Gun control thread yay

[TheWesDude]

(...)what's your point?(...)

YES, i know that GUNS are not the only things that make people die. They are, however, the kind of items that are SPECIFICALLY created to make people die.

this is incorrect. guns were made to hunt animals and protect from agressive animals. they were not invented to kill people.

its just that they have been subverted from their original purpose to something different.

like a knife used to kill a person.

like a car used to kill a person.

all tools meant for one use but subverted for another use. the comparison is correct.

 

[Tagaziel]

WRONG.

Gunpowder-based weapons were developed primarily as means of war against fellow humans, not to hunt.

 

[Madbringer]

You, my friend, are so very, very “lol”. Absent any firearm whatsoever, I could find out where you live, come over while you are sleeping, and use the heel of my hand to drive the cartilage in your nose well into your brain.

Yes, you could. I could do the same. That's not the point, the point is that guns are amongst the most dangerous items on this planet, as opposed to our fists, or other tools of daily use. It's not about what you can or cannot do, it's about the means you have to do what you want - in this case, threaten and kill.

Do not confuse capacity with intent. “Point of View”, “Moral Compass”, whatever you want to call it, your life depends on it daily, because it is what keeps the bus driver from deciding he’s had a bad day and would like to plow into the crowded café you’re sipping your latte in. The capacity is always there. The intent is what you have to worry about.

Fact is, anyone could become a murderer. And i mean, anyone. For a thousand of reasons, insanity being only one of them. So, you're my neighbour and you have a gun. I know this. How do i know that one day you will not take that gun to my head because, for example, i didn't give you those 50$ i borrowed a while back. Or because you suspect i'm screwing your wife.

Because you say you're a "Good Man" with "High Moral Standards" ?

From my experience, everyone has a threshold of things he can take. A push to get you off the edge is all it takes to make you the opposite of what you normally are.

And that's when the gun transforms from a piece of metal that keeps you safe to your best means to end my life.

A properly placed punch to the nose will render you quite insentient. That’s not the point. The point is that there is a line between the free practice of your liberties and the free practice of mine. And since the human individual has a bad tendency to cross that line, sometimes it needs to be defined and protected. Most of us agree with that. We just argue about where the line is, how it is defined, and who’s duty it is to enforce it. Firearms save lives every day. They also take lives every day. It’s often a matter of perspective.

I would agree with that.

I myself would rather do not have the liberty to own a gun (and i am a declared social liberal), if that would mean ANYONE who is not a police officer or a soldier, cannot have one either. In theory, only the sanest and calmest of people should have the right to own something so deadly as a gun. For peace-keeping. In practice, if you know where to look and have some cash, you can become a murderer waiting to happen at any given time.

If I came up and shot the guy trying to beat you with a chain, I’d gather your perspective might change.

Only one side of the medal. You might as well be the guy with the chain, only with the gun you own.

Also, don't take offense about when i said "this is so lol", it was just a figure of speech.

 

[Ah-Teen]

(...)what's your point?(...)

YES, i know that GUNS are not the only things that make people die. They are, however, the kind of items that are SPECIFICALLY created to make people die.

this is incorrect. guns were made to hunt animals and protect from agressive animals. they were not invented to kill people.

its just that they have been subverted from their original purpose to something different.

like a knife used to kill a person.

like a car used to kill a person.

all tools meant for one use but subverted for another use. the comparison is correct.

This guy isn't hunting deer.

The first firarms were inaccurate cannons used to terrorize defenders and blow down walls. That came down to the hand and so on and so on.

Given, I wouldn't cry too much about the loss of handguns. They are the most used in violent crimes. But I really would rather not give up my best tool against fuck tard gay bashes out to crush my nuts. Rifles on the other hand are absolutely essential to the function of our government as it was intended in our constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The government has checks in each part of it to oversee the rest of the government. We the people hold guns over the government. We can choose to say our government needs to be rebuilt or just needs a swift kick in the ass. If we can't do it in words, we can do it with guns. Hell the south even tried it out back in the civil war. They lost but there was a fundamental change in the government that began to address what the south had been complaining about that the north ignored previous to the war.

Admittedly this argument is for the US but having guns for the possibility of overthrowing your government is universal.

 

[Brother None]

Some of my very good friends in the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany that are quite active in the competitive firearms community, and would vehemently disagree with you on the level of trust in social control they have in their government.

Do not confuse the sociological concept of social control with the sociological concept of civilization under force (y'know, in the Foucaultian sense). When I say social control I mean the influence people have on each other, not the government on the people.

Anyway, I'm sure those people would, but there's a reason that a party that stands up for the rights of animals can get into our congress while no party that agates for the removal of gun control laws even exists: it's not an issue for the majority of Dutch people. And by majority, think 99%. No amount of "guys you talk to" is going to change that. If they're so vehement about the issue, tell them to start a party and see how everyone else thinks.

