|
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. |
Here's my opinion for what it's worth..
If you live on a farm or a house where no other nearby residential houses are you should be allowed to get permission to have a gun for self defense.
However if you live in a city, no f*ckin way you should be allowed to have a gun permission. Here's the thing with a decent security alarm system you will scare off 95/100 of burglars if they try to break in (at comparable costs as owning a gun). Even if they get into the house the alarm will wake-up neighbors and chances that the burglar will do anything stupid are slim to none.
If you are someone who has something valuable to lose from burglary chances are you will deal with a professional (or a team of professionals) and guess what your gun is not gonna help you here either.
|
On December 19 2012 09:16 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:13 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 09:04 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 09:01 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 09:00 Zaqwe wrote:
I don't see insurgents throwing out their guns due to uselessness.
And they are half way around the world where they have less access to soft targets like politicans. obvious troll is obvious :/ I kind of wish the people who think that way would try it against the US Army. Then, hopefully, after natural selection ran it's course, the rest of us who own guns wouldn't get guilt by association, and might look a little better. To be fair I heard rumours about these insurgents in the middle east giving the Us army a run for their money... Yes, guerilla warfare intended purely to do as much damage as possible and stay in the shadows permanently is directly comparable to a shooting war intended to wrest control of a government, regarding the value of materiel. Not quite. Blowing up a few vehicles here and there, and taking sniper potshots to push out occupation via attrition and changing political will are not what you'd need to defeat an Army that won't be leaving ever. What about the IRA then? What your trying to say is that an armed populace wouldn't be a major thorn in the side of a large military which just isn't true.
In a hypothetical takeover of the US by government to create a dictatorship the military would likely have segments go rogue and fight alongside civilians like many coups across the world.
I agree with you that owning guns to fight off the gov't is silly because that would never happen but saying that they don't play a massive role in revolutions is just not true.
I'm on the same side of an issue as Zaqwe what is happening....
|
On December 19 2012 09:14 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:05 Zaqwe wrote:On December 19 2012 09:04 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 09:03 Energizer wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army. And yet our crappy guns worked against the much superior force of Britain... I admit it, my posts always provoke the smartest of responses possible. in other words: I'm out for now. In other words: you have no retort. You lost the argument. Now you run away with your tail between your legs. He lost an argument? The argument was that the personal guns of american citizens can defend them from the US military. That is not an argument, that is idiocy. You could take your guns and every weapon owned by your family, friends and colleague and you would not put a dent in a single tank, let alone a modern aircraft.
People who have experience fighting the US Army seem to disagree. They often use firearms. If they are so useless, what are they using them for?
I'll take the opinions of experienced insurgents over armchair generals.
|
On December 19 2012 08:57 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army.
Haha yeah this guy is a revolutionary. IT's funny because in revolutions and armed insurgencys in Syria and Lybia the rebels would have slaughtered without the supply of anti-tank weapons and heavy machine guns form western governments. If you want a revolution why not legaalise RPG's, that would be more effective against the government.
|
On December 19 2012 09:14 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:05 Zaqwe wrote:On December 19 2012 09:04 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 09:03 Energizer wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army. And yet our crappy guns worked against the much superior force of Britain... I admit it, my posts always provoke the smartest of responses possible. in other words: I'm out for now. In other words: you have no retort. You lost the argument. Now you run away with your tail between your legs. He lost an argument? The argument was that the personal guns of american citizens can defend them from the US military. That is not an argument, that is idiocy. You could take your guns and every weapon owned by your family, friends and colleague and you would not put a dent in a single tank, let alone a modern aircraft.
Your talking like it would be in an open field. Insurgencies take place in cities within the populace you can't just level a major city with aircraft because that would only double the number of insurgents by killing innocent civilians.
Tanks are nearly useless in major cities. They are susceptible to IED's that could be placed under cars/in storm drains etc etc. Tanks are like Calvary they are the most effective in engagements in large fields like deserts. In forests and cities they have no room to move so they lose their mobility which is a massive part of tanks effectiveness and often the turrets can't swing around in cities because of lamp posts and tight streets.
