2012-08-27, 22:47 | Link #241 | |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Yet, for some reason, the "defense against the State" argument seems to be a prominent part of the reasoning of those who oppose gun control measures, and the 2008 election was accompanied by a massive boost in gun sales. Why so afraid? |
|
2012-08-27, 23:03 | Link #242 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
I doubt anyone sane honestly believes that their small arms will actually do much in an actual fight against a real military force. |
|
2012-08-27, 23:27 | Link #243 | |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Quote:
I think I have to make myself clear: the reason I don't want to jump into this debate is because I don't believe gun control measures are the answer to the problem of crimes and violent crimes in the United States, or even the recent, obscene, spree of massacres. On the other hand, I don't take them off the table. I don't believe the 2nd Amendment originally meant what the NRA thinks it means, and though I don't oppose the evolution of the meaning (many other, more important clauses supporting our various rights experience the same phenomenon), I do not consider it some absolute rule. To me, the right to own guns is rather a privilege to own guns, as conditional as the "right" to drive. So if I am to make an argument for policy aimed against the problem of crime, which is why people want gun control in the first place, I would consider various gun control provisions as part of a comprehensive measure. Just randomly thinking out here, but important measures other than gun control would be prison reform, overhaul of the legal criminal system based on the notion of rehabilitation over revenge, better funding and expansion of social support institutions, especially for the mentally ill, cultural and social projects aiming to "communalize" the American citizenry, etc. Even legalization of marijuana, if only to cut a major source of funding out of organized crime. But that's not what this thread is about, so I'm not going to defend a single piece of a puzzle in isolation. |
|
2012-08-27, 23:38 | Link #244 | |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Quote:
Why so afraid ? Because a portion of the population is a bit more unstable ( for not say crazies) and less rational when it's about their guns. Gun might be more than a mean to defend themself or to do some kind of sport for such individuals, something less healthy .Even if a president would want to ''take their guns'' it won't be possible for many reason and yet they still think than they will have to fight for keeping their weapons. Such person aren't the majority of thoses than own firearm but you can't try to make as they wouldn't exist.
__________________
|
|
2012-08-27, 23:42 | Link #245 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-28, 00:42 | Link #246 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
The SCOTUS determined the type of arms in US vs. Miller when they declared that weapons that are "not useful to a militia" are not protected by the 2nd amendment which is why they ruled that a double-barrel hunting shotgun could be regulated as they saw no use for it in the militia. The militia (not to be confused with the National Guard which is now part of the regular armed forces) is every abled bodied male between the ages of 17-45. Quote:
If you were both pro-gun control and anti-abortion you'd have an argument, but you're not. You pick and choose what you want to defend or attack not based on any rational basis, but on your emotions and/or likes/dislikes. That's the major difference between you and I Legem. I'm pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-2nd amendment. I'm consistent in my absolute commitment to freedom. Quote:
You see Legem, if there were armed individuals in that theater there is at least the chance that many more lives would have been saved. What you're saying between the lines of your posts is that gunowners are too stupid to know how to use their weapons and that they would have done what the NYC police did at the Empire State Building--it's called "Spray and Pray." Again you show an unwarranted, and unjustifiable fear of firearms by continuing to claim that more people would have been injured. Quote:
There are not perfect solutions to anything Legem. Not crime, not drunk driving, not drugs, not rape, not child molestation, not war, not disease, nothing. We have to settle for the BEST solutions to a problem Gun control was tried in the US from 1934 to 2004 with increasing the number of bans, restrictions, and requirements. It's done NOTHING to deter the violence. What has worked? Increasing the standards of living, improving law enforcement techniques such as forensic sciences, greater enforcement of existing laws, and stronger anti-gang initiatives. Therefore, now that we know beyond any doubt that gun-control does not work, there is no justification to violate people's rights to have weapons. Quote:
I see some of Shelly Kagan's nonsense in your statement. I vehementy disagree with his "reasoning" about the nature of morality. Society operates off of fear and has done so for thousands of years. Why do we cooperate? Because we fear starvation, we fear invasion, we fear disease, we fear criminals, we fear being poor, we fear being alone...etc. To say otherwise is to deny your instincts as a human being. As for peace, again we're dealing with a subjective term. If someone wrongs me, I will take it upon myself to right that wrong. As for me "argu[ing] that guns are necessary for society to repel a government that gets out of hand?", I never brought it up in the first place. You did, and you continue to go back to it for some reason. The founding fathers are the ones who made the argument that the people should bear arms equal to the government, not I. And their argument is as sound today as it was in their time in the 1700s, or Aristotle's time 2000 years ago when he said "neither Oligarch nor Tyrant can suffer a people to be armed." When government proceeds to attempt to stop a wrong before it happens, then that government has now committed a wrong by becoming authoritarian. This is why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment, it is a safeguard against government going from being passive in its enforcement of law to active. I don't see why that's such a big deal, it is what it is, which is why I don't bother discussing it. Unless of course you're going to try and stake a claim that totalitarian government is benevolent? Quote:
