|
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 April 23 2013 12:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 12:03 Fruscainte wrote:On April 23 2013 11:59 Defacer wrote:
I guess what we're really asking is whether or not you can trust the judgement of an average person, with a gun, when placed in a situation where they feel threatened (real or imagined).
I think I've made it pretty clear I'm in the just barely column. What I hate about US gun laws is that standards for owning one are far too low. I suggest you read up on gun laws before you make such ridiculous generalizations. All of the proposed laws would not have stopped what happened in Connecticut. I'd like you to get this through your head. Adam Lanza, under the current laws nationally and in Connecticut was denied purchase of a firearm. He proceeded to kill his mother, steal the firearms and then perpetrate the acts. The reports also show that he hardly fired any ammunition out of the magazines he was using before reloading. The amount of ammunition fired out of each magazine was by all reports I have seen, less than all but the strictest magazine capacity limits proposed. The proposed legislation had it been enacted prior would not have stopped what happened either. Mrs. Lanza had no prior criminal record and nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have flagged her on a background check and stopped her from purchasing firearms. The idea that what has happened in Conetticut and other locations across the U.S. is anything but the acts of deranged individuals and that people who are already following the laws as they are written should be punished by a judicial system that is falling apart and overtaxed is laughable at best. At worst it is the idea of someone who looks to what the Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China, Cuba and other Communist and Socialist states did and say "We need to do that here." when the lens of history looks on and shows that those ideals fail and collapse. Why else would the Chinese have grabbed onto capitalism and changed to fit it, why else would the Soviet Union have collapsed? Forgive me I went off on a bit of a tangent there but the point is that our country was not founded on such ideals. The ideals the U.S. were founded on were that each person is free to choose their own destiny up until they effect the lives of others in a negative way. More laws are not the answer. Enforcing the ones we currently have is and clarifying them the correct answer. Capiche? Having less ammunition does not stop you from hunting or for rape victims to shoot their attackers. How does smaller magazine sizes prevent that?
Er, I agree?
|
On April 23 2013 12:03 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:59 Defacer wrote:
I guess what we're really asking is whether or not you can trust the judgement of an average person, with a gun, when placed in a situation where they feel threatened (real or imagined).
I think I've made it pretty clear I'm in the just barely column. What I hate about US gun laws is that standards for owning one are far too low. I suggest you read up on gun laws before you make such ridiculous generalizations. All of the proposed laws would not have stopped what happened in Connecticut. I'd like you to get this through your head. Adam Lanza, under the current laws nationally and in Connecticut was denied purchase of a firearm. He proceeded to kill his mother, steal the firearms and then perpetrate the acts. The reports also show that he hardly fired any ammunition out of the magazines he was using before reloading. The amount of ammunition fired out of each magazine was by all reports I have seen, less than all but the strictest magazine capacity limits proposed. The proposed legislation had it been enacted prior would not have stopped what happened either. Mrs. Lanza had no prior criminal record and nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have flagged her on a background check and stopped her from purchasing firearms. The idea that what has happened in Conetticut and other locations across the U.S. is anything but the acts of deranged individuals and that people who are already following the laws as they are written should be punished by a judicial system that is falling apart and overtaxed is laughable at best. At worst it is the idea of someone who looks to what the Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China, Cuba and other Communist and Socialist states did and say "We need to do that here." when the lens of history looks on and shows that those ideals fail and collapse. Why else would the Chinese have grabbed onto capitalism and changed to fit it, why else would the Soviet Union have collapsed? Forgive me I went off on a bit of a tangent there but the point is that our country was not founded on such ideals. The ideals the U.S. were founded on were that each person is free to choose their own destiny up until they effect the lives of others in a negative way. More laws are not the answer. Enforcing the ones we currently have is and clarifying them the correct answer. Capiche?
The odds of a mass shooting is similar to being struck in lightning. So yes, you're absolutely correct that the law wouldn't stop Adam Lanza from getting guns.
I'm more concerned by the lack of training for gun owners, the poor enforcement of background checks, and the lack of coordination between mental health care providers and the NCJRS. It's not about having more laws or restrictions, its about having some fucking standards.
