|
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 September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun!
The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless.
But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe.
I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine.
|
|
|
On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it.
That’s fine for you. You don’t want to go through the trouble of storage and loading. You think others stand a bad chance at an effective response. That’s all fine. The trouble arising when you prescribe a ban on the sale, storage, and carry of guns. Then, no offense intended, but you’re way out of line and thank God you’re not in the states.
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest.
We’re having a big problem here with people who themselves doesn’t think it makes sense to have a gun for home defense and persona offense legislating their preferences on the rest of us. A lot of us feel like a repeal or judicial de-facto repeal is a recurring threat from government. People like you who see no good place for gun owners and their self-defense will likely not stick up for gun owners when somebody wants big time bans or onerous regulations (like DC trigger locks, which were declared unconstitutional in the Heller decision for violating the second amendment). That’s a huge deal in the debate and a big reason the NRA is so vocal in protesting one step further towards effective gun bans. I don’t really see the march stopping at respecting the rights of others that choose to arm themselves.
EDIT: I realize I’m getting a little off topic from the original exchange and delayed answers. We disagree on the feasibility of opening a lockbox and loading a gun before you are in danger or if you choose to challenge a burglar stealing your TV. Prudence may dictate your best move is to wait in your room or hallway, regardless of your legal rights. With training, the process does not take very long and I do recommend people availing themselves of this crucial constitutional right do solicit training in effective use.
|
|
|
On September 07 2018 05:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. That’s fine for you. You don’t want to go through the trouble of storage and loading. You think others stand a bad chance at an effective response. That’s all fine. The trouble arising when you prescribe a ban on the sale, storage, and carry of guns. Then, no offense intended, but you’re way out of line and thank God you’re not in the states. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. We’re having a big problem here with people who themselves doesn’t think it makes sense to have a gun for home defense and persona offense legislating their preferences on the rest of us. A lot of us feel like a repeal or judicial de-facto repeal is a recurring threat from government. People like you who see no good place for gun owners and their self-defense will likely not stick up for gun owners when somebody wants big time bans or onerous regulations (like DC trigger locks, which were declared unconstitutional in the Heller decision for violating the second amendment). That’s a huge deal in the debate and a big reason the NRA is so vocal in protesting one step further towards effective gun bans. I don’t really see the march stopping at respecting the rights of others that choose to arm themselves. EDIT: I realize I’m getting a little off topic from the original exchange and delayed answers. We disagree on the feasibility of opening a lockbox and loading a gun before you are in danger or if you choose to challenge a burglar stealing your TV. Prudence may dictate your best move is to wait in your room or hallway, regardless of your legal rights. With training, the process does not take very long and I do recommend people availing themselves of this crucial constitutional right do solicit training in effective use. Other than you think it is so, do you have any numbers that support increased gun ownership lowers crime? Home invasions or anything? Like are gun owners more likely to not get their stuff stolen? Or Less likely to die in a gun related death? Everything I have ever read is the opposite. It still boggles my mind that people think that they are better off facing someone gun vs gun than not vs not. I also think wanting to kill someone because they are in the process of stealing your stuff is a bad way to live, it is worse than cutting off hands of thieves. And my personal stance is not no guns, I'm completely fine with hunting rifles, licenced with some sort of class and test. I would prefer no handguns and assault rifles but I could live with simple rules like licensing, wait periods, losing the right if you have a criminal offense and so on. edit: basically you keep asserting that your personal safety is better by owning a gun. As if this is some fact or truth. And I am asking you to prove it, If you can great we can discuss it and perhaps you can change my mind, and maybe many others. But if you can't, stop spouting it like a fact, start saying things that are more accurate like "I feel safer when I own a gun".
Nope. I’m not working off statistics about overall effect on crime, or likelihood to die or be burgled. The sociologists can argue about what other civil rights have effects on society; I’m a personal liberty guy and my individual rights are not granted me by statistical studies.
I do operate on statistics that show those areas with the highest restrictions on guns also have the highest rates of crime. When I was more concerned with convincing others maybe a decade ago, I looked up the statistics to better inform myself on the larger societal impact vs the personal freedom and safety impact. And I don’t really deal with people that think their personal safety is better unarmed than armed. Maybe they’ve never met a bigger dude or deal with a different class of criminal.