Let me draw you a picture. If both opponents have equal force they have an equal chance of winning. Understand? Now, to your question about 5 on one, the five have greater force then your one don't they? So there are two possibilities: If you're a good shot, and they're not, you kill them. If you're not a good shot, or if they're better than you are, you die. That's life. Quote:
You obey your lord and master (the government) without any thought about what they might be using you for because you falsely believe it is all for your benefit, right? Stalin loved his useful idiots too. Quote:
That's okay, I already figured that out when you started on the "I'm not talking about crime" nonsense. However, I do believe that now we're getting to the meat of why you dislike gun ownership. Doesn't matter what kind or flavor, they're all anti-American, and anti-freedom. I've yet to find a flavor that preserves individual rights over the good of the collective. Quote:
Mutual aid is total bullshit, and has only one relevence to the discussion of gun control...but I'll get to that below. Quote:
There is NO legitimate reason for the police to have this equipment. NONE! If you say otherwise then you are either ignorant of the proper role of peace officers in a free society or you know damn well what they want that equipment for. Tyranny rarely announces itself to the society it chooses to oppress. And for the record, THIS is the last time I saw the police using their combat robots, armored personnel carrier, full body armor, submachine guns, and snipers. I was at a friend's house across the stream on the south side of those apartments and actually got a chance to talk with the sniper sitting at the end of a culdesac during the end of the situation. They looked like something out of a B-flick WWII movie about Nazis Germany. Quote:
He's saying that an armed society is a polite one, in other words he always feels at peace because he knows that should an individual with a gun confront him, he has the means to defense himself properly. Quote:
You must understand that I've worked with police officers on every level by supplying, repairing and servicing their weaponry. Many of those officers were VERY concerned about what is going on in this country. Are they paranoid? No, and neither am I, but I'm not blind either. It is obvious at this point what is happening. We don't need drones in our skies, we don't need police with armored personnel carriers, and we don't need cops with machine guns. Quote:
Not all guns increase injury or death in a situation and you cannot make that claim without evidence to back it up. There have been confrontations where dozens of rounds were fired and no one even got hit. It's these kinds of statements you're making that show me your total ignorance of firearms, and your unwarranted fear of them. Now, I'll illustrate why I said that to you. Had these people been using shotguns in that bar-fight, somebody would have gotten shot. Perhaps killed if the right rounds were being used (00 buck). But that's because the shotgun is the deadliest weapon in close quarters battle outside of an explosive. Does that mean all guns cause more injury than other weapons. No. Knives are normally deadlier than pistols at point blank and rifles are all but useless. Why? Because they require considerable skill to put that bullet onto the target, whereas a knife does not. Neither does a baseball bat, or other weapon. Rifles are designed/engineered for long-range combat, pistols for close to imtermediate range, and both require training to use them well. A shotgun just requires you to point and shoot. Quote:
We already know that accidental gun injuries (outside of crime) are statistically insignificant (only 600 deaths per year), so why are you making this non-argument in the first place? Clearly it cannot be about safety, since the safety issue is a moot. You say it's not about crime, so that issue is moot. But yet you still want to ban all guns that are protected by the 2nd amendment and leave the ones that aren't. Now, why would that be? Oh that's right, because you're a collectivist by your own admission. Now, why do collectivists want firearms banned and/or heavily restricted. I know, because they provide a means for individualists to overthrow any totalitarian regime that attempts to erect a collectivist society, that's why. Quote:
I've provided you with all the evidence necessary to show that you're desire to "ban all the gun stores" as you said a few pages back is completely irrational and without justification. Quote:
I called you on your fuzzy-logic, provided you with all the evidence necessary, and you have given NOTHING in return. Quote:
If guns aren't for defense, then why do the cops have them? Oh that's right, to DEFEND themselves from armed criminals. You must have been tired at this point or something, your points are degenerating. Quote:
You claim that the equalization principle is fantasy, then go on to create a fake scenario. Classic! How many criminals are out there plotting to ambush people who've done nothing to them? Huh? Not many, that's for sure (unless you're in trouble with the mob). It's these types of over-the-top scenarios that have undermined your argument and thus your position as a whole. Quote:
What I don't want are a bunch of hoplophobes thinking they're saving society by turning me and everyone like me into potential victims for criminals who are never going to follow the law. It is complete idiocy to disarm in the face of an agressor. Quote:
If you don't mind. My gun saved my life when I was confronted by two armed assailants, doesn't that make my gun my life? I would argue that it does since I might not have been here right now if not for my having the .357 Colt King Cobra I was carrying. So in some cases, a gun is a person's life or more accurately the tool used to save their life. Quote:
The FACTS are, only 600 people are injured/killed from firearms per year. Compared to auto accidents (42,000 deaths/year) that's insignificant and does not exceed the number of people saved by them. Conservative (as in small) estimates range from as low as 60,000 times per year to as high as 300,000 times per year. The NRA claims it's more like 1.3 to 2 million times per year that a gun saves a person's life. Either way, 600 accidental deaths is not more than the number of times guns are used to save a life.
