|
On June 28 2008 22:35 Jibba wrote:
Fuck the Brady Campaign. Maybe you missed the first two major parts of my post that detailed how state and local laws are not keeping up with enforcement and that it is still fairly easy to obtain a firearm without any real regulation. You also must've missed my post where I said private transactions happen at all different levels, and then the little idiot chose to say something about ATF gunshow regulation which turns out to be absolutely false. But the problem is, is it a problem that the law-abiding can obtain a firearm relatively easily?
I'm sure you'll say that it's a problem, but keep in mind how few citizens who would be categorized as "law-abiding" then turn out to be a felon in disguise. It IS a problem that a law-abiding citizen who just hasn't been caught can legally obtain a firearm, but to tell ALL law-abiding citizens they have to jump through hoops because of the 0.01% of people who will misuse it is unfair.
Criminals can't legally-obtain firearms; they have to break laws to do so. The ATF is also quite brutal with its enforcement (which is clearly good).
On June 28 2008 22:35 Jibba wrote:
Say what you want about my moral view on guns, but don't confuse me for an idiot that listens to Michael Moore or looks at lobbyist fact sheets. I specifically look at newspaper articles, research papers and official documents. I've clearly misjudged you, seeing as you haven't actually cited the Brady Campaign or any of its spawns for your information; however, you have repeated some of their arguments.
On June 28 2008 22:35 Jibba wrote:
You're the one who refuses to give credence to any decision made by the Supreme Court or Congress between 1800 and 1990.
"Oh, that silly Militia Act that federalizes state militia means nothing. Thomas Jefferson said the definiton of a militia is "blah blah blah blah" and it doesn't matter what anyone in power said after him."
I'm sorry, but who in the SCOTUS between 1800 and 1990 fought to make this country what it is today? None of them signed the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any other important document that marks the beginning of a new nation.
Effectively, you're saying the word and meaning of people who were watching one of the most influential moments in history unfold is null and void because the following century, some asshole in the SCOTUS decided said words of the Founding Fathers didn't mean shit. That's incredibly asinine.
I can't agree with that.
|
On June 29 2008 01:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 16:36 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Do you realize how much more effective and non-lethal you can be with a pistol than a shotgun or rifle? I'm only idly reading this thread, but could you please elaborate on what you mean. I'd definitely agree with non-lethal if you consider the logic behind the advice that you bring a rifle to a gun fight, not a handgun, but I'm not yet understanding why you label the handgun as more effective. I'll gladly read your explanation or link to information, but in case you were going to suggest it is common sense, please do not (hopefully I'm wrong about this).
It takes one hand to hold a pistol, leaving you free to call the cops with the other. It takes two hands to steady a rifle or hold a shotgun so it doesn't blow your arm off when you fire it.
You can gesture with a pistol. You can shoot someone in the leg and not have to reload with a pistol. You can shoot someone and not blow half of their body to shreds with a pistol. You can use a flashlight with a pistol. You can holster a pistol. You can shove it in your belt. It's smaller. It fires faster. It's a lot less lethal than a rifle or a shotgun. If your aim is self-defense, not murder, you want a pistol, not a rifle or shotgun.
I mean, think about why the police force carries handguns instead of rifles and shotguns as they go about. It's because they're generally not in situations where a rifle or shotgun would be appropriate. A handgun allows them a very effective method of protection and stopping power while still being able to put people in handcuffs, hold flashlights, radio for backup, and open doors.
This is not to say that the other two are not viable alternatives when you're being robbed. It's just a lot easier to call the cops when you have a handgun trained on someone rather than a shotgun or rifle.
