2013-01-23, 12:25 | Link #1481 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
Some of the quotes in that Salon puff piece are taken out of context, but knowing the background on the issues those quotes are about shows that the NRA has no problem with laws that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, crazies, or malcontents. However, they do oppose prohibition of any class of weapon. With regard to the Heller case quote at the end of the article, the NRA lawyer was saying that he would have lost the case if he had pushed for the level of freedom some NRA members want. That was simply compromise to win. Reagan was no friend of the 2nd amendment, and he was a hypocrite to boot. On the one hand he banned new machine gun sales to the public, while selling machine guns to the Contras. The guy was a neo-Con POS. He was also a racist as clearly the only reason he didn't want people carrying loaded weapons in public was because it was the Black Panthers doing it. I don't see any quotes of him complaining about the KKK carrying loaded shotguns in the streets of Southern States during the civil strife of the 1960s. Also, the NRA's position on carrying concealed is the same as it was in the 1800s. They want law abiding persons to be able to get a permit and carry concealed. Again, Salon's little blog is misleading since they are taking the quotes out of context.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 12:48 | Link #1482 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
1) criminals have and will have. 2) that equalizes the opportunities for lesser folk to defend themselves. Otherwise, that's quite a pile of swinging hyperbole you tossed there. Somalia... really. So ban them in the whole country, our border is utterly secure after all .... Did I say I normally carry a weapon? No, but I prefer the option is available, especially on my property. Nice parlor psychology nonsense about "being afraid". Do you wear a seat belt because you're afraid? Or because you're prudent? I will admit that Americans appear to be becoming more *stupid* over time - but that largely appears to be an artifact of media sensationalism. But the statistics show that accidental gun deaths have been steadily declining for decades even with the decline in teaching gun safety and education. Thanks for the body count but that's a red herring. By that argument, there are dozens of other things that should be banned that kill far more kids (or people) in the average household. And seriously, people have tried to kill me. Are you claiming some special ninja skills?
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 13:15 | Link #1483 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
I've been in life-threatening situations multiple times. Three of them involved hostile attackers, one of which had a gun, two of which had knives.
The first time, I had no measure of defense and was robbed. When you aren't overflowing with cash, being robbed is a serious problem. I have to carry expensive pieces of technology to do my classwork and do the jobs that put food on my table. Fortunately I wasn't out on a job that time and only had $50 in cash and my phone, both of which were taken. The other two times, I had a weapon--and I was able to dissuade the would-be attackers from depriving me of the tools I need to make a living. If someone robs me, takes my phone and my laptop, I can't do my job until I replace them. I can't put food on the table. I have to spend even more money, lose even more, to replace the missing items and hope I can make up the difference. I need these things to feed myself--my troubleshooting gig is the only job I can reliably make an income from thanks to the horrible state of the economy right now. So no, I can't just always go out of my house without carrying over a thousand dollars worth of computer equipment. If I get robbed, if someone takes my phone and my laptop and my tools, I'm completely fucked. I don't have a thousand dollars laying around to replace it all. I will literally not be able to eat for weeks if someone robs me and takes them--because they are what I use to make my living. If I had the same pistol I used to have in Oklahoma, and the legal right to carry it concealed, I would have a lot less to worry about if I were attacked by an assailant with the intent to rob me. I would be able to protect my livelihood. You may have enough disposable income to replace over a thousand dollars worth of kit if someone holds you up, but I don't, and I depend on these things to FEED MYSELF. And because California's laws are fucking retarded, I have to walk around, defenseless, with all this equipment on me, because I don't own a car, either (I can't afford to own one with insurance and fuel so expensive right now). So yeah. Even if the robber doesn't kill me and just takes my stuff, they're still causing me significant harm because I won't be able to buy food, pay bills or make rent until I can replace the missing equipment. Not to mention any jobs I might have scheduled will have to be postponed or canceled until I replace everything, which isn't exactly good for return business.