Saying LOLOLOL YOU CANT STOP THE US MILITARY WE GOT TANKS YO is just silly. Look at the cities in Iraq/Afghanistan or even the fighting in Stalingrad/Berlin. Part of the reason the Nazis lost so much in Stalingrad is because they could not use their combined arms in the tight cities for fear of hitting their own men. They often couldn't get tanks into the city at all because of all the rubble piled up in streets.
Any insurgent who does not have a severe mental disorder would never fight a major military power in the open. They always fight in cities/thick jungle for a reason.
|
Explain to me, please, what sort of successes at overthrowing said hypothetical US Tyrannical government would have, if they couldn't take or hold major resource centers, let alone do anything about the political power? Because that's what it would come down to. All of the successes would be on a scale that did nothing whatsoever.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 19 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:
I edited my previous post but basically the average citizen does not have the right to judge or punish another citizen, only the justice system does. It may, from time to time, be necessary for one man to use force against another to protect himself or his property but this is never justice, just reacting to the circumstances. The minimum amount of force should be used to secure himself (with reasonable allowances for the limitations of the scenario (not knowing if they are armed or not etc)) and the situation should be passed to the authorities empowered by society to deal with it as soon as possible. They have a monopoly on legitimate force.
Dealing with intruders is a tricky thing, I believe. What do you think of the following choose your own adventure style scenario:
+ Show Spoiler [Game:] +
+ Show Spoiler [My analysis] +
At the first decision, you get to choose whether or not you draw your weapon, assuming it is concealed. If you draw your weapon, you are risking ending D. However, you are preventing endings G and H from happening due to not drawing your weapon when you had the chance.
Pulling the gun may not make sense statistically, especially if you are lacking in training, but I would think people do it not to punish the intruder, but to prevent scenario G/H. I agree with you that it isn't our job to punish criminals as civilians, but what do you think of the argument that people have a right to try to prevent ending G and H in their own home?
Disclaimer: the odds of various things happening are not appropriately modeled in the game... I recognize this.
|
On December 19 2012 09:35 JingleHell wrote:
Explain to me, please, what sort of successes at overthrowing said hypothetical US Tyrannical government would have, if they couldn't take or hold major resource centers, let alone do anything about the political power? Because that's what it would come down to. All of the successes would be on a scale that did nothing whatsoever.
If.
|
You are in your house, carrying a pistol at your hip legally (concealed). You hear a noise, turn, and see a strange man 6 feet away; you both notice each other at about the same time, but you have a slight jump on him. You...
- Hide Spoiler [draw your gun...] -
And then...
+ Show Spoiler [shoot] +
- Hide Spoiler [yell commands] -
and try to get the intruder to leave/submit/etc. <Flip a coin:>
+ Show Spoiler [<heads>] +
- Hide Spoiler [<tails>] -
He reaches for his weapon. <Flip a coin:>
- Hide Spoiler [<heads>] -
You then open fire and kill the intruder. (ending C)
I'm pretty good at this game.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 19 2012 09:53 dUTtrOACh wrote:
You are in your house, carrying a pistol at your hip legally (concealed). You hear a noise, turn, and see a strange man 6 feet away; you both notice each other at about the same time, but you have a slight jump on him. You...
- Hide Spoiler [draw your gun...] -
And then...
+ Show Spoiler [shoot] +
- Hide Spoiler [yell commands] -
and try to get the intruder to leave/submit/etc. <Flip a coin:>
+ Show Spoiler [<heads>] +
- Hide Spoiler [<tails>] -
He reaches for his weapon. <Flip a coin:>
- Hide Spoiler [<heads>] -
You then open fire and kill the intruder. (ending C)
I'm pretty good at this game.
