|
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. |
There aren't millions of people fighting for their right to own anthrax first of all. Second of all, it isn't practical to use in self-defense.
Just get off of that strawman already, you think you can just "end the argument" and "show us" with that? You have to be kidding right?
|
On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered.
You just don't get it. Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground. Zimmerman was still able to draw and use his gun. Being within 21 feet doesn't suddenly make your gun completely useless.
|
On May 02 2013 01:54 kmillz wrote:
There aren't millions of people fighting for their right to own anthrax first of all. Second of all, it isn't practical to use in self-defense.
Just get off of that strawman already, you think you can just "end the argument" and "show us" with that? You have to be kidding right?
No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity in your argument.
You can say the same for the car analogy-if you think my analogy is dumb, then clearly you should have the same problem with the use of the car analogy. I made my analogy dumb on purpose.
Anyway, I'm gonna leave the thread with this:
You can argue that correlation does not imply causation when you choose to dismiss the mountains of evidence that gun control reduces gun violence. However, simply dismissing the correlation entirely is a fallacy in itself. You can't dismiss that correlation, it's real and it's important. It's important, really important, to investigate WHY that correlation exists. In the time that it takes for these studies to show the causation though, the damage will already have been done-I would argue that in the meantime, even if we don't understand the causation fully, the existing evidence is enough to suggest that we should most definitely increase gun control legislation.
|
United States24570 Posts
On May 02 2013 01:27 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:19 micronesia wrote:On May 02 2013 01:15 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:57 micronesia wrote:
Not to mention he hasn't addressed the other affects it would have besides theoretically reducing gun crime. What about other types of crime? What about other problems besides crime? If it was so simple this wouldn't be as controversial as it is. This is nothing more than fear mongering. It IS that simple, clearly, as other countries have already done it. Most of the gun rights advocates in this country are just simply ignorant of that fact. Their best arguments are to the tune of "the same situation doesn't apply because the United States is different" but they never are able to actually qualify this with any sort of meaningful evidence. Same goes for you-all you're saying is that there are side effects. You assert this as if it's fact, without any sort of backing. Nothing more than hot air. No, it is not fear mongering. A statement such as the one I was quoting was being disingenuous. I'm not saying there shouldn't be more restrictions on guns, but when someone posts something that is objectively wrong I will often call them out on it, especially if they are trying to use it to argue their case on a controversial issue. To say that 'massive changes to gun legislation will not have any negative side effects' is to show that you have zero understanding of this issue and should not be discussing it. Saying "other countries did it!" without actually providing specific, relevant, qualified evidence is useless. Also, why are you using what I said to go on a tirade about what you perceive to be a common opinion of many people who argue for a more conservative approach to gun legislation? The more you group people into one of two camps, the less progress you will make, as recent attempts by the Obama administration to apply common-sense reform has shown. His statement had nothing to do with negative consequences of banning guns. Actually this is true and I should have said I had a problem with his implication rather than exactly what he said. You did not include his text when you quoted me and I did not go back and reread it again.
There aren't many, and they aren't very serious at all. Can you come up with any? Can you come up with evidence for them? Hang on. I said the issue isn't simple to resolve. You said it is that simple, however I think you were responding to whether or not banning guns = less gun crime rather than what I said wasn't simple, so we are starting to talk about two different things. My point was that we need to address all sides of the issue on stricter gun laws rather than only addressing the effect a gun on bans would have on gun crime. For example, there have been cases where new gun laws resulted in an increase in non-gun violent crime. There have been cases where areas that depended on gun manufacturing and other services were reduced to a lower quality of life (which often leads to crime by the way) due to changes in gun regulation in their area. There are many other cases. This does not mean we should never increase the strictness of any gun laws, but to come into a thread asking if people should be allowed to possess guns and say "It's simple, ban guns = less gun crime" is not helpful. I should have been more clear about that.
Ban beef food sales = less sickness from tainted beef. It probably is true, but needs to be evaluated from all sides of the issue or it is useless.
Another thing to consider is short term vs long term consequences of changes in gun laws. You may find evidence that the long term effects of certain gun laws reduce overall crime, but the short term effects historically have increased certain types of crimes. All of this needs to be taken into account instead of dismissed with "there aren't many, and they aren't serious at all." If somehow President Obama managed to permanently ban private gun ownership today, it would lead to millions of felons who would not obey and possibly a civil war. I'm not saying it would be a repeat of the previous civil war, but it would still be something we should avoid.
Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:19 micronesia wrote:
The more you group people into one of two camps, the less progress you will make, as recent attempts by the Obama administration to apply common-sense reform has shown. I'm not a policymaker, I'm just stating my opinion. I am fairly confident the United States will never really make any progress on this issue in the near future, along with a slew of other issues. That's why I don't intend on living here when I gain the ability to move elsewhere-the country as a whole is just too conservative. It's slipping fast.
|
It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
|
On May 02 2013 01:46 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:15 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:51 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? The United States has an astronomically high crime rate for a first-world nation. Fewer firearms are needed in other first world nations simply because they are safer to begin with. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before?
Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? Correlation does not imply causation. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) Crossbows aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Cestuses and similar weapons (don't let the name fool you, it's essentially just a combat glove) aren't niche, aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Swords are hard to use well, but can be used just fine to kill unarmed people (and similarly, daggers are even easier and have no sport usage). "Historical" usage is a crappy reason, since there are plenty of "historical" firearms. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. It doesn't matter what most bows are made for today; we don't ban war bows at all despite them fulfilling the criteria of being intended to kill people. Guns are often purchased for sport and hunting as well. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. What does this have to do with anything? If you make firearms less available, then some other weapon will simply take its place as "most readily available and inflicts the most harm". Is there some arbitrary amount of "ready availability" or "harm inflicted" that is too much or something? On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. "Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a car are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those " car rights" of yours." After all, cars kill many more people than guns do. Except cars aren't designed for killing people ! Guns are, and they're even bought precisely for that purpose. I explained over and over already that this isn't a factor, since we allow swords, crossbows, etc. that are designed for killing people. The designed purpose of a tool is not relevant to considering it's legal permissibility. And I've already explained why it's not necessary to ban these things. It's a waste of time and money to legislate specifically for things like this when they are so rarely used (and when they are possessed, it's usually for some sort of cultural or historical significance). Guns, on the other hand, are extremely common.
And I debunked each of your foolish explanations.
Firearms are extremely common because they are available. If firearms were not available, they would be replaced with other weapons.
On May 02 2013 01:46 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
People don't buy cars to kill others. (in b4 some sort of dumb terrorist analogy here) Anything can be bought to kill others, including cars, knives, or rat poison. We don't ban things simply because they So why do we ban anthrax?
Because it is both harmful and serves no legitimate purpose. Things that are harmful, but do serve a legitimate purpose, such as cars or high fructose corn syrup, are not banned.
On May 02 2013 01:46 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
If your best argument is that correlation does not imply causation and a shitty, outdated analogy to cars killing more people than guns, therefore my logic bad, then I have nothing more to say-until you and the millions of self-righteous other Americans just like you realize that the evidence is overwhelmingly against these arguments, people will continue to die in droves in this country due to guns. Except there isn't any actual evidence to show that gun ownership is responsible for America's high rate of gun violence. America has an astonishingly high violent crime rate for a first-world nation in absolute terms, and the high gun crime rate is a mere symptom of this. Pick up some criminology textbooks sometime; the topic of gun ownership was been beaten to death by actual academics long before political ideologues got involved. So why are we discounting the mountains of evidence in other countries? Of course there is no evidence for such a qualification for America specifically because it's almost impossible to separate crime from the source when there have historically never been any bans on guns in this country. However, there ARE studies that support the idea that gun control reduces gun violence. I'll cite one in a second. Your best argument against the existing mountains of evidence was "correlation != causation" and "different countries." So, let's end your shitty arguments for good: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390What're you gonna say this time, I wonder? That it states more studies need to be done because "correlation != causation"? Lol.
I'm simply going to point out that once again, you've overlooked the same key issue: it's not the amount of gun crime in America, it's the amount of violent crime period.
Taking away guns isn't going to make all those homicides and suicides disappear. It's just going to mean that those homicides and suicides will be carried out by different means. The study you link absolutely fails to consider that. Of course fewer guns will mean fewer gun crimes, but that's not the problem with America. The problem we have is that we have way too much violent crime for a first-world nation. Firearms are merely a means, not the cause. The root cause is a myriad of factors such as income inequality, racial/cultural heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, etc.