__________________
|
2013-01-23, 13:23 | Link #1484 | ||||||
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
You guys seem to be forgetting the whole point of this discussion: More guns or less guns don't reduce violence, they are irrelevant in that context, but making high powered guns easily obtainable will provoke the bizarre mass shooting phenomena that plagues this country. Nobody wants lunatics with power, specially lunatics with the power to kill hundreds. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||
2013-01-23, 15:01 | Link #1485 | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
And now, everytime someone buys a gun, there is a good chance they are donating to the NRA. They are also helping to keep in power, an industry every bit as insiduous as Big Tobacco, Big Media, and Big Oil. I don't know how anyone can support those. Quote:
1) will take guns from the hands of criminals 2) will result in far fewer deaths per year You see, you talk about criminals getting guns, but neer ask where those guns come from. As Jon Stewart showed, 57% of illegal guns siezed, came from about 1% of gun shops. Your criminal guns? They are coming from American's gun shops. Gun shops which don't have to keep track of inventory, and can sell to whoever they want. We ban handguns and restrict rifles and shotguns to one person a piece for either hunting or sports purposes, and develop a national database that can track a gun from factory to retailer to gun owner, and I guarantee you'll see many, many fewer guns in the hands of criminals. And don't give me the over the border BS. If it were that easy to get armaments over the border, you'd see people in the streets with RPGs and Stinger missiles. The fact that we don't (because those weapons are banned), shows that a country-wide ban can work. You wanna talk about keeping all options on the table? Prove it. Keep the option of a gun ban on the table. I, at least, am willing to admit the possibility of it not working. We won't really know until we try. Are you willing to share the same open mind, and admit the possibility that it can work, and that we can't really know until we try? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm curious, Vexx. In any of those incidents where you felt you needed to brandish or fire your gun at a threat, did you report them to the police? Quote:
I've often found, that once someone gets a gun, they begin to rely solely on that. They stop thinking of any other options. But all you've done is ensure that when you are robbed again, they'll take your gun, too. |
||||||
2013-01-23, 16:01 | Link #1487 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
But of course, that was the 1960's and 1970's. Difference eras, different times. Welcome to today, when race isn't that much of an issue. It still is, just not as heated as back then. Back in the day, the Democratic Party was the party of racism.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 16:07 | Link #1488 |
Banned
|
I thought we were having a discussion, and that you were honestly looking for alternatives. I must hsve been mistaken. My bad. You wanted to keep your gun, no matter what, and no matter who else is injured or killed. Well, I suppose we have to keep Big Gun and the NRA in business. But I repeat myself.
|
2013-01-23, 16:07 | Link #1489 | |
Did nothing wrong
Author
|
Quote:
However, it surely was a useful option, wasn't it? Even if they couldn't stand up to any government force. Because the government wouldn't protect their rights, they took it upon themselves. Back then, it was much worse but breakthroughs were made in the 60s and 70s for getting people more rights. But it may be a different era now, but I feel freedom is going in the opposite direction. The principle stood then, it stood in 1776, and it stands now. It is not needed to that degree but it's hardly obsolete.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 16:16 | Link #1490 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
But to answer the sensible question: why, yes, every incident was reported to the police. Even the shots exchanged incident, it took them 30 minutes to arrive. Whee. Two of the incidents they didn't even want to file a report because "nothing happened" (the good samaritans on one of the the mugs and the assault). Kaijo is lumping moderates, centrists, and near-right people with extremists. For that matter, the feminists (liberal/progressives) who firmly view firearms as a force equalizer. No differentiation at all - they're all about to explode (as if people in cars weren't exactly the same problem). As a moderate on the subject (yeah, I hold a position that pisses off extremists on both sides), I'm fine with more regulation that will be *effective*. Close the loopholes, improve mental health monitoring/treatment, require training, etc. But what I am getting the real sense I'm dealing with here is someone who: 1) Is irrationally terrified of guns 2) Attempted to use one on themself; projects this action to everyone else (and that's key sign they probably shouldn't be allowed access to guns) 3) But like a temperance alcoholic, thinks that because they can't handle it, no one else can possibly be responsible about it. Ban it all. Now, in Sugetsu's post answering syn above, I may not agree with some of her assessments but I find myself agreeing with much of what she says as a practical matter. However, I suspect she's never been hunting with what she considers a "weapon civilians shouldn't have".
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2013-01-23 at 16:39. |
|
2013-01-23, 16:20 | Link #1491 |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
About high capacity magazine bans... Isn't part of the idea that if they have to reload, even if it is for a mere second or two, it provides opportunity for other people to fight back or escape?
If there is any way to save people's lives, no matter how few, isn't that worth doing?
__________________
|
2013-01-23, 16:29 | Link #1492 | |
blinded by blood
Author
|
@Sugetsu: Sorry, I didn't see your reply to my post until after I already posted.