Rifles on the other hand are absolutely essential to the function of our government as it was intended in our constitution.

Actually, the historical intention of that amendment is to form a militia to always be able to stave off the British. The US did not have the capability to form a military force capable of defeating any nation, so this is a matter of self-defence.

This whole paranoid us against the tyrants thing grew into the concept later, but by no means was a part of the inception with "tyrants" referring to any domestic issues. And it still isn't, democracy as a concept has always relied on a civil society and if necessary army disobedience which means the people will never have to rise against the government. This is accepted in most democracies, just not in the US.

They lost but there was a fundamental change in the government that began to address what the south had been complaining about that the north ignored previous to the war.

This is just historical gobbledegook, and completely incorrect.

Y'know what the most fundamental change of the civil war was apart from the abolition of slavery (which was not even the intention of the north on the onset of the war)? The inclusion of an amendment which made it unconstitutional for states to secede from the US. How's that for an oppressive addition?

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Do not confuse the sociological concept of social control with the sociological concept of civilization under force (y'know, in the Foucaultian sense). When I say social control I mean the influence people have on each other, not the government on the people.

Anyway, I'm sure those people would, but there's a reason that a party that stands up for the rights of animals can get into our congress while no party that agates for the removal of gun control laws even exists: it's not an issue for the majority of Dutch people. And by majority, think 99%. No amount of "guys you talk to" is going to change that. If they're so vehement about the issue, tell them to start a party and see how everyone else thinks.

Presumably, you know your country better then I do, which limits the arguments I can make on the general concept of gun control when you apply it solely to your people and your laws. I submit to your superior skill at framing the debate. By default, I am somewhat obliged to accept what you say as true. So assuming that 99% of your population is perfectly satisfied with your gun control laws, that still leaves 165,000 people that are not. Which is a large number of people to marginalize. My guess is that those who are strongly opposed to your country’s laws have simply done the expedient thing, which is to say that they have voted with their feet.

You, at least, I enjoy arguing with. We clearly come from two different countries with different beliefs. Not much either one of us will say to the other is likely to sway the other’s opinions. Nonetheless, if you ever do make it over to the US, you have a formal invitation from me to give the sport a try.

This whole paranoid us against the tyrants thing grew into the concept later, but by no means was a part of the inception with "tyrants" referring to any domestic issues. And it still isn't, democracy as a concept has always relied on a civil society and if necessary army disobedience which means the people will never have to rise against the government. This is accepted in most democracies, just not in the US.

I would argue that we are pragmatic more then paranoid. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Y'know what the most fundamental change of the civil war was apart from the abolition of slavery (which was not even the intention of the north on the onset of the war)? The inclusion of an amendment which made it unconstitutional for states to secede from the US. How's that for an oppressive addition?

I am by no means an expert on our own civil war. I do know quite well that many civil liberties were suppressed by the North in furtherance of their victory over the South. Plenty of philosophies are wonderful in construct but flawed in execution. However, I would like to point out that nowhere in our Constitution is a state permitted or prevented from the right of secession. Our Supreme Court has interpreted the right of succession to be “said that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union.” (Texas v White (74 US 700 [1869]).

Our South had a right to take up arms against what it perceived was the unjust actions of the North. And they did. Unfortunately for them, they also lost. A right is effective only so long as you can assert it.

It would be interesting to pursue the American Civil War and it’s effect on our beliefs in civil liberties, but it is perhaps best left for another thread.

Edit 1: I must be messing up the board code somehow, because my quotes never seem to be in the correct format. Anyone tell me what I am doing wrong?

 

[Madbringer]

Edit 1: I must be messing up the board code somehow, because my quotes never seem to be in the correct format. Anyone tell me what I am doing wrong?

Seems to me you are using an incorrect character. The one that you should use is ", not ”

 

[Paladin Solo]

I find depending on something as feeble as one's point of view when they have the means to end my life with not really more then a thought behind it, not really encouraging.

But your point of view isn't feeble just because it's your own life? So you're willing to take guns from people, who haven't taken human life, or possibly any life just because you feel uneasy about guns? Since we're all making presumptions, assumptions, and all manner of hypotheses, I'll go ahead and assert some of my own.

