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 February 25 2012 04:51 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: So - because you are terrified that you will accidentally shoot yourself with a gun, I should disarm myself and render myself completely at the whim of any violent thug (w/ or w/o a badge) who decides to attack me? Sure maybe if you spend your whole life sitting at home in a basement behind a locked door no one will ever use violence against you but in the real world not everyone is as impotent as we are over the internet. There are people who will aggress against you. And I don't care if you feel so pacific that you won't even defend yourself, that's your business, but why do you have to make it a crime for me to defend myself and my family?
So.. are you suggesting that gun ownership empowers people to stand up to the police? This statement just staggers me. This is so counterproductive to social progress it's almost unbelievable. No wonder there are so many instances where the police are excessively (in my opinion) trigger happy, they obviously feel they have no alternative.
Self defense as it stands currently is not a crime. But that's not a sufficient logical basis for self defense using a lethal weapon against any aggression, that's excessive and immoral. What I don't understand is if you're worried about an aggressor coming at you and your family with a gun, then why are you not more in favor of gun control? Why is a shootout involving your family preferable?
On February 25 2012 05:06 sevencck wrote: What I don't understand is if you're worried about an aggressor coming at you and your family with a gun, then why are you not more in favor of gun control? Why is a shootout involving your family preferable?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that someone "coming at your and your family" is a criminal, and therefore will not obey gun control laws ?
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: 1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context. 2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat. 3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
On February 24 2012 05:47 sevencck wrote: Yes, an organized counter. A bunch of lunatics with guns who think they can "beat crime through attrition" isn't an organized counter. I'm in favor of solutions that speak to the big picture, not overly idealistic and narrow-minded actions that are based mostly on fear.
Are you dense!? An common example of organized response is police. But if they don't serve the job, the neighborhood will turn to neighborhood vigilantes, neighborhood night watch groups, and community funded security contractors. The counter to organized crime is a battle of attrition or at least the threat of a battle of attrition.
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: Our position is that you are harming us by owning guns. You are undermining social safety and stability through mass gun ownership. You are making the job of the police more difficult and dangerous. You are creating confrontations with deadly weapons where someone has to shoot first potentially in a crowded public setting.
That is only valid if society can completely cedes responsibility for public and personal security to police. Considering the police have no legal responsibility to protect public individuals and will never respond in time to interdict on the vast majority of crimes, it is an impossible premise. Police are largely a retroactive response team and a poor one at that in serving the average citizen.
There is no way the general population can give up the right of self-defense and rely on the police. Individuals in the US are responsible for immediate personal security and should attempt to be of aid in the security of their fellows. To that end, individuals are going to appropriately armed or will hire appropriately armed security personnel. That this right to self-defense makes the job of police more difficult is an inconvenience that they will have to deal with.
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: The reason that isn't satisfactory is that citizens can't own landmines, or rocket propelled grenades, or machine guns. In other words, there is already a precedent for outlawing ownership of dangerous weapons that compromise public safety. Can you give me a logical reason why a handgun is fundamentally different from these items?
This is easy. Landmines are ineffecitve personal protection weaponry and their use is questionable even during war because they can be set and forgotten only to explode on unsuspecting progeny. It's difficult to responsibly use rocket propelled grenades in self defense as it does splash damage and it's anti-armor. Grenades bounces around erratically and thus hard to direct completely on target. Machine guns, however, are legal, but user should be very careful in their use.
On February 25 2012 05:06 sevencck wrote: What I don't understand is if you're worried about an aggressor coming at you and your family with a gun, then why are you not more in favor of gun control? Why is a shootout involving your family preferable?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that someone "coming at your and your family" is a criminal, and therefore will not obey gun control laws ?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that gun control will make it enormously difficult for criminals to obtain guns, and even more so for them to obtain ammunition? A gun isn't something you can make in your basement. Speaking as an organic chemist I can assure you that it is very difficult to get your hands on controlled chemicals, even if you work at a university.
i have a question to everyone in favour of people beeing allowed to own and carry guns. Should there be a limit to what gun you can own?