I actually agree that there are certain weapons which aren't very useful for defense in an urban environment. There's a reason police don't use armor-piercing ammunition in their duty weapons, for the same reason I wouldn't use anything but hollowpoints in any pistol I would carry--because neither I, nor the police officers, want their rounds to penetrate too much and hit something or someone that we didn't intend to hit. This is one of the reasons why shotguns are very effective home-defense weapons. They don't have a lot of penetrating power compared to rifle rounds, so they're not going to go through too many walls and potentially break something important or kill some innocent bystander. Regarding the capacity limits, there's several arguments against that which make sense. When you take a weapon that's designed for a specific magazine and put a plug in it, or make a shallower, lower capacity magazine, there's a good chance that the springs won't work properly and the gun may encounter a failure-to-feed. This can lead to... well, death, if it happens at the worst possible time. The other argument is that combat is extremely stressful and scary. People defending themselves are NOT at their best when their lives are being threatened. I may be able to put all my shots into the center ring at the range at 25 yards, which I have done on several occasions, but I have absolutely no illusions that if I had to use my gun in an actual fight, I would be lucky to hit a human-sized target at that range. Stress, adrenaline and the attacker not giving you the time to calmly line up your shots means that having more shots could save your life. Greater margin for error. Quote:
This is why I said arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. You don't listen to my arguments. You make strawmen and knock them down, and now you've resulted to personal attacks. I don't support the NRA. I think gun nuts are nucking futs. I'm just not horrified of guns like they're some kind of cursed item that dominates our minds, simply because I grew up around them. I support better gun regulations. I support licensing and testing and harsh penalties for people who have illegal weapons. But I also support easier paths to concealed-carry permits, especially in California, where you are only allowed to carry if you are rich. I also support non-lethal methods of defense. I would love a non-lethal solution that works. I would be over the moon about it, honestly. I would love it if I could defend myself without having to worry about killing someone to avoid being killed myself. I would love to not have to worry about nightmares and associated psychological issues related to being forced to kill someone. The reality is there aren't any non-lethal methods that can stand up against a handgun. There just aren't. None of the existing options have the range, power, reliability and efficiency that another pistol has. Your "solutions" are questionable at best--effective sonic weapons are not man-portable (they sit on top of a humvee) and effective laser blinding weapons are about the size of an assault rifle and are much heavier. The DIY make-shift held-together-with-duct-tape-and-baling-twine versions of these prototype weapons you see on YouTube are not something I would want my life to depend upon. Other existing solutions just don't stand up. Stun guns require direct physical contact. True tasers are illegal for civilian ownership and are delicate devices besides. Relying on blanks is foolish in the extreme--more likely to get you killed than save you. So yeah, basically what I do now is just... lock myself up at home at night, try to avoid going places alone when I do have to go out late and hoping I don't get robbed or otherwise attacked. It's not terribly comforting to think about...
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 16:33 | Link #1493 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
The sandy line is what constitutes a "high capacity". 6, 8, 10, 15? In a tactical situation one should allow about 3 bullets per target at a mininum, hence the number "10" often being used since its rare that more than 3 targets will be involved and, by then, perhaps they're under cover so you have chance to swap in a new magazine. That takes practice and training though. Home invasions are a relatively new phenomenon so "10" might not cut it.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 16:36 | Link #1494 | |
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Yes, I have not gone hunting nor will I ever do so. But from a pure reasoning point of view I believe that hunting as an sport is meant to be a challenge, in which case none of the weapons I described above will grand you the thrill of the hunt. Now if you find yourself agreeing with much of what I say, I have this question for you. Why are people so steadfast in their position of being allowed to carry any type of gun regardless of its firepower? Most of them can think critically and are aware that some weapons are too dangerous, specially in the hands of mentally unstable people. I can understand why the NRA and all gun lobby organizations oppose any regulation. After all it is the same reason why insurance companies oppose health reform, oil companies oppose climate change legislation and wall street opposes bank regulations. But why does the average Joe think like a corporation when in fact he/she is voting against his own self interest?
__________________
Last edited by Sugetsu; 2013-01-23 at 16:59. |
|
2013-01-23, 16:37 | Link #1495 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
Quote:
The mention of too precise for the blinders what for the laser type were you have to hit the eyes for it to be effective. That is a small target and only effective if you hit an area that is has maybe a total of 2 square inches of surface area (one square inch for each eye). The larger area Flash types could hit everyone unfortunate enough to be looking at it. If the sonics do an area, it could hit others you don't intent to injure. And while it is true that it is possible to hit unintended people with a firearm, it is at least possible to aim a firearm to only hit the intended target (or not even hit anyone by giving a warning shot which could potentially be enough).