|
|
|
United States24555 Posts
I ran this brief discussion (quotes below) by somebody fairly knowledgeable on gun usage (both through experience, and large amounts of discussion with people the police/military over the years) to see if he agreed with me that there is room for improvement here. I'll sum up some of the things that he said (I mixed in a few of my thoughts)
On June 29 2008 05:54 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 01:05 micronesia wrote:On June 28 2008 16:36 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Do you realize how much more effective and non-lethal you can be with a pistol than a shotgun or rifle? I'm only idly reading this thread, but could you please elaborate on what you mean. I'd definitely agree with non-lethal if you consider the logic behind the advice that you bring a rifle to a gun fight, not a handgun, but I'm not yet understanding why you label the handgun as more effective. I'll gladly read your explanation or link to information, but in case you were going to suggest it is common sense, please do not (hopefully I'm wrong about this). It takes one hand to hold a pistol, leaving you free to call the cops with the other. Holding an intruder at gunpoint is generally ill advised. The legality is not in your favor. If they have dropped any lethal weapons, they are pretty much free to run away. You can't shoot them in that situation and expect everything to go smoothly. Of course, if they try to use a weapon, or come at you, you can shoot... but at that point your goal should be to make every attempt to stop them from hurting you or your family. In that case, what you want is a weapon with stopping power... not one that leaves you with a free hand.It takes two hands to steady a rifle or hold a shotgun so it doesn't blow your arm off when you fire it. You do need two hands to fire a rifle or a shotgun, but not necessarily because of the recoil. You can buy some pretty weak rifles, including ones that fire pistol ammo. I've fired rifles varying from high recoil to low recoil, and I'll admit the high recoil one almost knocked me over when I was younger :p
You can gesture with a pistol. I don't understand... can't you gesture with any gun?You can shoot someone in the leg and not have to reload with a pistol. You can do the same with many rifles.You can shoot someone and not blow half of their body to shreds with a pistol. See above regarding available low-power rifles.You can use a flashlight with a pistol. Useful for people in certain specific situations, I'm sure.You can holster a pistol. I don't think this comes in handy much for the purposes of self defense.You can shove it in your belt. Not really.It's smaller. So? I'm assuming this is analogous to another of your claims.It fires faster. Depends on the rifle.It's a lot less lethal than a rifle or a shotgun. Once again, note my discussion about low-powered rifles.If your aim is self-defense, not murder, you want a pistol, not a rifle or shotgun. Military personal have said time and time again that pistols are for self defense and nothing else. However, I'm not ready to conclude that that means self defense should be conducted with a pistol (this can obviously be confused with a simple logical fallacy)
I mean, think about why the police force carries handguns instead of rifles and shotguns as they go about. It's because they're generally not in situations where a rifle or shotgun would be appropriate. A handgun allows them a very effective method of protection and stopping power while still being able to put people in handcuffs, hold flashlights, radio for backup, and open doors.
I agree they are more versatile in many situations. However, I don't think it's safe to say this is the main reason why they are equipped with handguns. Handguns are the only gun that you can reasonably keep on your person most of the time. If the police know they are going to need a gun, they use a two-handed one usually. Don't most police cars have shotguns in the trunk, or something similar?
This is not to say that the other two are not viable alternatives when you're being robbed. It's just a lot easier to call the cops when you have a handgun trained on someone rather than a shotgun or rifle.
Again see my note above about not wanting to hold the intruder at gunpoint. Better off holding a BFG and letting them run out of your house in terror, I think.
|
Okay, you're right; pistols are useless.
|
The purpose of the second amendment is so that the fundamental determinant of political power, which is military force, rests in the hands of the people as sort of a veto of last resort. The founder's purpose in securing that right in the Constitution so that in the case that the government somehow subverted the democratic process, the people could take up arms and rebel. The reason its there has very little to do with self-defense or hunting, the same way that the first amendment exists to protect political speech and not to bar the FCC from declaring that you can't swear on daytime television or banning cigarette ads.
Basically, so long as a piece of legislation passed by the government doesn't interfere with the people's ability to overthrow it, then passes founder's intent. Legislating that all handguns must be kept in locked chests inside one's place of residence doesn't really interfere with the people's ability to mobilize into militias and burn down Congress.
With respect to the particular DC handgun ban, arguments need really be made only on the issue of self-defense. In addition, you might as well ban handguns, since the weapons that truly pose at threat to the government aren't the little pistols, but the big rifles. Handgun bans can easily be opposed on self-defense grounds, but constitutionally, the reason for the second amendments existence has little bearing on handgun ownership.
Without guns, we'd just be another disarmed society. Right now, the UK, a couple of other countries in Europe and N. Korea, if I remember correctly, are the only societies that have been disarmed. The others are long gone, since they were massacred. No thanks.
Does this tiny, insignificant nation ring a bell to you?
Private sales are LEGAL.
/palmface
Illegal =/= problem.
Well, Jibba doesn't understand any of what you said. He thinks any firearm is a threat to society purely for existing. He makes no distinction between the law-abiding and the criminals.
Yeah, we'll just pass a law that says only law-abiding citizens can own guns.
Have fun enforcing that one.