Most gun injuries and deaths are accidental, and the result of some knucklehead or Betty Crocker that can't shoot straight handling guns.
Compare the standards a law enforcement officers has to meet compared to those of the average US citizen , in order to carry a firearm. The difference in knowledge and training is massive.
I'm not saying that US citizens should be as well-trained as a police officer, but there are states where the only qualification is a background check. It's harder to pass the third grade than to get a gun.
Please refrain from foisting these strawman arguments upon me, like you know me or my politics.
Capiche?
|
I misread your post and I apologize.
I agree fully that standards of enforcement of current laws need to be increased, mental health care providers need to be more in contact with gun distributors and that there should be some kind of basic form of education for guns. However, the problem with the above is that if it becomes mandatory, that would require a form of license to simply own a gun. Which would involve a registry, and a whole slew of problems and a new can of worms.
What it should be like, in my opinion, is like the MSF for motorcycles. You don't HAVE to take it, but everyone does. Why? Because it's available and relatively cheap and if you pass it you get enormous breaks on your insurance and discounts on your first gear purchases from every manufacturer. I would be really happy for something similar for guns. Do this test and get a discount on your first few purchases of ammunition or some shit and a tax break. I know a lot of people I pitch this idea to say no one would do it, but man, you have no idea. I know I would, it's refreshing if they got some actual experts there. I can't think of a single person I know who owns a gun who wouldn't take a 2 day course every year or two for $50-100 to get a refresher on their knowledge and some ammunition discounts.
|
On April 23 2013 12:25 Fruscainte wrote:
I misread your post and I apologize.
I agree fully that standards of enforcement of current laws need to be increased, mental health care providers need to be more in contact with gun distributors and that there should be some kind of basic form of education for guns. However, the problem with the above is that if it becomes mandatory, that would require a form of license to simply own a gun. Which would involve a registry, and a whole slew of problems and a new can of worms.
What it should be like, in my opinion, is like the MSF for motorcycles. You don't HAVE to take it, but everyone does. Why? Because it's available and relatively cheap and if you pass it you get enormous breaks on your insurance and discounts on your first gear purchases from every manufacturer. I would be really happy for something similar for guns. Do this test and get a discount on your first few purchases of ammunition or some shit and a tax break. I know a lot of people I pitch this idea to say no one would do it, but man, you have no idea. I know I would, it's refreshing if they got some actual experts there. I can't think of a single person I know who owns a gun who wouldn't take a 2 day course every year or two for $50-100 to get a refresher on their knowledge and some ammunition discounts.
As of 2010, 31 states use the MSF tests for licensing, and 41 states use the MSF motorcycle operator manual.
It should be all 50 and you know it. Motorcycles and guns actually make for a pretty accurate comparison; not only do they require good training in pursuit of competent use, their very presence in the public space warrants additional consideration on everyone's part.
|
On April 23 2013 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:54 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target. Some Piers Morgan logic right there, and this just opens up a can of worms of even more hypotheticals I can counter your instance with. So the risk of someone having poor aim justifies me not being able to defend myself? I guess we need to ban cars because some people suck at driving and might run over people because they can't stay on the damn road. To use your own logic against you, what if guns get banned and someone who would have shot 12 kids in a school now decides to use a car to kill people, possibly running over 50 children playing in a playground? It's just pointless logic and it doesn't justify anything. Was I the one who started by raising hypothetical situations? No, so I'm not sure why you are attacking me and my "something to sound smart" logic. I noticed the one guy was saying, "well, see here's why pepper spray isn't as good as guns for preventing rape...pepper spray might miss the target's eyes, etc." To which I replied... "OK, let's be fair and think about the situations that could arise in which a gun would do more harm than good". Hopefully you understand now. I admit, I did chuckle a bit from your response  I keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake. On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:
[quote]
It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo.
I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right?