On May 02 2013 01:46 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:55 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:19 Zealotdriver wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc.
Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords. wut I can go to the nearest retail store here and purchase a slew of different types of guns. http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608Harder to obtain my ass. Zealotdriver is referring to the fact that there are restrictions on firearms availability that do not exist for bows and arrows, e.g. background checks. On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
e: also while we're at it, if we're going to argue on the grounds of humanely hunting for sport, well...
I think the most humane thing to do would be to, you know...not kill an animal just to display its severed head in your log cabin. You're a bleeding heart liberal who wants to impose your morality on others, yes, we get it already. You wanna argue with shitty analogies? Time to whip out the shitty analogies. My rights to own anthrax should not be affected by some morons using anthrax in letter bombs. Why should I have to give up my constitutionally-granted right to bear biological weapons simply because of some terrorists using it for their maligned purposes? What legitimate purpose do biological weapons serve you? Firearms serve the purpose of personal defense; that is why police and infantry are issued firearms. They are not, however, issued biological weapons since these are offensive weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction. Typical person incapable of defending themselves wishing others to be just as helpless. Self defense, of course! I can use biological weapons in self defense the same way you can use guns. I can use bombs too. Hell, I could use a flamethrower, or a tank, or almost any lethal weapon. It doesn't mean that it should be legal.
Strawman. You're deliberately extending the concept of personal defense to weapons of mass destruction. We provide our soldiers with the best possible weapons for personal defense in the form of firearms, and not flamethrowers, or bombs, or tanks, or biological weapons.
Simply put, tanks/flamethrowers/biological weapons ≠ personal defense.
On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
Is arguing against private ownership of chemical and biological weapons imposing my morality on others? If it was based on the notion that they are "barbaric" as opposed to rationally analyzing the harms and benefits, then yes. The main problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the legal philosophy behind why we allow some tools but not others. You instead make up arbitrary decision based on your own personal views. Here's how we figure it out: Does something serve a legitimate purpose? If yes, then there should not be an infringement the right to own it and use it for that purpose. So if I can find a "legitimate" purpose for anthrax I should be allowed to own it? If I can create my own nuclear reactor and use it to power my home, I should be allowed to own one? (some teenager actually did this btw, FBI came to his house and seized the thing) Also there's this kid who did it too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
You don't get to personally decide whether there is a legitimate purpose. Society, through the legal and political system does.
Anthrax serves no legitimate purpose for most civilians, because it is used only as a biological weapon. By contrast, if you are a researcher that does research on Anthrax, then you do get to own it (under proper regulation, of course).
If you can meet all the regulatory requirements to own a nuclear reactor, then yes. But at that point, you're simply the owner of a nuclear power plant.
|
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
|
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
|
On May 02 2013 01:46 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:15 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:51 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? The United States has an astronomically high crime rate for a first-world nation. Fewer firearms are needed in other first world nations simply because they are safer to begin with. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before?
Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? Correlation does not imply causation. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) Crossbows aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Cestuses and similar weapons (don't let the name fool you, it's essentially just a combat glove) aren't niche, aren't hard to use, and have no sport usage. Swords are hard to use well, but can be used just fine to kill unarmed people (and similarly, daggers are even easier and have no sport usage). "Historical" usage is a crappy reason, since there are plenty of "historical" firearms. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. It doesn't matter what most bows are made for today; we don't ban war bows at all despite them fulfilling the criteria of being intended to kill people. Guns are often purchased for sport and hunting as well. On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. What does this have to do with anything? If you make firearms less available, then some other weapon will simply take its place as "most readily available and inflicts the most harm". Is there some arbitrary amount of "ready availability" or "harm inflicted" that is too much or something? On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. "Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a car are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those " car rights" of yours." After all, cars kill many more people than guns do. Except cars aren't designed for killing people ! Guns are, and they're even bought precisely for that purpose. I explained over and over already that this isn't a factor, since we allow swords, crossbows, etc. that are designed for killing people. The designed purpose of a tool is not relevant to considering it's legal permissibility. And I've already explained why it's not necessary to ban these things. It's a waste of time and money to legislate specifically for things like this when they are so rarely used (and when they are possessed, it's usually for some sort of cultural or historical significance). Guns, on the other hand, are extremely common. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
People don't buy cars to kill others. (in b4 some sort of dumb terrorist analogy here) Anything can be bought to kill others, including cars, knives, or rat poison. We don't ban things simply because they So why do we ban anthrax? Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
If your best argument is that correlation does not imply causation and a shitty, outdated analogy to cars killing more people than guns, therefore my logic bad, then I have nothing more to say-until you and the millions of self-righteous other Americans just like you realize that the evidence is overwhelmingly against these arguments, people will continue to die in droves in this country due to guns. Except there isn't any actual evidence to show that gun ownership is responsible for America's high rate of gun violence. America has an astonishingly high violent crime rate for a first-world nation in absolute terms, and the high gun crime rate is a mere symptom of this. Pick up some criminology textbooks sometime; the topic of gun ownership was been beaten to death by actual academics long before political ideologues got involved. So why are we discounting the mountains of evidence in other countries? Of course there is no evidence for such a qualification for America specifically because it's almost impossible to separate crime from the source when there have historically never been any bans on guns in this country. However, there ARE studies that support the idea that gun control reduces gun violence. I'll cite one in a second. Your best argument against the existing mountains of evidence was "correlation != causation" and "different countries." So, let's end your shitty arguments for good: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390What're you gonna say this time, I wonder? That it states more studies need to be done because "correlation != causation"? Lol. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:55 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 00:19 Zealotdriver wrote:On May 02 2013 00:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc.
Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns. Most prominent example is the police in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_KingdomWhen no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either. These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and you know it. So what's the reason that it's viable in the UK but not in the United States? Also, many Irish police forces, Australian, Canadian, and Kiwi police forces don't carry guns anywhere near as much as police in the U.S. do. So why again are their firearm homicide rates lower? How are these countries exactly "exceptions"? Can you name a single country that has banned firearms that has a higher rate of violence after the ban than before? Can you name a single country that has legalized/loosened firearm regulation that has a lower rate of violence after than before? On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans. Except those aren't banned because they're designed to inflict harm upon other humans. After all, swords, war bows, and cestuses are all designed to inflict harm upon other humans, yet are legal. Therefore, the whole notion of "designed to hurt other people" is irrelevant here. No, it isn't. The reason swords/bows etc. aren't banned for possession is because they're niche, are hard to use, and have historical/sport usage. For the same reason I would be completely fine with keeping guns used for target practice or clay pigeon shooting legal (as long as there is a rigorous vetting/registration process involved). It takes quite a bit of effort to modify these types of things for criminal purposes, and that effort is enough to deter enough criminals from using them (along with their ease of use/effectiveness) In fact, most bows made today aren't made to kill people, they're made for sport or hunting. Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity and they're the most readily available and inflict the most harm out of any of these. On May 01 2013 23:57 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 22:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric. And here lies the crux of the issue: people want to ban guns because they think they are barbaric. Our rights end where your feelings begin. Guess it's not just conservatives who try to legislate their version of morality onto everyone else. Well, if your version of "morality" is that your rights for owning a gun are more valuable than someone else's right to life, then sure, keep on trucking with those "gun rights" of yours. It may surprise you to learn that humans are mammals. We have similar vital organs to game animals such as deer, hogs, and bears. Guns and bows made to hunt animals are also highly effective at killing humans. Guns are purchased for hunting because they are easier to use and tremendously more humane than other weapons. Your statement that "Guns are purchased precisely for self defense/criminal activity" is false. Also, they are harder to obtain than bows and swords. wut I can go to the nearest retail store here and purchase a slew of different types of guns. http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608Harder to obtain my ass. Zealotdriver is referring to the fact that there are restrictions on firearms availability that do not exist for bows and arrows, e.g. background checks. On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
e: also while we're at it, if we're going to argue on the grounds of humanely hunting for sport, well...