Well, what if the intruder was willing to leave peacefully upon discovering there was someone there? You might have just killed a person who didn't pose a threat to you. Your ending wasn't necessarily the 'winning' scenario.
|
On December 19 2012 09:35 JingleHell wrote:
Explain to me, please, what sort of successes at overthrowing said hypothetical US Tyrannical government would have, if they couldn't take or hold major resource centers, let alone do anything about the political power? Because that's what it would come down to. All of the successes would be on a scale that did nothing whatsoever.
I would assume some elements of the military would splinter off and fight alongside the civilians like in countless other coups and recently in Syria/Libya giving the rebels access to a significant arsenal. The US is a very very large place so the borders are already difficult to defend without a massive civil war raging inside just look at drug trafficking to see this. With resources drawn away to deal with the Civil War it's not a stretch to imagine foreign governments sneaking in anti tank weapons and other goodies through the Mexican border.
People are incredibly resourceful, instead of attacking a heavily fortified oil refinery you could just bomb the long impossible to protect oil/gas pipelines for example. Political power means nothing if you do not have the means to enforce it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but people fight tooth and nail against most government encroachment on benign things like health care in the US. I would be amazed if there wasn't a civil war over something like this.
This is pretty off topic though
|
On December 19 2012 09:56 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:53 dUTtrOACh wrote:
You are in your house, carrying a pistol at your hip legally (concealed). You hear a noise, turn, and see a strange man 6 feet away; you both notice each other at about the same time, but you have a slight jump on him. You...
- Hide Spoiler [draw your gun...] -
And then...
+ Show Spoiler [shoot] +
- Hide Spoiler [yell commands] -
and try to get the intruder to leave/submit/etc. <Flip a coin:>
+ Show Spoiler [<heads>] +
- Hide Spoiler [<tails>] -
He reaches for his weapon. <Flip a coin:>
- Hide Spoiler [<heads>] -
You then open fire and kill the intruder. (ending C)
I'm pretty good at this game. Well, what if the intruder was willing to leave peacefully upon discovering there was someone there? You might have just killed a person who didn't pose a threat to you. Your ending wasn't necessarily the 'winning' scenario.
You have your gun drawn on him, he reaches for his weapon and is willing to leave peacefully ? Why would he draw his weapon in the first place ? Come on...
If someone reaching for their weapon while breaking into your house isn't posing a threat, you're completely unreasonable.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 19 2012 10:12 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:56 micronesia wrote:On December 19 2012 09:53 dUTtrOACh wrote:
You are in your house, carrying a pistol at your hip legally (concealed). You hear a noise, turn, and see a strange man 6 feet away; you both notice each other at about the same time, but you have a slight jump on him. You...
- Hide Spoiler [draw your gun...] -
And then...
+ Show Spoiler [shoot] +
- Hide Spoiler [yell commands] -
and try to get the intruder to leave/submit/etc. <Flip a coin:>
+ Show Spoiler [<heads>] +
- Hide Spoiler [<tails>] -
He reaches for his weapon. <Flip a coin:>
- Hide Spoiler [<heads>] -
You then open fire and kill the intruder. (ending C)
I'm pretty good at this game. Well, what if the intruder was willing to leave peacefully upon discovering there was someone there? You might have just killed a person who didn't pose a threat to you. Your ending wasn't necessarily the 'winning' scenario. You have your gun drawn on him, he reaches for his weapon and is willing to leave peacefully ? Why would he draw his weapon in the first place ? Come on... If someone reaching for their weapon while breaking into your house isn't posing a threat, you're completely unreasonable.
