|
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 05:44 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 05:21 Kaitlin wrote: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.
Actually you can make guns in your basement. You recall the Sten the British created in ww2? Designed to be easily made from non-traditional shops. You can make one in your basement or garage. IO in texas made an even simpler design some 30 years ago. People in India make improvised firearms all the time. It's actually an ongoing problem right now. Fact is, once the cat is out of the bag and people know how to, firearms are easy to make.
If they are coming for my guns and ammo, I'll be sure to give them the ammo first.
On February 25 2012 11:16 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +
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)
Sure, they might have a gun on me. But, like I was saying. That doesn't mean game over. Again, guns are not magic. That's the whole point of my post. JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GUN ON YOU DOES NOT MEAN YOU LOSE. Countless MA's teach gungrabs or disarms. It's even easier when you don't actually have to take theirs away, but just push it so it isn't aiming at you while you go for yours. It's clear you've never even attempted it in practice, but are just hypothesizing. Both parties having guns does not mean somebody is going to die. Again, you're just assuming based upon what you think you know about firearms and their supposed ease of use. If you wanted to you could pull up countless videos on youtube of a shop owner pulling a gun on a robber with a gun and neither of them dying. It's not murder for trespassing, it's justifiable homicide for assault and attempted murder.
.... Are you serious? Having a less lethal method of defense is going to increase your chances of successfully defending yourself? There is something called situational awareness that CCW holders practice. OCers practice it even more.
Lets go over this one more time. 2.5 Million defensive gun uses in a year. The majority of them do not require shots to be fired. So typically what happens when you draw a gun? Bad guys run. They don't want to engage if their life is on the line. And honestly, are you so unaware that you don't know the placement of everything when you consider drawing your firearm? When surprised, is your first instinct to move closer or farther? Farther. Okay, so maybe the guy behind you has a gun too. Does that mean you HAVE to draw down on them? No. There's nothing wrong with having one, but it gives you a legitimate defensive option. There is quite probably not a single case in which a non-lethal weapon would give you a better chance of survival then having a firearm.
It's quite clear you don't actually have any experience with firearms. Or weapons in general. Or fighting. Again, It is far easier, FAR easier to kill somebody with a knife then a firearm when within arms reach. I do like how you weasel word, but the fact of the matter is that you are wrong. Gunshots from handguns very seldom kill people. In fact, your typical handgun loaded with premium self defense rounds (those oh my god super deadly hollowpoints) only have around an 80% instant stop rate with a good COM hit. Which is why most trainers worth anything will teach you to doubletap. I'll note here that getting a stop is not a euphemism for killing them. If you compare the number of people shot to the number of people actually killed by a gunshot, you would see that handguns are relatively BAD at killing people. At the same time, they are relatively (compared to anything else really) good, at getting stops RTFN. Conversely, knives are bad at getting instant stops, but GOOD at killing people.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 25 2012 15:47 Asol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 11:17 TanGeng wrote:
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 
Oh, I read it, and it's completely inadequate. What logic I have seen is centered around assumed incompetence and biased analysis. It's either firearm accidents or confuses actual violence and endangerment of safety with merely the plausible threat of violence.
Firearm accidents are rare, and gun owners should continue to take extra precautions against negligence. Particularly vulnerable are children. Escalation is not the likely outcome. The idea of trigger happy gun owners is a caricature. The behavior response to credible threat of lethal response by potential victims and bystanders is bigger phenomenon than the actual potentially lethal response.
|
'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
I'm sure by the time this thread finally cools off I'll have posted this about a dozen times:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063
Please read it, it totally destroys the ridiculous myths about guns being used in self-defense and gun accidents being voiced by gun control advocates.
|
On February 25 2012 11:17 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote:On February 25 2012 05:34 TanGeng wrote: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.
There are good neighborhood and bad neighborhoods. Places of easy public security and difficult public security. Example of good areas, example: Bridgewater, NJ. Example of bad areas, example: Detroit. http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/05/020512-news-detroit-vigilantes-1-5/ I don't see how this is a response to my point. 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.
Your logic is totally inappropriate. First of all, I'm not generalizing, but let's assume for argument's sake that I was. You're saying I can't use the good areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun regulation, but all you're doing is the exact opposite. You're using the bad areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun ownership, then saying I'm wrong for generalizing (when that's not even what I'm doing). So your entire basis for calling my point into question falls flat on its face. This lack of logic becomes compounded when you consider that gun ownership won't fix the bad areas in the USA. So all you're doing is arguing in favor of a solution that won't fix the problem using a generalization as a logical basis while decrying generalizations. And are you really telling me how an entire population would shoot me dead for my views in support of gun ownership?
