|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 19 2012 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! Do you live in a society where you give the benefit of the doubt to armed criminals invading your home?I'm torn on gun laws in this country. I have no love of guns, and have no desire to own one, however if I lived in a less savory neighborhood I might consider owning a handgun. But I'm also of the opinion that banning guns outright would not really solve the issues people seem to think it would solve. We need to be focusing on the people pulling the trigger, and what we could have done to keep them from making that decision, than focusing on the implement they use to perform violent crimes. There is no doubt it is easier to kill with a gun than almost any other tool, but a violent criminal is a violent criminal. I've always believed lethal force should be allowed in the case of home invasion. The story above is a good example of why that is a good idea. It could result in some unfortunate incidents like the one earlier this year where a father shot his son by accident, but that was the direct result of the son being a criminal anyways... I don't understand why we should give the benefit of the doubt to an armed criminal in my home. If there is even a 1% chance I think he is going to harm me or my family, I'm taking him down. Whether that's with a frying pan, a baseball bat, or a pistol is up to my personal preferences and what happens to be conveniently accessible.
There was an attempt to break into my mothers house. She scared them away simply by waking up and looking out of the window. When the criminals saw her, they ran off and drove away.
It seems the criminals here are much more reasonable than in the states. And I really doubt my mother would be more safe if she had a gun.
|
On December 19 2012 06:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. No, according to the vast majority of gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is to assuage one's own fears. Makes you feel 'safe' by having the option to kill. Furthermore your argument, while cute, is rather asinine. The man is carrying a gun. Therefore he is pro-gun. Viewing him in the same way as your perceptions of anti gun sentiment makes no sense.
It seems like you are unable to make the distinction between a pro-gun, law-abiding citizen and a criminal. I wouldn't consider him pro-gun, I would consider him pro-armed robbery or pro-murder.
I realize this is nit-picky, but I think his distinction holds. You can't say that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people and then say that an armed criminal invading your home with a gun doesn't intend to kill people with it and remain intellectually honest. One of those statements has to be false.
|
On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic.
The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
|
On December 19 2012 06:48 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! Do you live in a society where you give the benefit of the doubt to armed criminals invading your home?I'm torn on gun laws in this country. I have no love of guns, and have no desire to own one, however if I lived in a less savory neighborhood I might consider owning a handgun. But I'm also of the opinion that banning guns outright would not really solve the issues people seem to think it would solve. We need to be focusing on the people pulling the trigger, and what we could have done to keep them from making that decision, than focusing on the implement they use to perform violent crimes. There is no doubt it is easier to kill with a gun than almost any other tool, but a violent criminal is a violent criminal. I've always believed lethal force should be allowed in the case of home invasion. The story above is a good example of why that is a good idea. It could result in some unfortunate incidents like the one earlier this year where a father shot his son by accident, but that was the direct result of the son being a criminal anyways... I don't understand why we should give the benefit of the doubt to an armed criminal in my home. If there is even a 1% chance I think he is going to harm me or my family, I'm taking him down. Whether that's with a frying pan, a baseball bat, or a pistol is up to my personal preferences and what happens to be conveniently accessible. There was an attempt to break into my mothers house. She scared them away simply by waking up and looking out of the window. When the criminals saw her, they ran off and drove away. It seems the criminals here are much more reasonable than in the states. And I really doubt my mother would be more safe if she had a gun.
You don't see the difference between those two scenarios? If you hear strange noises outside of your house at night, you look out the window. If that scares away potential criminals, that's great. Nobody comes to their window with guns blazing because they heard a strange noise. In the scenario above, the man was already inside the house, with a gun. Once he's in the house, locking yourself in a closet or bedroom will not save you.
Although I should probably clarify that my opinion on this matter stems from my belief that not all life is sacred and that I would trade the life of a criminal for the lives of my friends or family every time, if that is the choice I am faced with. People are fucking crazy, and the ones who will break into your house with a firearm are crazier than most. Giving that person the benefit of the doubt is arguably even fucking crazier.
|
On December 19 2012 06:48 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:33 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. No, according to the vast majority of gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is to assuage one's own fears. Makes you feel 'safe' by having the option to kill. Furthermore your argument, while cute, is rather asinine. The man is carrying a gun. Therefore he is pro-gun. Viewing him in the same way as your perceptions of anti gun sentiment makes no sense. It seems like you are unable to make the distinction between a pro-gun, law-abiding citizen and a criminal. I wouldn't consider him pro-gun, I would consider him pro-armed robbery or pro-murder. I realize this is nit-picky, but I think his distinction holds. You can't say that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people and then say that an armed criminal invading your home with a gun doesn't intend to kill people with it and remain intellectually honest. One of those statements has to be false.
I am anti-gun, but I agree with you. If a criminal is armed with a gun then he is willing to use it, and if the criminal has reason to fear for his own safety then he will use it.
The point of gun control is that it prevents criminals from being armed in the first place. If you fail to prevent criminals from carrying guns then there is no point in having any gun control. One of the differences between you are me is that I believe it is possible to use gun control effectively in the US, so that most criminals do not carry guns. The exception will be organised crime, but I think that is fairly rare now.
|
On December 19 2012 06:37 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! I live in Chicago and a lot of unarmed kids that age, and younger, get shot every year. Sometimes several in a week during the summer months. Gangs don't give a shit about following the moral codes of the public. Rational decision making in high stress situations isn't something they really care about and if a kid surprises them while they are on edge while committing a crime, bad things happen.