__________________
Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2012-08-28 at 00:54. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
2012-08-28, 01:15 | Link #247 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-28, 18:51 | Link #248 | |||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do not believe we do, I do not believe we have the right to make ourselves judge, jury and executioner. Death is for the law, and for the Gods themselves, to mete out. It is perfectly possible to defend yourself with nonlethal force. Pepper spray, tasers, a cane... We do not have the right to take the life of another. Under any circumstances. Now, if a person accidentaly kills another in self defence, I don't think they should be tried for murder. But, that person does not have the right to do so intentionally. Quote:
All of America's guns hold less value then even 1 of those lives, let alone 600. |
|||||
2012-08-28, 19:18 | Link #250 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Humans have always had the right to defend themselves with leathal force. Otherwise there would be no humans (predetory animals would have wiped us out long ago if we couldn't kill them with our tools).
__________________
|
2012-08-28, 19:39 | Link #251 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Get real. Society determines whether we have enough laws - not you. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
I get that you think that some miracle shooter would have been able to stop the Aurora theater shootings. And because it's a purely hypothetical situation, you're free to believe that and nobody will ever be able to say that you're absolutely wrong. What I'd appreciate hearing from you is some acknowledgement that these situations are tricky, and that the risk of collateral damage is high. That's realistic. I'm not convinced that you're grounded to reality. Quote:
Quote:
And that's not what I've been arguing. Quote:
Quote:
Aside from differences in the weapons power, politicians and various interest groups have done a spectacular job of fragmenting and polarizing society. Do you really think that armed citizens could unite and organize enough to take down the government? Really? If citizens realistically can't fight back against the government, then firearms represent a vestigial trait in society. It's something that once had meaning and importance, yet is now ineffective and little more than symbolic. Firearms are to society what the appendix is to the human body. Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Let me show you why through an analogy on a topic that you're not as blinded by. Some people can drive at 100 MPH through a crowded city and not hit anyone or anything. No problem, right? We should allow everyone to do that, and persecute only those who screw up? Not all 100 MPH drivers cause injury or death in a situation, after all. No, the entire reason why we have these regulations is to avert tragedies in the first place. To put it back to guns, it's true that the number of people with firearms who use their firearms improperly is a small percentage of firearms owners, but that's no consolation to the innocent dead and wounded. I'm not talking about the gun owners who use their guns responsibly, I'm talking about the people who do not. If you can come up with a solution that eliminates those injuries and deaths while allowing others to continue owning guns, I will fully support you, I will tell all the liberals and the conservatives, and I will contact the state legislators from every state that I have ever resided in. Quote:
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. 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? Quote:
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? Yes, there are many causes for these deaths, and guns are just a small part, but if the gun-related ones can be averted, then why not? What reason do you have that is so important that it's worth the thousands of lives that are lost to guns each year? I can think of a few possible reasons (some that you've sort of touched on), but I'm not convinced that they're worth the trade-off. So why are you? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The way you, GundamFan0083, see it isn't the way others "see it" and therefore it doesn't really matter. So deflate that sense of self-important authority and rejoin the rest of us. Oh, sorry - I decided to spice it up with that last bit. I hope you don't mind. Quote:
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? You hypothesize that it's for defense from armed criminals. OK, I think that's acceptable. But there are two points on this: 1) It is a part of the business of police officers to deal with those violent, unruly members of society. Regular people like you and me generally don't go patrolling crappy neighborhoods at odd hours, nor do we engage potentially hostile people. We're smart and we want to avoid trouble, and that applies whether you have a gun at your side or whether you're unarmed. Are we both in agreement so far? Police - if they're doing their jobs - don't follow that rule. They go into the high-crime neighborhoods and they seek out the suspicious-looking people. They're at high risk for encountering violent confrontations. It seems justified that they should have something - a gun, a taser, a baton - to shift the balance in their favor. This gets into point #2: 2) How come some countries can have police without firearms? The reason I propose is that those countries don't have a lot of guns. So now we're in a chicken-and-egg scenario: if we reduce the guns, we won't need guns to ward off other guns. Yet if you give up your gun, there will still be some guns around to threaten you and everyone else; thus, you don't want to give up your gun, and we're stuck with a bunch of guns. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you reduced the number of firearms, I would anticipate that homicides wrought through those other means would rise. But would they all triple or quadruple in order to match the number of homicides carried out by guns? Anything is possible, but I don't find that to be a realistic scenario.