Can i own and carry a heavy machine gun? What about a piece of artillery, even a tank? Or maybe even a nuke or biological weapon?
Think most of the people in favor of right to own guns can agree that there should be a line drawn somewhere and as such its not so much the principle they defending, but more the place of the line.
"This is easy. Landmines are ineffecitve personal protection weaponry and their use is questionable even during war because they can be set and forgotten only to explode on unsuspecting progeny."
Bs you just making things up on the spot Landmines can be verry effecitive for personal defence (depending on the situation) just as tanks and artilery can be. Just imagine the huge deterent a sign "watch out, mines!" would have if placed on your farm land. Sure its overkill, but that merely prooves its effectiveness
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: 1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context. 2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat. 3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
On February 24 2012 05:47 sevencck wrote: Yes, an organized counter. A bunch of lunatics with guns who think they can "beat crime through attrition" isn't an organized counter. I'm in favor of solutions that speak to the big picture, not overly idealistic and narrow-minded actions that are based mostly on fear.
Are you dense!? An common example of organized response is police. But if they don't serve the job, the neighborhood will turn to neighborhood vigilantes, neighborhood night watch groups, and community funded security contractors. The counter to organized crime is a battle of attrition or at least the threat of a battle of attrition.
No kidding. My point was that the police is a more appropriate response than mass vigilantism. If they aren't sufficing, then the solution is to devote more resources to them, it isn't for people to become vigilantes. Ever heard that saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Gun control in conjunction with a police force that is actively working to arrest those in illegal possession will clean up gun crime pretty darn effectively, and probably crime in general. Why is mass access to guns and the inevitable vigilantism/attrition/accidents that go along with that preferable?
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: The reason that isn't satisfactory is that citizens can't own landmines, or rocket propelled grenades, or machine guns. In other words, there is already a precedent for outlawing ownership of dangerous weapons that compromise public safety. Can you give me a logical reason why a handgun is fundamentally different from these items?
This is easy. Landmines are ineffecitve personal protection weaponry and their use is questionable even during war because they can be set and forgotten only to explode on unsuspecting progeny. It's difficult to responsibly use rocket propelled grenades in self defense as it does splash damage and it's anti-armor. Grenades bounces around erratically and thus hard to direct completely on target. Machine guns, however, are legal, but user should be very careful in their use.
You're missing the point. They can be used for the purposes of self defense, but their threat to public safety outweighs their supposed benefits in this regard. Also, even in your country machine guns are very tightly regulated. Why should a handgun be different? Why shouldn't it be more tightly regulated? In fact if you're really interested in defending yourself, why should a rocket launcher be any different? If 5 people armed with guns enter your house a hand gun won't protect you, you'll need something bigger. My point is where does the proliferation end? Why is it reasonable to defend gun ownership as a method of defense from a knife/gun-wielding assailant, but not machine guns/hand grenades/rocket launchers as defense from multiple assailants? How can you support irrational fear-based logic in one instance but draw the line at another? It's arbitrary. Yet in both instances you have lethal weaponry that poses severe safety risks that can be used for the purposes of killing multiple people. In both cases you have lethal weaponry that is often not discriminate enough (someone earlier in the thread posted multiple examples of stray bullets killing innocent bystanders and civilians). The difference is handguns can be concealed I suppose. Why is any of this logical? Why is mass gun ownership a logical solution to the dangers guns present?
On February 25 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote: No kidding. My point was that the police is a more appropriate response than mass vigilantism. If they aren't sufficing, then the solution is to devote more resources to them, it isn't for people to become vigilantes. Ever heard that saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Police aren't "on the spot" when crime happens. No amount of additional resources will change that.
Gun control in conjunction with a police force that is actively working to arrest those in illegal possession will clean up gun crime pretty darn effectively, and probably crime in general. Why is mass access to guns and the inevitable vigilantism/attrition/accidents that go along with that preferable?
By actively working to arrest those in illegal possession, do you mean entering homes and pre-emptively searching for weapons ? Because it's never gonna happen in the U.S.