I think the most humane thing to do would be to, you know...not kill an animal just to display its severed head in your log cabin. You're a bleeding heart liberal who wants to impose your morality on others, yes, we get it already. You wanna argue with shitty analogies? Time to whip out the shitty analogies. My rights to own anthrax should not be affected by some morons using anthrax in letter bombs. Why should I have to give up my constitutionally-granted right to bear biological weapons simply because of some terrorists using it for their maligned purposes? What legitimate purpose do biological weapons serve you? Firearms serve the purpose of personal defense; that is why police and infantry are issued firearms. They are not, however, issued biological weapons since these are offensive weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction. Typical person incapable of defending themselves wishing others to be just as helpless. Self defense, of course! I can use biological weapons in self defense the same way you can use guns. I can use bombs too. Hell, I could use a flamethrower, or a tank, or almost any lethal weapon. It doesn't mean that it should be legal. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:34 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 00:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
Is arguing against private ownership of chemical and biological weapons imposing my morality on others? If it was based on the notion that they are "barbaric" as opposed to rationally analyzing the harms and benefits, then yes. The main problem here is that you don't have any understanding of the legal philosophy behind why we allow some tools but not others. You instead make up arbitrary decision based on your own personal views. Here's how we figure it out: Does something serve a legitimate purpose? If yes, then there should not be an infringement the right to own it and use it for that purpose. So if I can find a "legitimate" purpose for anthrax I should be allowed to own it? If I can create my own nuclear reactor and use it to power my home, I should be allowed to own one? (some teenager actually did this btw, FBI came to his house and seized the thing) Also there's this kid who did it too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Tanks, flamethrowers, and explosives are all legal. Flamethrowers are use pretty frequently to fight killer bees, you just light up their hive and the problem's solved. The only laws against tanks are local ones banning vehicles that are too heavy, they're not banned there because they kill people, they're banned because they ruin the roads. Remember, that isn't the case everywhere either.
Tank legally driving through town.
+ Show Spoiler +
Explosives are legal too, I can buy grenades online.
https://www.buymilsurp.com/ordnance-grenades-munitions-grenades-c-3075_3181_3183.html
Yes, the ones I can easily order are all training grenades, but with a little paperwork with the ATF I can get real, HE-filled grenades.
|
On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
|
On May 02 2013 02:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure. There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
|
On May 02 2013 02:13 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:11 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure. There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works. Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendmentIt's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Supreme Court disagrees. ACLU doesn't interpret the constitution, do they?
|
On May 02 2013 02:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:13 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:11 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure. There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works. Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendmentIt's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicagohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._HellerSupreme Court disagrees. ACLU doesn't interpret the constitution, do they?
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
|
On May 02 2013 02:13 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:11 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure. There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works. Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendmentIt's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
I actually agree with the ACLU; I don't think that the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to "arms" to individuals.
This doesn't change the fact, however, that we don't ban anything without a compelling state interest.
|
On May 02 2013 02:22 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:13 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:11 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure. There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works. Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendmentIt's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue. I actually agree with the ACLU; I don't think that the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to "arms" to individuals. This doesn't change the fact, however, that we don't ban anything without a compelling state interest.
You can ban individual ownership of guns but still maintain a militia, thus effectively upholding a collective right to bear arms.
|
On May 02 2013 01:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. You just don't get it. Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground. Zimmerman was still able to draw and use his gun. Being within 21 feet doesn't suddenly make your gun completely useless.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store.[108] At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.[13] At approximately 7:09 PM,[Note 1] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[110] Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy."[62] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[111] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[112] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[113][114]
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[115] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[116] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[117] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[115] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[118] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[115] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[115]
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.[119]
George told the police that he was following Travyon, and Travyon gets shot when down the street from his house.
Also,
After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran,"[206] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[
Which means that after seeing Travyon, assumed he was dangerous, George chased after him with gun in hand.
What did I say in my previous posts? Unless you're already at the ready guns don't help all that much. But when you are at the ready--say when you chase an unarmed kid who lives in the neighborhood while carrying a weapon--you will have a better chance at shooting them. Which George did--because he was already ready to shoot him. Which is exactly what I was talking about.
|
On May 02 2013 02:25 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:22 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:13 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:11 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure. There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works. Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendmentIt's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue. I actually agree with the ACLU; I don't think that the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to "arms" to individuals. This doesn't change the fact, however, that we don't ban anything without a compelling state interest. You can ban individual ownership of guns but still maintain a militia, thus effectively upholding a collective right to bear arms.