So your point of view is more justifiable than theirs? Just because some nut-case uses a gun to kill people doesn't justify you supporting authorities coming into my home and telling me I can't own a gun just so you can feel more safe at the cost of me feeling less safe. Obviously it's only purpose is to kill, even if it is used for other things. I keep mine as a defense mechanism should an intruder be about, or perhaps the fabric of local, national, or world governments break down and some fucker(s) wants to raid my home, and, of course, the even more less-likely event of foreign invasion by military force. What if I were to live in a neighborhood plagued by violence and threats to my own safety, and that of my family's? I shouldn't own a gun just because they *can* buy one legally or illegally? Yeah, I'll just show them my fists when a bunch of thugs, bandits, whatever come up to me and say "Knock-knock, we're here to rape your wife and eat out of your fridge! Please don't call the cops, we won't be staying for that long!" Or wait, I'll taser or pepper-spray him. If you can't trust me with a gun, you certainly can trust me with other lethal or non-lethal (though still harmful) weapons! Plus, I'm sure after I spend my taser or spray on one guy, the others will just bugger off, or y'know, sit there and do nothing. Or let me guess, because I'll inevitably contribute to more crimes? Right, my gun sitting in my room will inevitablly tell me to go on a shooting rampage at my local mall. The spirit of Satan himself plagues all firearms and talks to their owners. If all points of view are feeble, then this thread is pointless except to rouse the spirits.

Tragically, the stereotypical view of gun-owners prevails in some people. I still don't know how self-defense is viewed as a laughable cause, and should be compromised for the slow response of proper authorities. Of course, it's proper because it's appointed by people who think it's proper by their non-feeble point of views. But I guess we're all just a bunch of vigilante-wannabes. Yeah, and you're all a bunch of no-good, tree-hugging, lazy hippies who just want to party and contribute nothing to society. Or are we not making stupid claims?

We always look for other things to blame when something bad happens. It's never the perpetrator's fault. It's always violent games, violent movies, his parents, society, the gun, the knife, the car, God's will, Satan's voice, a sex-book, a cheating wife, etc.. etc... Because we can't possibly foresee who will do what crime and where, we want to take from people who don't have anything to do with it. Take the tool away, take the insipiration away. Hell, while we're at it, let's just nuke the whole world and solve the problem once and for all. I can't be sure that you aren't just trying to take away my method of home defense which gives me a better advantage than I would have with a blade or my bare fists to make it easier for you and your goons to break into my home, or that you may one day breed criminal spawn, invent something used to kill, create an inspirational work of art that inspires crimes, wars, and horribly-made Hollywood A movies, or cheat on your partner and convince him or her that mass-slaughter is the only way to redeem his or herself. So by that logic I should have you all locked up because it makes me feel safer.

Paranoia, statistics, theories backed up by diplomas, and feeble and non-feeble point of views aside, you really think taking away guns will make for better society? The lunatics and reasons for those crimes will still be there. The number of gun-related crimes will drop, sure, but taking away guns will not instantly cure society of the people who would use those guns to do harm unto your precious society. If anything, it'll just make law-biding citizens that more vulnerable to criminal intent. Taking away guns from history will do nothing except make killing as personal as it was before firearms came into play. But hey, I always wanted to learn how to handle myself with a sword! Not-to-mention, if people can learn how to make improvised bombs and chemical weapons, they can learn how to make more guns. The problem is not the tool, it's us. Getting rid of the tool will only breed new ones.

 

[Brother None]

So assuming that 99% of your population is perfectly satisfied with your gun control laws, that still leaves 165,000 people that are not. Which is a large number of people to marginalize.

No, it's not. Conversely, it's a small number of people to adapt to, in any way. There's no reason to even give an inch to a single percent, that's just now how democracies work.

My guess is that those who are strongly opposed to your country’s laws have simply done the expedient thing, which is to say that they have voted with their feet.

The Netherlands hasn't had any significant emigration in the past half century, so I'm sure they did, and I'm sure nobody cares.

You, at least, I enjoy arguing with. We clearly come from two different countries with different beliefs. Not much either one of us will say to the other is likely to sway the other’s opinions. Nonetheless, if you ever do make it over to the US, you have a formal invitation from me to give the sport a try.

I'll keep that in mind. But I repeat I'm not arguing against gun control laws in the US. Considering that I'd consider the current gun laws to work fairly well, I don't feel any tendency to push for stricter or looser gun control laws, either way. I do have a feeling that the laxer attitude of the populace will eventually lead to stricter gun control laws, though, at least in some states.

I would argue that we are pragmatic more then paranoid.

Perhaps. The thing is, this odd concept of leaders leaving because the right number of people didn't put an X under the leader's name on a ballot is something that's worked flawlessly for quite some time. I think Europeans in general trust that if someone tries to gain control undemocratically the army will stand as guard for democracy, simply by not listening to the usurper. Why the US of all countries would not know this trust is confusing.

I am by no means an expert on our own civil war. I do know quite well that many civil liberties were suppressed by the North in furtherance of their victory over the South. Plenty of philosophies are wonderful in construct but flawed in execution. However, I would like to point out that nowhere in our Constitution is a state permitted or prevented from the right of secession. Our Supreme Court has interpreted the right of succession to be “said that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union.” (Texas v White (74 US 700 [1869]).

I feel you are missing the point. Here's a fuller excerpt of Texas v White:
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred.