He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged. How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder? Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her. Such black and white logic is useless. She could pull the gun on him if he approaches her in a threatening manner, hopefully this is enough to stop him and the entire attack is prevented. If he pulls a gun on her, shooting him is now justified as her life was in danger. If he pulls a knife or other weapon and charges her, she is also justified in shooting him. If they both end up on the ground with him on top of her, if possible to access her gun and shoot him, she is, again, justified in shooting him. It isn't just as simple as well she either shoots him from 10 feet away or she is raped. Anything can happen. Why can't you just use common sense (common sense being that there are more than 2 or 3 possible outcomes in any dangerous situation) and look at any instance of self-defense and apply it to this type of scenario? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
In my CHL (concealed handgun license) class the instructor said that at 21 feet an attacker can close the distance by the time you draw your weapon out. So if you're unsure of a situation do your best to keep further away then that. Obviously if someone surprises you there isn't much that you can do about it. But if you give me a choice of being jumped and having pepper spray or a handgun to defend myself, I'll take the handgun every time. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights. It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea. Self defense is a terrible reason against gun control. There are MANY forms of self defense that don't include guns--guns are simply one of the many forms of self defense. The 2nd Amendment is also a terrible "argument" against gun control because, taken literally, it says (very specifically) "REGULATED militia." In other words, the 2nd word of the 2nd amendment is regulation ie--the 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control if read literally. The reason it is used against gun control is recent and old interpretations of the sentence with the understanding that taking it literally would produce an amendment that both allowed ownership of guns as well as allowed heavy regulation of guns. The 2008 case (Heller I think) made it so that the *current* (but not only) reading of the amendment to be an emphasis on the word *infringe* instead of placing emphasis on the word *regulated;* but this is merely a recent interpretation of the law and it might change in the future as well. So no, "self defense" and "2nd Amendment" is a terrible argument against gun control. The right to property ownership unproven to be any more dangerous than most household products is a more appropriate and fitting argument against gun control. When people stop dying to hammers more often than they die to sniper rifles--then you can argue that sniper rifles need to jump ahead of the line of dangerous property items that need regulation.
You have this weird confidence in your post like you're speaking with some authority on the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, basic grammar disagrees with you. There is absolutely no evidence that you give (beacuse it doesn't exist) that the right to bear arms hinges on any militia requirement.
Also it you are trying to go on a bend about the "regulated" requirement it would be the third word not the second. Just small potatoes but I don't get were you got that part of your arugment either.
|
On April 23 2013 12:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:54 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:
[quote]
if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours"
in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target. Some Piers Morgan logic right there, and this just opens up a can of worms of even more hypotheticals I can counter your instance with. So the risk of someone having poor aim justifies me not being able to defend myself? I guess we need to ban cars because some people suck at driving and might run over people because they can't stay on the damn road. To use your own logic against you, what if guns get banned and someone who would have shot 12 kids in a school now decides to use a car to kill people, possibly running over 50 children playing in a playground? It's just pointless logic and it doesn't justify anything. Was I the one who started by raising hypothetical situations? No, so I'm not sure why you are attacking me and my "something to sound smart" logic. I noticed the one guy was saying, "well, see here's why pepper spray isn't as good as guns for preventing rape...pepper spray might miss the target's eyes, etc." To which I replied... "OK, let's be fair and think about the situations that could arise in which a gun would do more harm than good". Hopefully you understand now. I admit, I did chuckle a bit from your response I keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake. On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun.