If this was so pernicious, as in increased lawful gun ownership worsens crime, I would expect large scale increases in gun ownership to have some degree of increase in lawlessness. In fact, the opposite is true. Since the 90s, violent crime has roughly halved alongside an almost doubling of owned guns. Ok. And the trend of states with laws guarding the right to carry has increased to something like 40 states, with crime dropping in the period.
Some things quoted to me as fact with a source, but not personally verified, are that people who use guns in their defense of robbery or assault are less likely to be injured than people either attempting other means or offering no self-defense.
Also, nobody really can collect accurate statistics on would-be criminals that drop their intentions when they see an armed person or someone draws a gun. Certain surveys that have been done among prisoners show that fear of their mark being armed had dissuaded them from committing one or more crimes. I don’t put a lot of faith in proving the issue one way or another through studies. I do know how many personal stories and local stories involve a citizen pulling a gun or putting his hand on the holster, and the crime stopping that instant.
It was in my many years dealing with the “ban guns now” and “there’s no good reason to own a gun” crowd that I came to the conclusion that these were utopian idealists and people general guided by emotional repulsion at any death by gun and guns themselves. I recognize today that the bigger problem is value systems on crime, liberty, and morals than any group of studies on AR-15s or concealed carry or whatnot. I stopped keeping up with the statistics following my frequent interactions with anti-gun believers and just why they believed that way.
It’s really not going to be an issue argued into one point or away from another except at the extreme margins (say, 100 round magazines or bump stocks). Courts or rogue legislatures will continue to curtail 2nd amendment rights through fiat. Gun owners will continue to feel threatened by the gun grabbers and furor after each mass shooting. Until gun control nuts have less control over the Democratic Party or there’s some bilateral respect for the core right to own and carry, nothing changes much. I’m very pessimistic for anything happening in the next few years.
|
|
|
On September 07 2018 08:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 07:18 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 05:37 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off.
Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him.
Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. That’s fine for you. You don’t want to go through the trouble of storage and loading. You think others stand a bad chance at an effective response. That’s all fine. The trouble arising when you prescribe a ban on the sale, storage, and carry of guns. Then, no offense intended, but you’re way out of line and thank God you’re not in the states. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. We’re having a big problem here with people who themselves doesn’t think it makes sense to have a gun for home defense and persona offense legislating their preferences on the rest of us. A lot of us feel like a repeal or judicial de-facto repeal is a recurring threat from government. People like you who see no good place for gun owners and their self-defense will likely not stick up for gun owners when somebody wants big time bans or onerous regulations (like DC trigger locks, which were declared unconstitutional in the Heller decision for violating the second amendment). That’s a huge deal in the debate and a big reason the NRA is so vocal in protesting one step further towards effective gun bans. I don’t really see the march stopping at respecting the rights of others that choose to arm themselves. EDIT: I realize I’m getting a little off topic from the original exchange and delayed answers. We disagree on the feasibility of opening a lockbox and loading a gun before you are in danger or if you choose to challenge a burglar stealing your TV. Prudence may dictate your best move is to wait in your room or hallway, regardless of your legal rights. With training, the process does not take very long and I do recommend people availing themselves of this crucial constitutional right do solicit training in effective use. Other than you think it is so, do you have any numbers that support increased gun ownership lowers crime? Home invasions or anything? Like are gun owners more likely to not get their stuff stolen? Or Less likely to die in a gun related death? Everything I have ever read is the opposite. It still boggles my mind that people think that they are better off facing someone gun vs gun than not vs not. I also think wanting to kill someone because they are in the process of stealing your stuff is a bad way to live, it is worse than cutting off hands of thieves. And my personal stance is not no guns, I'm completely fine with hunting rifles, licenced with some sort of class and test. I would prefer no handguns and assault rifles but I could live with simple rules like licensing, wait periods, losing the right if you have a criminal offense and so on. edit: basically you keep asserting that your personal safety is better by owning a gun. As if this is some fact or truth. And I am asking you to prove it, If you can great we can discuss it and perhaps you can change my mind, and maybe many others. But if you can't, stop spouting it like a fact, start saying things that are more accurate like "I feel safer when I own a gun". Nope. I’m not working off statistics about overall effect