On February 25 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote: No kidding. My point was that the police is a more appropriate response than mass vigilantism. If they aren't sufficing, then the solution is to devote more resources to them, it isn't for people to become vigilantes. Ever heard that saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Police aren't "on the spot" when crime happens. No amount of additional resources will change that.
Gun control in conjunction with a police force that is actively working to arrest those in illegal possession will clean up gun crime pretty darn effectively, and probably crime in general. Why is mass access to guns and the inevitable vigilantism/attrition/accidents that go along with that preferable?
By actively working to arrest those in illegal possession, do you mean entering homes and pre-emptively searching for weapons ? Because it's never gonna happen in the U.S.
1) Irrelevant. Gun regulation would change the nature of crime when it happens. 2) It would happen the same way the police work to arrest those in illegal possession of drugs, or child pornography, or anything else.
I live in a country with relatively strict gun ownership laws, and I think it works well. Sure guns make it easier to defend yourself, but they also make it easier for would-be assailants to maim/kill/carry out their misdeeds.
Imagine how stupid your average person is (and remember half of the population is even worse), and you want to let them have a firearm? Yeah no thanks. Some of the responses in this thread are downright terrifying.
I don't think you should be allowed to have guns just for self protection, maybe if your job requires it but not for all to just get to feel safe. Should people that are afraid of bombs be allowed to have selfdefense bombs as well? Just because criminals get their hands on illegal stuff doesn't mean we should legalize it right?
On February 25 2012 04:54 whiteguycash wrote: Its none of your fucking business if I have a firearm or if I don't. As long as I don't use it to infringe upon someone elses property, life, or rights, you can fuck right off.
I will repeat myself. Actually it is. Because if my neighbors had guns it would impact my life as well. I have the right to not own gun, but also to militate for a strict gun control. It involves all society, therefor it's a society debate. My opinion is worth nothing for the US of course, but I have my word on the question in my own country.
On February 25 2012 08:34 Petrone wrote: I don't think you should be allowed to have guns just for self protection, maybe if your job requires it but not for all to just get to feel safe. Should people that are afraid of bombs be allowed to have selfdefense bombs as well? Just because criminals get their hands on illegal stuff doesn't mean we should legalize it right?
I'd like to invite you to the U.S. so you can take up residence in some "nice" areas. Then you can report back about how "safe" you feel without a way to defend yourself.
On February 24 2012 18:37 dogabutila wrote: Stop. Just stop. Again, people defend themselves against people with guns every single day. Your assumption that them having a gun on you means you automatically cannot get your gun is completely wrong. You make the mistake of hypothesizing without any knowledge of the subject. How long does it take a person to present a firearm? How long does it take to react to movement? How long does it take you to push a weapon offline? In the course of interaction, the other person is never distracted? Never in arms reach?
Offender has the advantage? If you are at home, you have complete advantage. They have to get through your door, are unfamiliar with the layout, and do not know the angles. If they get you in the street, you have the element of surprise. They aren't going to just immediately shoot you otherwise you would already be dead. 0-60 speed? How long does it take to push a gun out of the way? Less time then it takes to observe hostile action, pull trigger, mechanical delay, bullet exit barrel. Doable even if they are completely focused on you. Your odds skyrocket when, as in most robberies, they divert their attention for a second or two to something else.
Again, it's hard to kill somebody with a handgun. Giving being within arms reach, it is far easier to with a knife. On the other hand to get an immediate stop or cessation of hostile action, a gun will outperform a knife or any other less lethal weapon. Guns are not magic, people do not explode when hit. They comply with the rules of physics and anatomy and shoot little pieces of metal that can even bounce off glass.
I never said that it automatically means you cannot get a gun out in all situations. I'm saying that in most situations you will not know about an offender until they have a gun out on you. Assuming someone even hears that their door opened, they're going to take out their gun (assuming they're carrying it on them) before going to see who or what it is? And like I said, even if people have guns pointed at eachother, someone's going to die, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to justify murder for trespassing.