She says: "He tried to rape me"
Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged. How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder? Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her. Such black and white logic is useless. She could pull the gun on him if he approaches her in a threatening manner, hopefully this is enough to stop him and the entire attack is prevented. If he pulls a gun on her, shooting him is now justified as her life was in danger. If he pulls a knife or other weapon and charges her, she is also justified in shooting him. If they both end up on the ground with him on top of her, if possible to access her gun and shoot him, she is, again, justified in shooting him. It isn't just as simple as well she either shoots him from 10 feet away or she is raped. Anything can happen. Why can't you just use common sense (common sense being that there are more than 2 or 3 possible outcomes in any dangerous situation) and look at any instance of self-defense and apply it to this type of scenario? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
In my CHL (concealed handgun license) class the instructor said that at 21 feet an attacker can close the distance by the time you draw your weapon out. So if you're unsure of a situation do your best to keep further away then that. Obviously if someone surprises you there isn't much that you can do about it. But if you give me a choice of being jumped and having pepper spray or a handgun to defend myself, I'll take the handgun every time. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights. It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea. Self defense is a terrible reason against gun control. There are MANY forms of self defense that don't include guns--guns are simply one of the many forms of self defense. The 2nd Amendment is also a terrible "argument" against gun control because, taken literally, it says (very specifically) "REGULATED militia." In other words, the 2nd word of the 2nd amendment is regulation ie--the 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control if read literally. The reason it is used against gun control is recent and old interpretations of the sentence with the understanding that taking it literally would produce an amendment that both allowed ownership of guns as well as allowed heavy regulation of guns. The 2008 case (Heller I think) made it so that the *current* (but not only) reading of the amendment to be an emphasis on the word *infringe* instead of placing emphasis on the word *regulated;* but this is merely a recent interpretation of the law and it might change in the future as well. So no, "self defense" and "2nd Amendment" is a terrible argument against gun control. The right to property ownership unproven to be any more dangerous than most household products is a more appropriate and fitting argument against gun control. When people stop dying to hammers more often than they die to sniper rifles--then you can argue that sniper rifles need to jump ahead of the line of dangerous property items that need regulation. You have this weird confidence in your post like you're speaking with some authority on the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, basic grammar disagrees with you. There is absolutely no evidence that you give (beacuse it doesn't exist) that the right to bear arms hinges on any militia requirement. Also it you are trying to go on a bend about the "regulated" requirement it would be the third word not the second. Just small potatoes but I don't get were you got that part of your arugment either.
This. And other forms of self defense are terrible in certain situations. If someone pulls a knife on me and all I have is a knife, most likely we are both going to be severely injured and one of us probably killed. A gun is a much more effective weapon for defense in that scenario. We have other forms of transportation besides cars, so why do we need dangerous cars that can kill people? Because other forms of transportation are terrible for traveling long distances.
|
On April 23 2013 12:03 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:59 Defacer wrote:
I guess what we're really asking is whether or not you can trust the judgement of an average person, with a gun, when placed in a situation where they feel threatened (real or imagined).
I think I've made it pretty clear I'm in the just barely column. What I hate about US gun laws is that standards for owning one are far too low. I suggest you read up on gun laws before you make such ridiculous generalizations. All of the proposed laws would not have stopped what happened in Connecticut. I'd like you to get this through your head. Adam Lanza, under the current laws nationally and in Connecticut was denied purchase of a firearm. He proceeded to kill his mother, steal the firearms and then perpetrate the acts. The reports also show that he hardly fired any ammunition out of the magazines he was using before reloading. The amount of ammunition fired out of each magazine was by all reports I have seen, less than all but the strictest magazine capacity limits proposed. The proposed legislation had it been enacted prior would not have stopped what happened either. Mrs. Lanza had no prior criminal record and nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have flagged her on a background check and stopped her from purchasing firearms. The idea that what has happened in Conetticut and other locations across the U.S. is anything but the acts of deranged individuals and that people who are already following the laws as they are written should be punished by a judicial system that is falling apart and overtaxed is laughable at best. At worst it is the idea of someone who looks to what the Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China, Cuba and other Communist and Socialist states did and say "We need to do that here." when the lens of history looks on and shows that those ideals fail and collapse. Why else would the Chinese have grabbed onto capitalism and changed to fit it, why else would the Soviet Union have collapsed? Forgive me I went off on a bit of a tangent there but the point is that our country was not founded on such ideals. The ideals the U.S. were founded on were that each person is free to choose their own destiny up until they effect the lives of others in a negative way. More laws are not the answer. Enforcing the ones we currently have is and clarifying them the correct answer. Capiche?
Would any of the current US laws, if correctly enforced, have prevented this situation from happening? (genuine question)
If the answer is no and that none of the proposed laws would have, then maybe new better laws need to be proposed unless you are happy with "deranged individuals" being able to end so many innocent lives so easily.
For example, in Australia, you generally have to keep your firearms locked up in a safe, I realise that the vast majority gun owners in America would pretty much never agree to this, but this is an example that would make it a lot harder for situations like the Conetticut shooting to happen.
