will be better next time.
__________________
|
||
2012-08-29, 15:48 | Link #268 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2012-08-29, 16:17 | Link #269 | |||||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And most of the violent crimes are committed against you by people you know, not total strangers. Quote:
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? |
|||||||||
2012-08-29, 16:56 | Link #270 | ||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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"? Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by kyp275; 2012-08-29 at 17:07. |
||||||||
2012-08-29, 18:58 | Link #271 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
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! Last edited by Lost Cause; 2012-08-29 at 21:11. |
|
2012-08-29, 20:17 | Link #272 | ||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Now if you accidentally kill him... Quote:
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. Last edited by DonQuigleone; 2012-08-29 at 20:33. |
||||||
2012-08-29, 21:35 | Link #273 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
We were having fun. Quote:
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!
__________________
|
||
2012-08-29, 21:52 | Link #274 | |||||||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
2012-08-30, 04:39 | Link #275 | |||||||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
|||||||||||
2012-08-30, 05:47 | Link #276 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
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. |
2012-08-30, 12:42 | Link #280 | |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
|
|