Holy shit. And I thought shit like this just happens in TV. But imo this problem isn't solved by citizens carrying more guns but by a better/stricter law enforcement. (maybe giving people jobs/a perspective would help too)
|
On December 19 2012 06:48 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:33 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. No, according to the vast majority of gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is to assuage one's own fears. Makes you feel 'safe' by having the option to kill. Furthermore your argument, while cute, is rather asinine. The man is carrying a gun. Therefore he is pro-gun. Viewing him in the same way as your perceptions of anti gun sentiment makes no sense. It seems like you are unable to make the distinction between a pro-gun, law-abiding citizen and a criminal. I wouldn't consider him pro-gun, I would consider him pro-armed robbery or pro-murder. I realize this is nit-picky, but I think his distinction holds. You can't say that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people and then say that an armed criminal invading your home with a gun doesn't intend to kill people with it and remain intellectually honest. One of those statements has to be false.
Wrong. Your argument rests on the assumption that purpose = intent. You have not proven that, and I would pay you handsomely and vote for you in the next election if you could.
|
On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody.
Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it.
A: Capable of providing for all maintenance.
B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient.
C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing.
|
On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks. Show nested quote +
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing.
Cool.
So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal.
|
On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal.
And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments.
You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response.
|
On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it.
There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents.
If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say...
|
On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response.
Haha that's pretty funny trying to claim someone speeding is comparable to some 40 year old adult forcing his way into a home with 3 young kids with a gun is just unreal...
|
On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Well If you impose almost impossible restrictions what's the difference to ban it?
Show nested quote +
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing.
Well it's not my train of thought for sure. I just think that guns make killing a lot easier. I oppose all full and semi automatic weapons, i.e. all self loading weapons in the hands of civilians.
Give them to the hunters but leave the hunt for criminals for law enforcement.
|
On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say...
another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today?
|
On December 19 2012 06:58 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:37 MooseyFate wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! I live in Chicago and a lot of unarmed kids that age, and younger, get shot every year. Sometimes several in a week during the summer months. Gangs don't give a shit about following the moral codes of the public. Rational decision making in high stress situations isn't something they really care about and if a kid surprises them while they are on edge while committing a crime, bad things happen. Holy shit. And I thought shit like this just happens in TV. But imo this problem isn't solved by citizens carrying more guns but by a better/stricter law enforcement. (maybe giving people jobs/a perspective would help too)
If you watch some documentaries on the situation in some cities it's pretty unreal. I remember one from CNN about LA if your on one side of the street your all good but if you pass a certain light post you could get beat up or shot really easily. I don't think it has anything to do with guns I think it has more to do with the really shitty out look that most people in the ghetto are born into. I mean they don't really have much hope while in school and it's just easier and in many ways better to join a violent gang for your livelihood/protection and a sense of family.
As some one stated earlier the Canadian system is much better imo. You have to go through the police to get a handgun and you can ONLY have it at your house or at the range. Anywhere else if your caught you will get your gun taken away and a huge fine and maybe even lose your gun license iirc. To just get a license you have to go do a test and have a psychiatric background check. As a rather personal example my friend is just getting over a psychotic episode so she is not allowed to get a firearms license in Canada. Seeing her at her worse was terrifying but she has gotten much much better but the idea that a person in that state of mind could legally get a gun in certain states is certainly very scary. Obviously I have trigger locks on everything 24/7 until I get out into the bush and I have new codes on my safe and I make 100% sure everything is locked up when she is over.
|
On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today?
What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference?
Gun's are obviously dangerous if used maliciously just like anything. Look at Canada and how safe it is here for an example of gun control done right. We have an insane amount of guns here and we have next to no violent crimes using guns. It's societal problems in the US leading to the high gun crime rates.
|
Yes
User was warned for this post
|
On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference?
Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc.
My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead.
Edit:On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response.
He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe.
|
On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe.
Fair enough but we restrict "assault weapons" in Canada. Most people only have a "non restricted" license which allows them to have rifles with barrels longer than 18 or 19 (cant remember tbh) inches and semi auto with no more than 5 bullets in a clip/magazine at once. Breaking any of these restrictions has a hefty penalty and in some cases jail time. Just having a pistol outside of your home is a chance to get a massive penalty. To get weapons that are restricted you have to do another weapons course and register with the police for restricted weapon you own and cannot have that weapon anywhere else but your home, in your vehicle in transit to a range and at the range. If you do get stopped by the police and claim you were on your way to a range the police will check that you did sign in at the range. If you do not sign in you will have police knocking at your door to confiscate your weapons.
People in Canada have the "fireworks" of guns. The ones that are not designed to kill on a large scale and are clearly designed to be for hunting/target shooting so for recreation.
Compared to the "cruise missile" guns where you have in rare cases full automatics, with nearly unlimited clips as seen in massive shootout in North Hollywood.
Guns are tools and some clearly designed for certain uses. Handguns/SMG's are clearly designed to be used to kill other human beings. Bolt Action hunting rifles on the other hand clearly have an intended use for hunting. The system of gun control in Canada is really well thought out imo. Gives enough freedom to gun owners to continue to enjoy their passion for the outdoors while protecting other citizens. The only shooting I can think of in Canadian history that was a school shooting was the shooting in Quebec in the 1980s.
About the burglar thing he was talking about the 40 year old man who forced his way into a home with 3 young children in the home armed with a gun. That's the situation you don't take chances with imo. Especially when your 14 years old and scared shitless about some man forcing his way in to possible hurt you or your younger siblings.
|
On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead.
That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant.
What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd.
And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people.
I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic.
Edit: Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate.
If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe.
Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