My main point was that less-lethal/"non-lethal" weapons are an effective alternative, and actually provide defense — shooting someone is not defense in my opinion, it is attempted murder which will very likely result in murder. Threats are not actions and do not provide any actual defense. Also if someone stands around with a gun pointed at someone, they will not certainly know if there's someone else behind/beside you who may just shoot you; it puts a significant additional risk on the user. Criminals aren't exclusively idiots — they set up ambushes, effectuate multi-pronged attacks, have scouts, and can cover each-other. Being non-lethal to a criminal makes the user far less to actually die themself when the offenders are prepared.
Again, it's hard to kill somebody with a handgun. Giving being within arms reach, it is far easier to with a knife. On the other hand to get an immediate stop or cessation of hostile action, a gun will outperform a knife or any other less lethal weapon. Guns are not magic, people do not explode when hit. They comply with the rules of physics and anatomy and shoot little pieces of metal that can even bounce off glass.
It's not hard, it's far easier with a gun than pretty much anything else, which is the whole reason why they're a problem. I'm not saying gunshots always kill, but the fact is they very often do kill, and shooting someone is attempted murder. Firearms contain explosive energy in them which generally provide inhuman amounts of energy, which are also extremely concentrated to a small area causing maximum damage. I think it makes good sense to draw the line at inhuman lethal power — no mines, no grenades, no rocket launchers, no guns (with the exception of hunting)
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: 1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context. 2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat. 3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
I don't see how it could be any clearer, but here goes for the fourth time, I think. Operating on generalizations just fails. Just because crime is rare in one area doesn't mean it's rare in another. While you may be perfect ready to screw over one group of people in Detroit because gun control has no effect on the people in Bridgewater, the people in Detroit will tell you to take your over-generalizations with you to hell if you tried to grab their guns. They seriously would shoot you dead.
On February 24 2012 05:47 sevencck wrote: No kidding. My point was that the police is a more appropriate response than mass vigilantism. If they aren't sufficing, then the solution is to devote more resources to them, it isn't for people to become vigilantes. Ever heard that saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Gun control in conjunction with a police force that is actively working to arrest those in illegal possession will clean up gun crime pretty darn effectively, and probably crime in general. Why is mass access to guns and the inevitable vigilantism/attrition/accidents that go along with that preferable?
Police as an organized force is just like any other organized force in terms of protection. The special characteristic is that police has legal cover and sometimes impunity. That means that they are viewed as a force of justice in society, but some individual police officers can get away with bloody murder, both literally and figuratively. Their projection of protective force against organized crime is just like any other armed gang. If the police gets into a shooting war with say the mafia, they're likely to win the battle via attrition on the virtue of greater numbers, and that's why the mafia avoid confrontation with police.
Police departments are no guarantee of money well spent on public security. If the police organization is ineffective or corrupt rather than merely underfunded, it'd be wrong to throw good money after bad. The right move is starve the organization of funding, clean house, and repopulate the leadership and personnel. That means less money for the current police department not more. If that isn't politically possible, then public should resort to shadow organizations for security, aka vigilantes.
The number one reason why self-defense is preferable? Because the police suck at interdicting crime as it happens, and some people require more security than the police is willing to offer. Economics of choosing prevention over cure depends on cost, efficacy, and risks. Prevention is not an automatic better choice. In this case self-defense is the prevention and police is the cure, and self-defense and the threat thereof is by far better targeted on the people most at risk of being victims of violent crimes.
Secondly, gun control doesn't limit crime. At all. It makes petty crime less risky and it is much harder to counter numerical advantages or physical disadvantages. Women become particularly more vulnerable. There are alternatives, of course, and they all require training, good judgement, and responsible use. The gun as a dangerous deterrent effectively prevents some violence from starting for fear of the possible consequences in the manner of cold war geopolitics and MAD via the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: You're missing the point. They can be used for the purposes of self defense, but their threat to public safety outweighs their supposed benefits in this regard.