I honestly don't understand this idea that gun control is synonymous with punishing people who follow the law. Surely there is some kind of compromise that could be made, where you get to keep your guns yet better systems are put in place to hinder the access of guns to those who are more likely to be a danger to society.
|
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age.
|
On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age.
The point is not that you can win pitched battles against a professional army with all its ordinance as a rag-tag citizens militia with small arms. The point is that you CAN FIGHT. You can bleed them. When they come patrolling through your neighborhood, you might be able to take a couple of the fuckers with you. Hell, you might even be able to run away and do it again--theoretically you wouldn't be alone and they couldn't engage in endless "manhunts" for everyone who resisted them. And they'd never feel safe; there could be a shooter behind any window.
Of course they could call in the artillery and air support and level your neighborhood; sure. What would this get them? Well, it would piss a lot of people off when innocents died and play into the hands of rebels. It would make a lot of the soldiers in that professional military seriously consider whether they were doing the right thing or not. And finally, it would simply kill people, and no one wants to rule a nation of corpses.
The aim of a tyrant is to control, not to kill. What they want is to be able to have militarized police/gestapo point guns at people and cow them into submission to whatever dictates they might want to impose. If those people are instead waiting behind their doors and ready to shoot first when the jackbooted thugs come around, they've already failed.
So the point is to fight. If you resist, you're not being controlled, and you're also undermining attempts to control others who can't or won't fight; you might die, of course. That's why Patrick Henry said what he famously said, more or less.
As long as people can resist, they can be free, and tyrants can never succeed. But when you're talking about using swords and knives and clubs against modern military weapons it ACTUALLY becomes pointless, because you can't bleed them at all--they'll just shoot you with beanbags and rubber and water cannons and microwave guns etc.
That's why having guns is so important.
EDIT: Fun observation!
When we're talking about the children and school shootings, everyone has an automatic 5000 round magazine assault shotgun rocket grenade launcher with a pistol grip, but when we're talking about fighting the government, we have handguns and hunting rifles. Jeez, make up your mind!
|
On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age.
The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years.
the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population.
Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have.
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
Fucking hell, some of you people are deluded. Insane.
|
On April 23 2013 13:13 Wombat_NI wrote:
Fucking hell, some of you people are deluded. Insane.
Fantastic argument. Completely free of any logical fallacies, amazing logical or factual evidences, and just in depth, structured, and contributing. A+. You've changed all of our opinions forever. Thank you.
Anyways, on topic, in terms of the military -- a lot of our military is non-combatant. Our actual infantry is a pretty small fraction of our military force. I believe (please correct me) the number is about 10%ish is actually infantry, and if anything we're demilitarizing right now in terms of sheer numbers.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
I wasn't making any kind of argument, just venting. I'm not even particularly vehemently anti-gun by most metrics, but I'm reading things on here that are just as ridiculous as the things that conspiracy theorists get laughed out of threads for coming out with.
|
On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA.
|
On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
Heh, thanks, but it's actually Scalia's argument. Not mine. :D
About your thoughts on how a modern military would be stalled/thwarted by the mere presence of unlimited handguns/rifles... Nope. I don't think I agree with your ideas, based on the fact they're totally unsubstantiated. Even with a conflict like Syria, where the rebellion has plenty of access to relatively sophisticated weaponry and foreign aid -- the result is devastation on civilian targets. Is there some example of this working, in the real world? I mean to say, can you point to a case where rifle/handgun armed population of civilians successfully repelled a *modern* dictatorial government? Re: No outside aid or military weaponry -- just handguns and rifles, as we are discussing here. To save you the time, you won't find one :D
Oh one thing I couldn't resist picking out... Soldier marching down the street? If rifles being present makes that unsafe for the military, then the military will instead barrage the area with tanks and bombers. Really, you're talking out of your ass if you think rifles and handguns would repel a modern military. Scalia's argument, not mine.
|
On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA.
Well they are trying to take our guns away. You of all people should know coming from Australia why there is so much hysteria by the right on background checks and by proxy a national gun registry. People are literally suggesting Gun registration and gun grabbing in america. Granted they're on the far far left and get as much press as my uncle bob in the kkk but people do look at it as their end goal for gun control.