No I never meant he draws his weapon and means to leave peacefully. I mean doesn't draw his weapon and would leave peacefully when encountering people.
|
You said he reached for his weapon. I think you could reasonably argue that he was clearly going to pull on you if someone did this.
|
United States24569 Posts
Oh I think I see what's going on...I misread the way he played the game (I thought he had ending A basically). Yeah, if he draws a weapon on you I don't see a good argument against being permitted to defend yourself, although I'm sure some people would try.
|
Maybe I'm overly cynical but if anyone breaks into my home while I am in it I will assume they intend to harm me and react based on that. I don't have a second floor to retreat to and I think confronting an intruder for any reason other than opening fire on sight is a really bad idea. Of course I also live alone so I don't have to worry about family.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 19 2012 10:26 heliusx wrote:
Maybe I'm overly cynical but if anyone breaks into my home while I am in it I will assume they intend to harm me and react based on that. I don't have a second floor to retreat to and I think confronting an intruder for any reason other than opening fire on sight is a really bad idea. Of course I also live alone so I don't have to worry about family.
Notice how at no point did you say you would try to punish him for breaking in! I think it's natural to want to prevent the worst case scenario of the intruder destroying your life when you could have prevented it by defending yourself.
The problem remains though that having the gun out also increases the chances of the encounter escalating and ultimately you dying if your lose the 'battle' (not to mention the possible unnecessary death of the intruder).
|
Looking back on it, I think I may have spent too much time and effort trying to address the actual questions that needed to be answered, which are:
Would a ban of firearms--handguns, shotguns, or rifles--have an effect on gun violence in the U.S.? No. Does the banning of high capacity magazines have an effect on efficiency of killing in real world examples? No (eg VATech).
I'm giving up on this thread because there's just no way to argue with reason, facts, evidence, and level-headedness that gun control is counter-productive, does not work, has never worked here.
What is needed is tighter screening for prospective gun owners.
I tried my best, sorry guys.
|
On December 19 2012 10:28 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 10:26 heliusx wrote:
Maybe I'm overly cynical but if anyone breaks into my home while I am in it I will assume they intend to harm me and react based on that. I don't have a second floor to retreat to and I think confronting an intruder for any reason other than opening fire on sight is a really bad idea. Of course I also live alone so I don't have to worry about family. Notice how at no point did you say you would try to punish him for breaking in! I think it's natural to want to prevent the worst case scenario of the intruder destroying your life when you could have prevented it by defending yourself. The problem remains though that having the gun out also increases the chances of the encounter escalating and ultimately you dying if your lose the 'battle' (not to mention the possible unnecessary death of the intruder).
Well in a perfect situation of self defense while in your home you would hide in your bedroom and open fire as soon as they attempt to enter that room. Thats what I was taught at least. The chances of you losing such an ambush is pretty small in that situation. Like I said I don't think confronting them is a good idea. You should call the police, ready your weapon, and stay in your room unless of course you have a family to protect. I don't.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 19 2012 10:33 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 10:28 micronesia wrote:On December 19 2012 10:26 heliusx wrote:
Maybe I'm overly cynical but if anyone breaks into my home while I am in it I will assume they intend to harm me and react based on that. I don't have a second floor to retreat to and I think confronting an intruder for any reason other than opening fire on sight is a really bad idea. Of course I also live alone so I don't have to worry about family. Notice how at no point did you say you would try to punish him for breaking in! I think it's natural to want to prevent the worst case scenario of the intruder destroying your life when you could have prevented it by defending yourself. The problem remains though that having the gun out also increases the chances of the encounter escalating and ultimately you dying if your lose the 'battle' (not to mention the possible unnecessary death of the intruder). Well in a perfect situation of self defense while in your home you would hide in your bedroom and open fire as soon as they attempt to enter that room. Thats what I was taught at least. The chances of you losing such an ambush is pretty small in that situation. Like I said I don't think confronting them is a good idea. You should call the police, ready your weapon, and stay in your room unless of course you have a family to protect. I don't.
I'm curious what Kwark (based on what he said earlier) thinks of the strategy of hiding in the bedroom with a gun waiting to ambush, if you believe there is an intruder in your home.
Then again that's just one course of action people might take. If there was a guy smashing shit up in my home, I know I'd feel an urge to confront him before he did more damage. Would that be the right thing to do? Maybe, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