2008 Supreme Court case already determined that we as a nation will currently emphasize *infringe* instead of *regulated* or *militia*
Until another supreme court ruling that is how the amendment is read.
|
On May 02 2013 02:25 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:22 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:13 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:11 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 02:05 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote:
How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU. My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence. I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure. There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works. Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendmentIt's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue. I actually agree with the ACLU; I don't think that the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to "arms" to individuals. This doesn't change the fact, however, that we don't ban anything without a compelling state interest. You can ban individual ownership of guns but still maintain a militia, thus effectively upholding a collective right to bear arms.
Indeed. However, you still need a compelling state interest to ban individual ownership of guns. It's permissible under the Second Amendment, but still impermissible without due cause.
|
On May 02 2013 02:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:57 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. You just don't get it. Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground. Zimmerman was still able to draw and use his gun. Being within 21 feet doesn't suddenly make your gun completely useless. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_MartinShow nested quote +On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store.[108] At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.[13] At approximately 7:09 PM,[Note 1] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[110] Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy."[62] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[111] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[112] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[113][114]
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[115] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[116] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[117] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[115] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[118] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[115] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[115]
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.[119] George told the police that he was following Travyon, and Travyon gets shot when down the street from his house. Also, Show nested quote +After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran,"[206] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[ Which means that after seeing Travyon, assumed he was dangerous, George chased after him with gun in hand. What did I say in my previous posts? Unless you're already at the ready guns don't help all that much. But when you are at the ready--say when you chase an unarmed kid who lives in the neighborhood while carrying a weapon--you will have a better chance at shooting them. Which George did--because he was already ready to shoot him. Which is exactly what I was talking about.
Wow I don't know where your getting your misinformation but its been pretty clearly established that Zimmerman was being beaten down on the ground until he was able to wrestle his gun to shoot travyon in his chest. None of the facts support Zimmerman "chasing after him with gun in hand". It pretty clearly shows a support for having a gun for self defence, especially with someone like trayvons record.
|
On May 02 2013 02:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2013 01:57 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. You just don't get it. Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground. Zimmerman was still able to draw and use his gun. Being within 21 feet doesn't suddenly make your gun completely useless. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_MartinOn the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store.[108] At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.[13] At approximately 7:09 PM,[Note 1] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[110] Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy."[62] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[111] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[112] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[113][114]
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[115] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[116] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[117] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[115] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[118] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[115] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[115]
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.[119] George told the police that he was following Travyon, and Travyon gets shot when down the street from his house. Also, After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran,"[206] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[ Which means that after seeing Travyon, assumed he was dangerous, George chased after him with gun in hand. What did I say in my previous posts? Unless you're already at the ready guns don't help all that much. But when you are at the ready--say when you chase an unarmed kid who lives in the neighborhood while carrying a weapon--you will have a better chance at shooting them. Which George did--because he was already ready to shoot him. Which is exactly what I was talking about. Wow I don't know where your getting your misinformation but its been pretty clearly established that Zimmerman was being beaten down on the ground until he was able to wrestle his gun to shoot travyon in his chest. None of the facts support Zimmerman "chasing after him with gun in hand". It pretty clearly shows a support for having a gun for self defence, especially with someone like trayvons record.
George chased after Travyon--by his own words.
The only weapon present was George's.
George chased an unarmed man with a weapon.
The unarmed man was able to fight back despite the pursuer being armed--because close range sucks for guns. George was bloody after the altercation despite being both the pursuer AND being the person armed at the time.
Two sorority girls said they did not see an altercation. One witness said it happened on the sidewalk, another witness said it happened on grass.
The mother of a child also accused the police of leading her son to conclusions and false testimonies and pulled him from the investigation saying he didn't see anything--you can be damn sure the same thing happened with the other witnesses.
It's not cut and dry--but what is cut and dry is George chased after Travyon and that Travyon was unarmed. Travyon was killed near his place of residence because he was going home--probably running home in fear of his life because some guy with a gun was chasing him.
And you know what? Despite having preparation and initiative the guy with the gun was still bloody and beaten. The gun shot was a contact shot--you know what that means? If he pulled out a knife instead he still would have killed Travyon. Misinformation? What have I even skewed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