on crime, or likelihood to die or be burgled. The sociologists can argue about what other civil rights have effects on society; I’m a personal liberty guy and my individual rights are not granted me by statistical studies. I do operate on statistics that show those areas with the highest restrictions on guns also have the highest rates of crime. When I was more concerned with convincing others maybe a decade ago, I looked up the statistics to better inform myself on the larger societal impact vs the personal freedom and safety impact. And I don’t really deal with people that think their personal safety is better unarmed than armed. Maybe they’ve never met a bigger dude or deal with a different class of criminal. If this was so pernicious, as in increased lawful gun ownership worsens crime, I would expect large scale increases in gun ownership to have some degree of increase in lawlessness. In fact, the opposite is true. Since the 90s, violent crime has roughly halved alongside an almost doubling of owned guns. Ok. And the trend of states with laws guarding the right to carry has increased to something like 40 states, with crime dropping in the period. Some things quoted to me as fact with a source, but not personally verified, are that people who use guns in their defense of robbery or assault are less likely to be injured than people either attempting other means or offering no self-defense. Also, nobody really can collect accurate statistics on would-be criminals that drop their intentions when they see an armed person or someone draws a gun. Certain surveys that have been done among prisoners show that fear of their mark being armed had dissuaded them from committing one or more crimes. I don’t put a lot of faith in proving the issue one way or another through studies. I do know how many personal stories and local stories involve a citizen pulling a gun or putting his hand on the holster, and the crime stopping that instant. It was in my many years dealing with the “ban guns now” and “there’s no good reason to own a gun” crowd that I came to the conclusion that these were utopian idealists and people general guided by emotional repulsion at any death by gun and guns themselves. I recognize today that the bigger problem is value systems on crime, liberty, and morals than any group of studies on AR-15s or concealed carry or whatnot. I stopped keeping up with the statistics following my frequent interactions with anti-gun believers and just why they believed that way. It’s really not going to be an issue argued into one point or away from another except at the extreme margins (say, 100 round magazines or bump stocks). Courts or rogue legislatures will continue to curtail 2nd amendment rights through fiat. Gun owners will continue to feel threatened by the gun grabbers and furor after each mass shooting. Until gun control nuts have less control over the Democratic Party or there’s some bilateral respect for the core right to own and carry, nothing changes much. I’m very pessimistic for anything happening in the next few years. So no statistics that say it is safer, got it. Too bad you misplaced those after dealing with the anti gun crowd, it would have been a good read.You talk about peoples rights and freedoms a lot. Does the right for all to have guns not infringe on the right of others to be safe? I get that it makes you feel safer, but given the amount of crime and all the statistical evidence (I know you think it is fake news but to the rest of the world it is just facts) are you not infringing on their rights?
This was kind of the expected response. Good day.
|
|
|
On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway
Your Australian so please do enlighten me about my own government. Americans are idiots. For example, the only thing I know about the Australian govt is that you have Queen Elizabeth on your money and a Union Jack on your flag.
On September 07 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:You see, the key is never to engage with the bullshit argument to being with. Let them make the weird, I need to resist the goverment argument with my AR-15 and then keep explaining why effective background check systems are important. Same goes for AR-15s. They are a small number of fire arms deaths. Go after the big fish through improving background checks and laws surrounding seizing firearms before a crime takes place, effectively limiting hand gun violence. For those interested, Preet Bharara(Former USDA) did a podcast with the founder of Mothers Who Demand action, which is one of the most effective gun control lobbies in the US, passing a number of state laws. She details exactly why focusing on "assault weapons" and gun bans are not effective ways to counter gun violence in the current political climate. It is worth listening to if you want to engage with these discussions in an effective manner and avoid the pitfalls of talk about gun control.
I dont need to resist the govt, I just want the option. And you are American. What was your opinion about the Patriot Act?
On September 07 2018 02:43 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? The problem with the "I need to defend myself" argument is that if you can't get your hands on a gun only for self defense, your burglar isn't going to either. And that's ignoring every statistical evidence which shows that owning a gun for "self defense" drastically increases your chances of dying. Like you said: I'd rather not have a shootout in my house over a T.V. either.
A burglar is a criminal right? How would a criminal obtain an illegal firearm? Heroin and Methamphetamine are illegal. Where are the junkies getting it then?