At this point I can only assume you're trolling.
On February 25 2012 11:17 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Do you not understand my point? Or are you just trolling me? We've both drawn lines but yours is arbitrary. You haven't spoken to the point I made. Either do one of the following: a) point out how my logic is flawed, or b) speak to the point I made. If you can do neither you cede the point, simple as that.
|
My simple answer to the title of the thread: No
From what I see in Australia, it would be absolutely unnecessary
That is all
|
On February 25 2012 19:53 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 05:44 sevencck wrote:On February 25 2012 05:21 Kaitlin wrote: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. Actually you can make guns in your basement. You recall the Sten the British created in ww2? Designed to be easily made from non-traditional shops. You can make one in your basement or garage. IO in texas made an even simpler design some 30 years ago. People in India make improvised firearms all the time. It's actually an ongoing problem right now. Fact is, once the cat is out of the bag and people know how to, firearms are easy to make. If they are coming for my guns and ammo, I'll be sure to give them the ammo first.
No. You can't. You can't make guns in your basement unless you have a bunch of appropriate parts. Why would you believe I'm suggesting we regulate guns but make their parts available? Also, why does it even matter? If people are manufacturing guns illegally, you arrest them. And honestly dude, no offense, but your last statement is a very irresponsible and crazy thing to say. I guess it's exactly the reason I'm so vehemently against people like you owning guns.
|
What parts do you think you actually need? What parts would you ban. Tell me now. Because I doubt you'd be banning metal. And you know what? Why not just arrest them when they rob and assault somebody? How would you know they are manufacturing guns in their basement anyways? You clearly are out of touch with reality and need to learn about, examine, and gain experience in subjects before your replies make any sort of sense.
And honestly dude, no offense but your recent postings in this thread are very irresponsible, uninformed, and are borne of a lack of both knowledge and experience. I guess it's exactly the reason why I'm so vehemently against people being able to decide what everybody else should be able to own.
|
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
Statistics do not negate the right to choice. Ideals are not determined according to a cost benefit analysis. Otherwise hate speech would be illegal, and so would a double quarter pounder with cheese. It is not possible to maintain a free society when policy is dictated by statistics rather than principles.
I have a right to the means to defend myself or my family. Whether you think those means are justified or effective has no bearing on that right, and your opinion does not grant you the authority to harm me for seeking it. I don't own a gun, and I don't plan on owning a gun, but I will still fight for the right to make that choice.
|
On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
Statistics do not negate the right to choice. Ideals are not determined according to a cost benefit analysis. Otherwise hate speech would be illegal, and so would a double quarter pounder with cheese. It is not possible to maintain a free society when policy is dictated by statistics rather than principles.
I have a right to the means to defend myself or my family. Whether you think those means are justified or effective has no bearing on that right, and your opinion does not grant you the authority to harm me for seeking it. I don't own a gun, and I don't plan on owning a gun, but I will still fight for the right to make that choice.
pretty good post, thats how i feel as well
|
|
|
On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
Statistics do not negate the right to choice. Ideals are not determined according to a cost benefit analysis. Otherwise hate speech would be illegal, and so would a double quarter pounder with cheese. It is not possible to maintain a free society when policy is dictated by statistics rather than principles.
I have a right to the means to defend myself or my family. Whether you think those means are justified or effective has no bearing on that right, and your opinion does not grant you the authority to harm me for seeking it. I don't own a gun, and I don't plan on owning a gun, but I will still fight for the right to make that choice.
I won't deny that you're being somewhat reasonable here, but I wanna hear the logic supporting this view. After all, by your logic there is no harm in someone owning landmines, grenades, missile launchers, an M60 mounted on a jeep, and Sarin gas, since ownership is not harm. Your logic is that we should simply regulate harmful actions associated with these devices.
Whether the bottom line is simply the right to defend yourself and your family, or whether it's the right to choose, you could argue in favor of mass ownership of these weapons using your logic, yet we regulate stuff like this (for good reason). What is the logic that makes handguns (especially with the hollow point rounds some of you are talking about) different?
|
On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So everybody should be allowed to own nuclear bombs and killer viruses... .
|
Not sure, since people obviously are able to abuse every single thing in this world I think it's a volatile situation. On the other hand, guns provide safety for people who actually know how to handle them.. I personally don't think that guns should be banned just because some people are irresponsible. People should be able to defend themselves on equal terms with the criminals that they're facing.
|
I concealed carry (with permit) almost 100% of the time when in a state that allows me to. Which is to say that I totally support the ownership and carrying of firearms.