I don't see this "point" backed up at all in any regard. Just because you feel this "truth" about sidearms doesn't mean that it reflects reality. If you can't back it up, there is no point in continuing this discussion. There will be strong points to the contrary.
as a general principle I just dont have a problem with guns.
but, I personally like hand guns a lot. it's not some sort of metal gear solid gun fetish, but in the same way that I am fascinated by fountain pens, film cameras, pocket knives, and all other sorts of mechanical toys I cannot help but be drawn to such a fascinating collection of moving parts. out of all of those, a gun is the only item I do not personally own.
but if circumstances were different I would probably own a few handguns.
while inner city violence is causing a silent crisis in this country that most suburbanites are completely unaware of, I am certain that even with the absence of guns many of our youths would continue to murder each other. I see the remedy to gun violence as being education rather than abolition.
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: 1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context. 2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat. 3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
I don't see how it could be any clearer, but here goes for the fourth time, I think. Operating on generalizations just fails. Just because crime is rare in one area doesn't mean it's rare in another. While you may be perfect ready to screw over one group of people in Detroit because gun control has no effect on the people in Bridgewater, the people in Detroit will tell you to take your over-generalizations with you to hell if you tried to grab their guns. They seriously would shoot you dead.
On February 24 2012 05:47 sevencck wrote: No kidding. My point was that the police is a more appropriate response than mass vigilantism. If they aren't sufficing, then the solution is to devote more resources to them, it isn't for people to become vigilantes. Ever heard that saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Gun control in conjunction with a police force that is actively working to arrest those in illegal possession will clean up gun crime pretty darn effectively, and probably crime in general. Why is mass access to guns and the inevitable vigilantism/attrition/accidents that go along with that preferable?
Police as an organized force is just like any other organized force in terms of protection. The special characteristic is that police has legal cover and sometimes impunity. That means that they are viewed as a force of justice in society, but some individual police officers can get away with bloody murder, both literally and figuratively. Their projection of protective force against organized crime is just like any other armed gang. If the police gets into a shooting war with say the mafia, they're likely to win the battle via attrition on the virtue of greater numbers, and that's why the mafia avoid confrontation with police.
Police departments are no guarantee of money well spent on public security. If the police organization is ineffective or corrupt rather than merely underfunded, it'd be wrong to throw good money after bad. The right move is starve the organization of funding, clean house, and repopulate the leadership and personnel. That means less money for the current police department not more. If that isn't politically possible, then public should resort to shadow organizations for security, aka vigilantes.
The number one reason why self-defense is preferable? Because the police suck at interdicting crime as it happens, and some people require more security than the police is willing to offer. Economics of choosing prevention over cure depends on cost, efficacy, and risks. Prevention is not an automatic better choice. In this case self-defense is the prevention and police is the cure, and self-defense and the threat thereof is by far better targeted on the people most at risk of being victims of violent crimes.
Secondly, gun control doesn't limit crime. At all. It makes petty crime less risky and it is much harder to counter numerical advantages or physical disadvantages. Women become particularly more vulnerable. There are alternatives, of course, and they all require training, good judgement, and responsible use. The gun as a dangerous deterrent effectively prevents some violence from starting for fear of the possible consequences in the manner of cold war geopolitics and MAD via the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote: You're missing the point. They can be used for the purposes of self defense, but their threat to public safety outweighs their supposed benefits in this regard.
I don't see this "point" backed up at all in any regard. Just because you feel this "truth" about sidearms doesn't mean that it reflects reality. If you can't back it up, there is no point in continuing this discussion. There will be strong points to the contrary.
I'm sorry, but if you bothered to actually read the _whole_ thread you'd see that several times people have attempted this sort of logic and been proven wrong. Don't just read the last page please
Individuals should not have the right to bear assault weapons.
1. One should not go around carrying a weapon that is designed to cause grave bodily harm. There are many less dangerous ways of defending oneself, killing/injuring others is just about the worst way to go. Police also tend to deploy more drastic measures to subdue armed individuals (often exasperated, or caught in 'the heat of the moment')
2. Licensing of guns is as of yet imperfect. There are a number of issues, but the main one here is the storage security of weapons. You mean to prove that you have a secure place to store your weapons before obtaining a license, but in reality most of people store their weapons at home (even in cars), thus making it potentially accessible to family members and thieves.
3. Guns present another potential source of accidents of lethal consequences.
EPT