On September 07 2018 02:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2018 22:03 JD.Cursed wrote:
The argument that the 2nd Amendment was written so that people could keep a flint-lock rifle in their home and not an AK-47 is flawed. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is not so simple as "we like guns and we're gonna keep them." Its more of an insurance policy to protect citizens against tyranny, of any era. By giving Americans the right to bear arms, we the people, ensure that if the government ever becomes tyrannical, we have the means to overthrow and replace it. That's an odd argument seeing as it's not particularly true. A lot of people believe as if it's true even though it really isn't. (the insurance policy stuff) but others have already addressed that, so if you don't want to engage in multiple similar lines of discussion tha'ts fine.
After reading your post, I realized that I do infact make mistakes. So I asked Google: "Why was the 2nd Amendment written?" This was at the very top of the page:
The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: ... Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.Jun 28, 2017
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people.
I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it.
First few examples in the couple min I actually wanted to spend finding some:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-03/germany-must-come-to-terms-with-refugee-crime
https://wjla.com/news/inside-your-world/stats-in-sweden-show-rise-in-violence-after-refugee-surge
https://wjla.com/news/inside-your-world/crime-stats-show-increase-in-violence-against-women-in-sweden-after-refugee-crisishttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime/violent-crime-rises-in-germany-and-is-attributed-to-refugees-idUSKBN1ES16J
I sure am glad to live in a country where I can buy a bigger dick than the one god gave me.
|
|
|
The Patriot act is a god damn nightmare that never should have been passed. It also has literally nothing to do with what I posted.
|
I'm not sure what your point is with that cite JD.
could you clarify your actual, precise point?
since it does little/nothing to actually establish the thesis that individual firearms would be/were of use against government tyranny.
(PS not using quote since you responded to a bunch of other people, and it makes quote-chains messy)
|
On September 07 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is with that cite JD.
could you clarify your actual, precise point?
since it does little/nothing to actually establish the thesis that individual firearms would be/were of use against government tyranny.
(PS not using quote since you responded to a bunch of other people, and it makes quote-chains messy)
completely agree about the quotes, ill stop doing that after this post
you said that my insurance policy argument was untrue. I was just providing proof that it is.
On September 07 2018 09:02 Plansix wrote:
The Patriot act is a god damn nightmare that never should have been passed. It also has literally nothing to do with what I posted.
that post I quoted made it seem like you were being critical about resisting the govt. I was just curious about what you think would be worth resisting.
oh and also since the last page everyones been throwing around sources and statistics and such I wanna point out that I checked the fbi.gov crime statistics. Once upon a time when I was making this argument somewhere else, gun crimes were on a 3 year decrease but unfortunately for all us arguing for guns, the last 2 years did increase.
|
On September 07 2018 08:44 JD.Cursed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway Your Australian so please do enlighten me about my own government. Americans are idiots. For example, the only thing I know about the Australian govt is that you have Queen Elizabeth on your money and a Union Jack on your flag. Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:You see, the key is never to engage with the bullshit argument to being with. Let them make the weird, I need to resist the goverment argument with my AR-15 and then keep explaining why effective background check systems are important. Same goes for AR-15s. They are a small number of fire arms deaths. Go after the big fish through improving background checks and laws surrounding seizing firearms before a crime takes place, effectively limiting hand gun violence. For those interested, Preet Bharara(Former USDA) did a podcast with the founder of Mothers Who Demand action, which is one of the most effective gun control lobbies in the US, passing a number of state laws. She details exactly why focusing on "assault weapons" and gun bans are not effective ways to counter gun violence in the current political climate. It is worth listening to if you want to engage with these discussions in an effective manner and avoid the pitfalls of talk about gun control. I dont need to resist the govt, I just want the option. And you are American. What was your opinion about the Patriot Act? Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 02:43 Excludos wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? The problem with the "I need to defend myself" argument is that if you can't get your hands on a gun only for self defense, your burglar isn't going to either. And that's ignoring every statistical evidence which shows that owning a gun for "self defense" drastically increases your chances of dying. Like you said: I'd rather not have a shootout in my house over a T.V. either. A burglar is a criminal right? How would a criminal obtain an illegal firearm? Heroin and Methamphetamine are illegal. Where are the junkies getting it then? Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 02:50 zlefin wrote:On September 06 2018 22:03 JD.Cursed wrote:
The argument that the 2nd Amendment was written so that people could keep a flint-lock rifle in their home and not an AK-47 is flawed. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is not so simple as "we like guns and we're gonna keep them." Its more of an insurance policy to protect citizens against tyranny, of any era. By giving Americans the right to bear arms, we the people, ensure that if the government ever becomes tyrannical, we have the means to overthrow and replace it. That's an odd argument seeing as it's not particularly true. A lot of people believe as if it's true even though it really isn't. (the insurance policy stuff) but others have already addressed that, so if you don't want to engage in multiple similar lines of discussion tha'ts fine. After reading your post, I realized that I do infact make mistakes. So I asked Google: "Why was the 2nd Amendment written?" This was at the very top of the page: The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: ... Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.Jun 28, 2017 The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms - Live Science https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.htmlShow nested quote +On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people.