That being said, there are some places where it is just inappropriate either due to alchohol consumption or local security being more than capable of dealing with situations. That is bars and banks. Criminals of any kind, violent or not, should not be allowed to carry or own. Parents of children who get a gun in their hand should be imprisoned for life (except hunting, etc..)
I will not rely on law enforcement to be there to protect my family. Their security is my responsibility, so I will do everything the law allows to protect them.
|
On February 27 2012 05:24 Usul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So everybody should be allowed to own nuclear bombs and killer viruses... .
It's not illegal to be HIV positive, and nuclear power plants which have the capacity for a nuclear disaster can be privately owned, so technically those things are legal to own already and exist within society.
In any case, if we are talking about the means to self defense, I really hope you don't need me to articulate the differences between a handgun, and say, a nuclear warhead or deadly virus. A weapon of "mass destruction" cannot be used "responsibly."
|
if one wants a gun they will get it regardless of laws, thus gun laws only hurt the average person and killers will still get them and kill people
|
On February 27 2012 06:59 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 05:24 Usul wrote:On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So everybody should be allowed to own nuclear bombs and killer viruses... . It's not illegal to be HIV positive, and nuclear power plants which have the capacity for a nuclear disaster can be privately owned, so technically those things are legal to own already and exist within society. In any case, if we are talking about the means to self defense, I really hope you don't need me to articulate the differences between a handgun, and say, a nuclear warhead or deadly virus. A weapon of "mass destruction" cannot be used "responsibly."
Nuclear power plants aren't equal to bombs, but being HIV positive actually is equal. People have been convicted of intentionally spreading disease before.
But to get back on topic.....A gun is a tool. If you're afraid of a tool then your probably always going to be afraid of something. I'll tell you a story.
Cop pulls over this old women who was speeding. Cop sees her carry conceal license. Asks her if she has any weapons in the car. She says, gun in my purse, glove compartment and my jacket. Officer asks, "What are you so afraid of?" She responds, "Not a damn thing."
|
On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So bad argument. NOTHING is an arm in itself. Give a responsible guy a nuclear device, he won't use it so it won't be any harm. An object has no proper will.
In a democracy people vote about big society debates. Gun ownership is a society debate. You claim the right to own a gun. Very well. I claim the right to not be surrounded by guns, it impacts my life. Then people choose, in Europe people chose to ban private gun ownership (except for hunting). And whatever you may say, gun is not a neutral object. Gun first purpose is to shoot a bullet. The only legitimate use I see is hunting, and shooting at the range(but then the gun stays at the range).
And with the amount of irresponsible people I see everyday (and you can never be sure that licenses are only delivered to responsible people) I'm happy they do not own a gun.
|
On February 27 2012 20:42 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So bad argument. NOTHING is an arm in itself. Give a responsible guy a nuclear device, he won't use it so it won't be any harm. An object has no proper will. In a democracy people vote about big society debates. Gun ownership is a society debate. You claim the right to own a gun. Very well. I claim the right to not be surrounded by guns, it impacts my life. Then people choose, in Europe people chose to ban private gun ownership (except for hunting). And whatever you may say, gun is not a neutral object. Gun first purpose is to shoot a bullet. The only legitimate use I see is hunting, and shooting at the range(but then the gun stays at the range). And with the amount of irresponsible people I see everyday (and you can never be sure that licenses are only delivered to responsible people) I'm happy they do not own a gun.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You do not have the right to strip me of my rights. Your rights end at another man's. My owning a gun does not impact your life in any way. Your made up sorry excuse is just a desire to restrict the freedoms and rights of others in the guise of a right.
Unless you can demonstrate why my owning a gun impacts you, (not could... does) then you have no valid reason, nor right, to restrict my freedoms.
False rights always impose obligations. ie. a 'right' to healthcare means somebody else has a duty or obligation to provide it for/to you. True rights like a right to free speech or religion or to bear arms or self defense only impose a negative duty on you to not interfere with my life.
|
First of all, unlike knives/cars, guns are DESIGNED to harm people. This makes comparisons between guns and those objects irrelevant since their primary purpose isn't to harm people. Personally I believe that any item which is primarily designed to be a weapon which can inflict serious harm shouldn't be allowed, and the laws here in Australia reflect that; with flick-knives, handguns, knuckle-dusters etc. being banned. (Hunting guns are still allowed with a permit, since their primary purpose ISN'T to harm people)
It is worth noting that the current fire-arm restrictions haven't even been in place for 20 years, and already guns are a rare sight in the media, with almost any gun related incident being reported on, even if the gun isn't fired. These stories are rarely seen more than once or twice a month; massively higher than even the accident rate with firearms in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