I'm sorry, but who in the SCOTUS between 1800 and 1990 fought to make this country what it is today? None of them signed the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any other important document that marks the beginning of a new nation.
I guess the Supreme Court should have been abolished after 1800, then.
But as I've said, when we're talking about pistols and other small arms, the only argument that really needs to be made is their effect on crime. I'm too lazy to talk about that now.
|
United States24555 Posts
On June 29 2008 14:26 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Okay, you're right; pistols are useless.
Haha. This doesn't have to be all or nothing, all out debate. I think that's a problem with gun arguments. It turns into 'one side is wrong and the other is 100% correct' and everyone lobbies to stand on the superior side.
It seems like you are trying to avoid having to take an all-or-nothing stance, which is fine since the purpose of this discussion (simply the part with collectively partook in) was not to prove anybody wrong, but rather just to discuss what makes the most sense / is the most right.
|
I just don't want to get into a big argument over this. Who cares if you can get the job done better with a different type of gun? You can still get the job done.
|
On June 29 2008 22:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 14:26 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Okay, you're right; pistols are useless. Haha. This doesn't have to be all or nothing, all out debate. I think that's a problem with gun arguments. It turns into 'one side is wrong and the other is 100% correct' and everyone lobbies to stand on the superior side. It seems like you are trying to avoid having to take an all-or-nothing stance, which is fine since the purpose of this discussion (simply the part with collectively partook in) was not to prove anybody wrong, but rather just to discuss what makes the most sense / is the most right.
It's definitely a problem, as the gun issue isn't as black and white as people try to make most things into.
Carrying a gun doesn't make you safe, or keep you from harm; it simply gives you the ability to fight back.
Often times, the reasons the pro-rights community resists gun control is on principle (Second Amendment's purpose), or logic (the law-abiding were never the problem in the first place). The anti-rights community responds making asinine and derogatory comments ("It'll be the Wild Wild West!" "I don't feel safe."), which are almost never based on any academia, research, or anything relevant to the discussion.
Then they make comments based on their own general distrust of others and themselves ("People will shoot each other over road rage."). There's a reason many employment exams ask you if you think most employees steal from their employers or if you think people are distrustful. If you think they do, or are, then it's simply due to anecdotal evidence, meaning you take your own personal experience and project it to others.
So, when someone says they think someone would shoot someone over a simple disagreement, it's because they should.
But in the end, the discussion never gets anywhere. One side makes their arguments out of logic, reason, and what the laws say, and rarely can anyone make any good arguments against it. The other side makes arguments out of idealism and feelings, which is why so many people subscribe to the gun control ideology so easily (Who doesn't want crime to go down? All you hear about on the news is another criminal killing someone, so it does initially make sense to ban guns, only because you've never thought about how the millions of law-abiding gun owners who've never done anything wrong in their entire life).
So, gun control arguments honestly go nowhere at all--one said makes some good points, and the other side responds with insults (look at the posts disagreeing with mine--almost all of them contain more insults than on-topic content).
|
United States24555 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:02 5HITCOMBO wrote:
I just don't want to get into a big argument over this. Who cares if you can get the job done better with a different type of gun? You can still get the job done.
Fair enough, but realize I was responding originally to "Do you realize how much more effective and non-lethal you can be with a pistol than a shotgun or rifle?" and only for the purpose of discussing/clarifying the difference in roles of different types of guns (which is important since different gun laws obviously affect different guns differently).
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up.
|
american constitution is a pile of shite nowdays n needs a fat update
|
On June 30 2008 10:19 micronesia wrote:
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up.
Can you elaborate a little bit? I'd like to hear what you have to say about that (what gun control points are valid and what pro-gun advocates should shut up).
On June 30 2008 11:14 MarklarMarklar wrote:
american constitution is a pile of shite nowdays n needs a fat update
I disagree. Just because something is a couple of hundred years old doesn't make it obsolete. 
|
im pretty sure most countries in europe don't allow people much access to guns.
|
On June 30 2008 11:49 HamerD wrote:
im pretty sure most countries in europe don't allow people much access to guns.