I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. First few examples in the couple min I actually wanted to spend finding some: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-03/germany-must-come-to-terms-with-refugee-crimehttps://wjla.com/news/inside-your-world/stats-in-sweden-show-rise-in-violence-after-refugee-surgehttps://wjla.com/news/inside-your-world/crime-stats-show-increase-in-violence-against-women-in-sweden-after-refugee-crisishttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime/violent-crime-rises-in-germany-and-is-attributed-to-refugees-idUSKBN1ES16JI sure am glad to live in a country where I can buy a bigger dick than the one god gave me.
you live in the most influential country in the world and youre clueless about what other countries are doing. people from countries that arent america actually give a shit about america because things your country does actually affects us. dont assume we dont know what we're talking about just because we dont have an american passport.
the fact that you know jackshit about australia only tells me one thing, youre too ignorant to actually have a proper discussion with.
the fact is, you dont even have an option to resist the government. those of you who think the 2nd amendment gives you that option are just deluding yourselves. a tyrannical government can only exist if they maintain autonomy over the military (therefore making all your arms redundant). if there is enough resistance within government factions then citizens dont have to get involved to begin with because said government cannot become tyrannical. do you see the paradox here?
the correct course of action then would be to naturally assume that your political systems, free speech, education etc protect your country and start revising the constitution so that you can actually address the current problem which is gun violence, without people like you hiding behind a law made when you were, by today's standards, a third world country.
also i find claims that my argument is "ideological" quite ironic. claiming there is still a chance the government can become tyrannical is ideological if anything. get real pls
|
On September 07 2018 09:34 JD.Cursed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is with that cite JD.
could you clarify your actual, precise point?
since it does little/nothing to actually establish the thesis that individual firearms would be/were of use against government tyranny.
(PS not using quote since you responded to a bunch of other people, and it makes quote-chains messy) completely agree about the quotes, ill stop doing that after this post you said that my insurance policy argument was untrue. I was just providing proof that it is.
First, I should amend/clarify my prior poorly worded statement, when I said individual firearms would not be of use, I meant privately owned individual firearms, not firearms meant for a single user (but state-owned).
moving on,
I don't see any proof that your insurance policy argument was actually correct in there.
I see evidence that it may have been the intent of the amendment. But an intent is not evidence that something actually works. It only says what it's meant to do, not that it actually will.
The cite also notes that they just used arms to defeat the british, but it does not specify the source of those arms. If the source of those arms was not people's personal arms then it would not establish the thesis. Are you claiming that the revolutionary war was mostly fought with people's personal, previously owned weapons, without massive outside aid?
|
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
Evilfatsh1t:
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I lied, I actually do know that Australia bought 12 (i think) ship mounted missile intercept systems about 4 months ago from The Pentagon in response to N.Korea's continues missile tests.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be.
zlefin:
I dont quite understand what your saying. Intent is not evidence that it works that way? Well I agree. Citizens have not needed to overthrow the govt.
What does the source of the arms in the American Revolution matter? After trying to wrap my head around your post, I assume there were already tons here in the Colonies because of the fur trade. And I suppose France might have supplied some.
|
On September 07 2018 10:01 JD.Cursed wrote:
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be.
you literally said you know nothing about australia other than what our flag looks like and that we are commonwealth. that qualifies as pretty much jackshit. i wasnt trying to offend, it was an observation based on your confession.
your experience with arrest is nowhere near tyrannical. even if we for argument sake said it was, that kind of scale isnt what we're talking about when we discuss the 2nd amendment. besides, how did you solve that problem? you sure as hell didnt pull a gun out and point it at the judge did you
your 3rd paragraph is something i could actually agree with. what i dont understand is how you can accept that the law could be irrelevant or outdated, but would choose not to change it despite it being such a massive reason why gun regulation hasnt come to pass
|
The defend against tyrannical government argument again. In the time the second amendment was written, the only army the US had consisted of local militias that were largely self organised and equipped. So, by making sure the people were allowed to do that, a balance was guaranteed between a potential federal military and state or local militias by the population. But even back then, pure infantry armies were drastically underpowered against a real army with strong artillery attachments.