I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions.
|
This video is a clip from the Daily Show. It highlights the gun control introduced in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre.
This was in 1996. There have been NO mass shootings since. Vastly reduced gun violence and suicide.
The pro-gun activist interviewed in this video says it himself.
Less guns = less chance of people being hurt by them.
Need I say more?
http://vimeo.com/64432171
User was warned for this post: please don't just post a video... include at least a thought or two of your own (edit: fixed)
|
On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA.
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
On April 23 2013 13:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Heh, thanks, but it's actually Scalia's argument. Not mine. :D About your thoughts on how a modern military would be stalled/thwarted by the mere presence of unlimited handguns/rifles... Nope. I don't think I agree with your ideas, based on the fact they're totally unsubstantiated. Even with a conflict like Syria, where the rebellion has plenty of access to relatively sophisticated weaponry and foreign aid -- the result is devastation on civilian targets. Is there some example of this working, in the real world? I mean to say, can you point to a case where rifle/handgun armed population of civilians successfully repelled a *modern* dictatorial government? Re: No outside aid or military weaponry -- just handguns and rifles, as we are discussing here. To save you the time, you won't find one :D Oh one thing I couldn't resist picking out... Soldier marching down the street? If rifles being present makes that unsafe for the military, then the military will instead barrage the area with tanks and bombers. Really, you're talking out of your ass if you think rifles and handguns would repel a modern military. Scalia's argument, not mine.
Oh man, please tell me how you, as a dictator, would use tanks and bombers in a residential neighborhood full of dissidents. Please tell me how this would work in any way whatsoever.
Please actually respond to my post:
The point is not that you can win pitched battles against a professional army with all its ordinance as a rag-tag citizens militia with small arms. The point is that you CAN FIGHT. You can bleed them. When they come patrolling through your neighborhood, you might be able to take a couple of the fuckers with you. Hell, you might even be able to run away and do it again--theoretically you wouldn't be alone and they couldn't engage in endless "manhunts" for everyone who resisted them. And they'd never feel safe; there could be a shooter behind any window.
Of course they could call in the artillery and air support and level your neighborhood; sure. What would this get them? Well, it would piss a lot of people off when innocents died and play into the hands of rebels. It would make a lot of the soldiers in that professional military seriously consider whether they were doing the right thing or not. And finally, it would simply kill people, and no one wants to rule a nation of corpses.
The aim of a tyrant is to control, not to kill. What they want is to be able to have militarized police/gestapo point guns at people and cow them into submission to whatever dictates they might want to impose. If those people are instead waiting behind their doors and ready to shoot first when the jackbooted thugs come around, they've already failed.
So the point is to fight. If you resist, you're not being controlled, and you're also undermining attempts to control others who can't or won't fight; you might die, of course. That's why Patrick Henry said what he famously said, more or less.
As long as people can resist, they can be free, and tyrants can never succeed. But when you're talking about using swords and knives and clubs against modern military weapons it ACTUALLY becomes pointless, because you can't bleed them at all--they'll just shoot you with beanbags and rubber and water cannons and microwave guns etc.
That's why having guns is so important.
Stop acting like this is 1860. Resistance is not in the form of official secession and organized military's. If you honestly think it will be a legitimate tactic to level neighborhoods and cities with bombers and tanks because of a few gung-ho rebels with pistols, I don't even know what to say.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
Most of those acts of legislation seem to range from incredibly unobjectionable, with a few exceptions generally sensible enough to somebody over here, but then culture is different I suppose.
|
@Fruscante
Well, if I was this hypothetical US dictator that wouldn't actually ever exist in real life, I would probably ask my button-pushers to send a few million missiles at any hostile targets -- especially those pesky neighborhoods of gun owners. I'd then probably destroy any means of food, water, medicine, and other supply, on which my dear civilian population relies.
I mean, this is sorta dumb. There really should not be any need for arguing why a modern US military would easily destroy a civilian population armed to the brim with small arms. Small arms are utterly obsolete vs. a modern military -- especially one that would not be concerned about hurting civilians, as in this ridiculous scenario, civilians ARE the targets.
Did not anticipate that THIS would be the point of contention when I made that comment, haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