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 16:43 | Link #1496 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
And actually, in some jurisdictions, you're better off if you kill someone. There have been incidents in California where someone shot their attacker, but intentionally didn't kill them and ended up being charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Because they intentionally shot to wound, that "proved" that they did not need to use deadly force. So they weren't justified in using a gun at all, and it was not ruled self-defense, so the person was charged with a felony. I wouldn't be surprised if a criminal, having his sight permanently damaged by a laser blinding weapon, sued the person he tried to rob... and won. This sort of thing HAS happened before.
__________________
|
2013-01-23, 16:48 | Link #1497 | ||
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
I guess it depends on what you mean by "long range". Most deer shots are taken at around 100 yards, sometimes more than 200 yards in open terrain. Short range only works in heavy brush. But you only need a few bullets (1 to hit, 1-2 more if the first hit wasn't lethal). I haven't been deer hunting in decades but a lot of my family hunts as their primary meat source. You really want a bullet that can "shatter living things" (though not sure what that means, system compression shockwave?) because you don't want the animal to suffer a prolonged death if possible. Bird hunting is shotgun time, by definition, short range already. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-01-23, 16:58 | Link #1498 |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
I get that same feeling, but it's not coming from the government. Instead, it's coming from an unchecked corporate power, with vast sums of money used to funnel into government -- turning government into its b*tch, rather than as a counter-weight.
Lately, I'm starting to view another form of a triangular power structure, consisting of: 1) The People 2) Business 3) Government
__________________
|
2013-01-23, 17:08 | Link #1499 | |
Did nothing wrong
Author
|
Quote:
To me though, there is definitely a huge movement that is trying to dictate what people can do in the form of the neoconservatives. From a misguided war on drugs to a misguided war on terrorism (both are against an essentially abstract enemy) has caused much violence and suffering. Most importantly, the curtailing of certain personal rights. I'd love to pin it all on the Bush jr Administration and their wiping of their asses with the Constitution, though Obama isn't exactly turning it around either. However, Corporatism does work hand in hand with this.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-23, 17:19 | Link #1500 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
But if you had been reading my posts, you would realize that my idea would only ban non-smart handguns. Rifles and shotguns for hunting and sport (but registered) would be okay. And I'd only ban handguns since they are used in the vast majority of crimes where a gun is used. Does that sound like someone terrified of guns? If not, why do you think I have any baggage? Should I claim you have emotional baggage because a couple of people startled you? Do you have no compassion, no sense of empathy, for people who get so full-on depressed that they seek to take their own life? I guess opening up a bit about my personal experiences, and expecting any kind of empathy or understanding, or even respect, was expecting too much. Quote:
And yes, that's right people, the government can legally take your guns. If it is used in any circumstance that is reported to the police, they can seize it for evidence, and odds are you will never get it back. It will most likely get destroyed. The NRA recommends that if your gun gets taken for evidence, that you just give it up and buy another. Then again, getting you to buy more guns is on their agenda. Quote:
So, if you missed my links before, I will repost Glare Mout - Check out the size comparison picture, to see how it stacks up vs. a rifle. Phasor Blast Wave Pistol - scroll down a bit to see the portable version. Quote:
For sonic weapons, we have two types: Normal and Infrasonic. Normal sonic weapons induce nausea and headaches via piercing sound, which will render someone incapacitated after a few moments. But what I'm more interested in acquiring are infrasonic weapons. Ever stand next to a bass that was putting out low sounds, and felt your bones shake as your body felt the pulses? That's essentially what this is. Sound so low you can't hear it, but at sufficient power, it causes powerful nausea and your body no longer responds very well. Your bones shake, and cavities in your body resonate. Can make you ill enough that you throw up. In both these cases, the damage is temporary. That is partially why I advocate these two weapons over anything else, including guns. You don't need to worry about ammo or aiming or killing anyone. You just point and let it loose, and your attacker is either blinded for you to tackle (blinding weapons), or they will collapse in pain (sonic and infrasonic). In fact, if you have a flash function on your smartphone, that is almost as useful as a blinding weapon, especially if it is dark. Firearms can leave someone permanently disabled, too, as well as kill. Blinding and sonic weapons (at sufficient power levels), will only temporarily disable, and not kill. Part of the problem is these weapons are not easily available to the populace, and my argument, part of my solution, is to make them available. Especially to teachers or school personnel, rather than guns. |
||||
|
|