Back then it made sense. To assume that the same "civil right" has to exist 200 years later without a discussion how it fits into modern society seems like madness to me. There are different arguments that i can partly understand but having to own a gun just in case America wakes up in Nazi Germany and needs to revolt is not one of them.
And the other thing that always irks me is how people throw "their right" around. You have that right now, because someone defined it once and nobody has taken it away for now. Nothing about it makes it more holy then others. You currently have the right to drive cars on public streets. This right is not formulated somewhere but in 20 years that right might be taken away from you, because self driving cars will be the norm by then. The same could happen with guns. I think only about 25% of Americans own guns right? If that solid support of not owning guns at some point would tranlate into political majority, policy might change and you would not have that right anymore. And there would be nothing tyrannical or heretical about it. You would not be allowed to use your weapons to defend yourself against that.
|
On September 07 2018 10:01 JD.Cursed wrote:
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
Evilfatsh1t:
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I lied, I actually do know that Australia bought 12 (i think) ship mounted missile intercept systems about 4 months ago from The Pentagon in response to N.Korea's continues missile tests.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be.
zlefin:
I dont quite understand what your saying. Intent is not evidence that it works that way? Well I agree. Citizens have not needed to overthrow the govt.
What does the source of the arms in the American Revolution matter? After trying to wrap my head around your post, I assume there were already tons here in the Colonies because of the fur trade. And I suppose France might have supplied some.
First, how used are you to rigorous arguing? (because there's different ways to formulate my points, and depending on the level of rigor you're used to different ones would be clearest for you).
On intent: Even if citizens did need to overthrow the gov't, it's still not evidence that it would actually have let you when you couldn't otherwise. It's only evidence that that may have been the intent of the amendment.
the source of the arms matters massively. If existing weapons were of quite limited help; then it doesn't establish that they were the primary source of the victory. The question is whether you won because of people owning their own weapons, or because of other reasons. Determining and assigning causation for the victory is very important for this argument. The whole point of this argument is whether people's personal arms would let them take down a tyrannical government (and/or how much a contributor to that they would be).
If the majority of the arms/ammo were NOT from people's own supplies then it makes quite a difference, wouldn't you agree?
|
On September 07 2018 10:22 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 10:01 JD.Cursed wrote:
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be. you literally said you know nothing about australia other than what our flag looks like and that we are commonwealth. that qualifies as pretty much jackshit. i wasnt trying to offend, it was an observation based on your confession. your experience with arrest is nowhere near tyrannical. even if we for argument sake said it was, that kind of scale isnt what we're talking about when we discuss the 2nd amendment. besides, how did you solve that problem? you sure as hell didnt pull a gun out and point it at the judge did you your 3rd paragraph is something i could actually agree with. what i dont understand is how you can accept that the law could be irrelevant or outdated, but would choose not to change it despite it being such a massive reason why gun regulation hasnt come to pass
I edited the post you quoted a lil bit there.
What would you consider tyrannical? And what would you consider tyrannical enough to take up arms against? Those are two very different answers for me.
I said it could be argued, not that I accept or agree.
And I did also research into England's gun laws for a few min. Hunting rifles and shotguns are actually legal for ordinary citizens to own. Pistols were until the 1 and only school shooting in 1996. And it sounds good. A pistol's only real purpose is murder and suicide. And we'd still have our rifles for the great revolution of neo-fascist quasi dictatorship. Fair compromise, but only if they were taken from police as well.
zlefin:
I understand a little better now and that is an interesting point. my first counter is "Sic semper tyrannis!" Also I suppose that your right no complete revolution in a world power could be successful without a professional military, however have been wildly effective all over Africa and the Middle East. So instead of revolution call it Coup d'eTat
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