__________________
Last edited by Ledgem; 2012-08-28 at 19:50. Reason: Correcting some BB-Code errors |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2012-08-28, 20:06 | Link #252 | ||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Personally, I think we're framing this debate too mechanistically here. The fundamental thing here is the right to kill another. How can we so easily give such a thing away? How can anyone under any circumstance have the right to kill a human being? A gun's purpose is to kill, that is why it is created. How can we legalize the keeping of the tool, but make the use of it illegal? Doing such a thing is absurd. If we legalise the keeping of the gun, we must give people the right to kill other human beings. I think that such a thing is too awful to think about. No one should have the right to kill another. Maybe you guys think that we do have that right. I'm an atheist, but the only hypothetical entity that I can think of that has the right to give and take life is God himself. There are some things which are His prerogative alone. No man the purity of thought and wisdom to judge to be given such power.
Quote:
Do we live in Syria? Why should we formulate our laws based on the circumstances of a war zone? Quote:
So if you're in danger of being killed by your natural environment, sure do whatever you like. But in affairs of humanity, there is no justification for the intentional taking of human life. Our society is sophisticated enough today that we have many means for self defence that does not require it. Being that killing is the ultimate wrong, then our society should ban any instruments whose sole use and purpose is to kill. We should ban guns. If you can claim another reason to keep a gun, say you need to defend against bears, sure you can have your rifle. But any other use solely entails the eventual killing of human beings. No man should be given the right to kill another human being unless he is solely directed to do so by the law. No man should have the power to take the life of another. To do so is Hubris. Did he? Last edited by DonQuigleone; 2012-08-28 at 20:22. |
||
2012-08-28, 20:27 | Link #253 |
is this so?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gradius Home World
|
The debate seems to be on gun control in America..
But maybe an example of what happened in other countries could also be placed in this thread. Here in the Philippines we had several "road rage" incidents. Two people get in a traffic argument, one loses temper and pulls out a gun = murder commited in the street. There are several stories, but the Jason Ivler case is one I remember the most. He shot a man named Ebarle during a traffic argument, NBI agents cornered him in his house and he was captured after a gunfight. A classic example of guns being in the wrongs hands (wrong hands = short tempered "tough guys"). http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...-with-nbi-team http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...efore-qc-court
__________________
|
2012-08-28, 21:04 | Link #254 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-28, 23:11 | Link #255 | ||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Who are you to decide the worth of life, dignity, or possession for someone else? Again, should someone who is about to be raped lay there and be raped instead of fighting back with deadly force because, as you said, no one should have the right to kill another under ANY circumstances? What about the police? should they also give up their weapons? after all, they can just ask the criminals nicely to stop, just like the rape victim before right? same goes for the military, everyone should just carry a deck of card and settle the fight with a game of poker. It's your right to have a very idealistic view of the world and how it should be, but when it comes to policy making, I prefer ones drafted with reality in mind. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
TBH, gundamfan went a bit over the deep end there, you on the other hand went off the deep end on the other side here. Deprivation of a person's right to protect themselves? are you nuts? |
||||
2012-08-29, 02:43 | Link #257 |
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-08-29, 05:24 | Link #258 | ||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
But we are discussing about how we live in a peaceful society governed by the law. In such a society we must strive to reduce all deaths to a minimum. The best way to do so is to remove the instruments by which death is inflicted. And as I said, defend yourself, sure, but don't kill. Quote:
The reality I speak of is perfectly feasible. The police in my own country do not carry guns. My country continues to function quite well. A bat is more then enough to subdue the criminals of this world. Sometimes they can carry guns if it is strictly necessary. Thankfully that is not a frequent occurrence. As for the military, they should not exist, but they are a necessary evil to deter invasion by others. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2012-08-29, 10:35 | Link #259 | |||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please tell me, when was the last time you got shot? Trust me, it's not so "easy to ignore" Sometimes some people get so much adrenaline pumping through their body that they don't realize they've been shot, but those are the rare exceptions and not the norm, and trust me, it hurts very much so after the adrenaline wears off . lol... gunshot wounds are easy to ignore and cause little pain? soldiers on every battlefield today would like to know what you're smoking. Sometimes that is true, other times it is not, and that is the reality of the world we live in. Last edited by Daniel E.; 2012-08-29 at 15:05. |
|||||||
2012-08-29, 10:46 | Link #260 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 41
|
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.
__________________
Last edited by killer3000ad; 2012-08-29 at 17:47. |
|
|