Some countries don't. Some countries don't allow you to defend yourself whatsoever. Switzerland, if I remember correctly, doesn't restrict the law-abiding, and they don't have problems.
|
United States24555 Posts
On June 30 2008 11:38 rpf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2008 10:19 micronesia wrote:
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up. Can you elaborate a little bit? I'd like to hear what you have to say about that (what gun control points are valid and what pro-gun advocates should shut up). I'll pass. I'm not going to dedicate the time/energy to try to defend advocates of increased gun control, even if I do feel some of them are reasonable, and it is all but self evident that there are going to be some pro-gun advocates saying stupid things and getting the discussion nowhere. As a general rule I try not to take a stance on whether or not guns should be controlled on the internet anymore.
|
On June 30 2008 12:28 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2008 11:38 rpf wrote:On June 30 2008 10:19 micronesia wrote:
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up. Can you elaborate a little bit? I'd like to hear what you have to say about that (what gun control points are valid and what pro-gun advocates should shut up). I'll pass. I'm not going to dedicate the time/energy to try to defend advocates of increased gun control, even if I do feel some of them are reasonable, and it is all but self evident that there are going to be some pro-gun advocates saying stupid things and getting the discussion nowhere. As a general rule I try not to take a stance on whether or not guns should be controlled on the internet anymore.
What.
So why are you nitpicking the two posters arguing for the constitutional side of things and only their posts? Don't play neutral after clearly choosing a side.
|
On June 28 2008 01:10 rpf wrote:
How is it stupid? It did work for them Hitler slaughtered people en masse after disarming them, and the KKK pushed for gun control laws to disarm African-Americans so they could lynch them without resistance. To bad they didn't incorporate invalids and the mentally handicapped.
That's disgusting rpf.
|
United States41931 Posts
On June 28 2008 13:24 HeadBangaa wrote:
Kwark's (mis)understanding of the AMerican Revolution has always amused me.
Mindcrime, Funchucks, and RPF raped this thread.
Good read.
Well statistically we're looking at a minority of people actively in favour of independence. Even the great revolutionaries pressured London for a decade asking simply for local representation in local affairs without any degree of economic or military independence. It was only when London refused to budge on any ground (because of the unitary state) that they were forced into revolution. The degree of propaganda around it is laughable. Remember that crappy Mel Gibson film? It was actually the British who offered freedom to slaves willing to fight, not Mel as Hollywood suggests. They've taken a historical event and twisted it in the hope that no-one will notice. And taxes were 1/20th of what a comparable British paid, not even covering the cost of the colonies defence. ie you were being subsidised by the British taxpayer. I can start citing sources and quoting statistics if needed.
However the real problem was that the average Brit thought you were right. You were British people asking for a practical representation and to the man on the street there was no reason to deny it, far less to go to war over it. That's the tragedy of it. What you asked for in representation was granted freely to Canada, New Zealand and Australia shortly afterwards. It took a war we were unwilling to fight over a small point of political doctrine to realise how ridiculous it all was. But tbh you never really left the Empire. British immigration to America continued to rival that to Canada and Australia. Economic and military co-operation continued and now you have inherited our Empire, despite your refusal to admit to it.
The United States was the first neo-Europe (to use a historical term). A country culturally and socially homogenous with the the northern European root and has a common history. Culturally indistinguishable from the late British Empire, subject to the same influx of British people and part of the same economic system. The Empire was more than a colour on the map. It was a system and the US remained a part of that system.
|
United States41931 Posts
Well, more than remained. It was the triumph of that system.
|
United States24555 Posts
On July 01 2008 01:57 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2008 12:28 micronesia wrote:On June 30 2008 11:38 rpf wrote:On June 30 2008 10:19 micronesia wrote:
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up. Can you elaborate a little bit? I'd like to hear what you have to say about that (what gun control points are valid and what pro-gun advocates should shut up). I'll pass. I'm not going to dedicate the time/energy to try to defend advocates of increased gun control, even if I do feel some of them are reasonable, and it is all but self evident that there are going to be some pro-gun advocates saying stupid things and getting the discussion nowhere. As a general rule I try not to take a stance on whether or not guns should be controlled on the internet anymore. What. So why are you nitpicking the two posters arguing for the constitutional side of things and only their posts? Don't play neutral after clearly choosing a side.
I pointed out what I believe are more or less factual inaccuracies... I have not attempted to convince someone of the proper legality. My goal is not to convince someone on what should be done, but rather what is true. This is why I, for the most part, am not being argumentative.
Edit: Er, if I choose to nitpick some posts and not others that's my prerogative, however, I don't think you should take any offense if I chose your post over someone else's since I'm not closely following this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/china_provinces_map.jpg)