But there was no such call before the war, and the South's secession was perfectly legal. But any state seceding after the civil war would be breaking the law due to precedent. Many argue that the 10th amendment gave the right to secessions (and I think you could uphold that argument in a legal sense), but after the civil war it no longer does.

I'm not talking the suspension of habeas corpus here, war-time decisions aren't relevant, the important fact here is that during the civil war, the North's actions were unconstitutional, but after the civil war they were reconstituted as legitimate and any future secession has been declared illegal.

That's quite a huge leap in rights (and nice rewrite of history).

Our South had a right to take up arms against what it perceived was the unjust actions of the North.

Hang on, no. The right to take up arms refers to armed rebellion within the framework of the united states. It does not give the right to secede, and the South's actions do not fall under the right to take up arms.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Yes, you could. I could do the same. That's not the point, the point is that guns are amongst the most dangerous items on this planet, as opposed to our fists, or other tools of daily use. It's not about what you can or cannot do, it's about the means you have to do what you want - in this case, threaten and kill.

The list of the most dangerous items on this planet is so incredibly long, and the items subject to such mundane uses. But you're absolutely right. It's not about what you can or cannot do. That's a capacity argument. However it's also not about the means you have at your disposal. I have quick access to the local Home Depot, where all the means to produce a pipe bomb are at my disposal. Yet somehow, I have no desire to produce a pipe bomb, even though I have the means.

Do not confuse capacity with intent. “Point of View”, “Moral Compass”, whatever you want to call it, your life depends on it daily, because it is what keeps the bus driver from deciding he’s had a bad day and would like to plow into the crowded café you’re sipping your latte in. The capacity is always there. The intent is what you have to worry about.

Fact is, anyone could become a murderer. And i mean, anyone. For a thousand of reasons, insanity being only one of them. So, you're my neighbour and you have a gun. I know this. How do i know that one day you will not take that gun to my head because, for example, i didn't give you those 50$ i borrowed a while back. Or because you suspect i'm screwing your wife.

I've got a knife, too. So if I was inclined to kill you for screwing my wife, what makes you think I will be less inclined to do so when you take away my gun? Maybe I will just wait until you're leaving my house, and run you over with my car? Fact is, you are right - anyone could be a murderer, and the variety of means they have to do you in are by no means isolated to the firearm.

Because you say you're a "Good Man" with "High Moral Standards" ?

Mostly, because I do not want to end up in U.S. Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Federal Prison. Secondly, because, as a reasonable person, I view the taking of another life without just cause to be morally reprehensible. These are the same things that keep me from running you over with my riding mower or planting curare in your Wheaties.

From my experience, everyone has a threshold of things he can take. A push to get you off the edge is all it takes to make you the opposite of what you normally are.

And that's when the gun transforms from a piece of metal that keeps you safe to your best means to end my life.

You're absolutely right. All men have limits. My limit is when I believe you are going to do me or my loved ones great bodily harm. Then I will respond in force.

What are your limits? Have you already killed a bunch of people with the means at your disposal?

I would agree with that.

I myself would rather do not have the liberty to own a gun (and i am a declared social liberal), if that would mean ANYONE who is not a police officer or a soldier, cannot have one either. In theory, only the sanest and calmest of people should have the right to own something so deadly as a gun. For peace-keeping. In practice, if you know where to look and have some cash, you can become a murderer waiting to happen at any given time.

So we agree that guns serve a reasonable purpose in society. What we disagree on is whom should have them. In my country, the police are reactive - they come when called. Their ability to prevent crime is sorely lacking. Their ability to solve crime after the fact is far better. So if someone breaks into my house with a baseball bat and the intent to do harm, locking the door then calling the cops will most likely result in my survivors having at least some satisfaction at my wake.

Also, I am not sure what a "declared social liberal" is. Do you advocate just some liberties, or all of them? How do you pick and choose?

If I came up and shot the guy trying to beat you with a chain, I’d gather your perspective might change.

Only one side of the medal. You might as well be the guy with the chain, only with the gun you own.

Then you'd be hoping for some other guy with a gun to take me out before I took you out. Ouroboros.

Also, don't take offense about when i said "this is so lol", it was just a figure of speech.

I'm blessed with a thick skin. Don't sweat it.

Tone can be hard to express in writing. If mine comes across harsh, it's not my intent.

Fortunately for you, I just spent $500 on new CV axles, so no new gun for me this week. You can breath a little easier.

Edit:

Edit 1: I must be messing up the board code somehow, because my quotes never seem to be in the correct format. Anyone tell me what I am doing wrong?

Seems to me you are using an incorrect character. The one that you should use is ", not ”

Thanks. Seems my word editor is not compatible with the board code.

Edit #2: You guys type way too fast.

 

[Kyuu]

The problem is not the tool, it's us. Getting rid of the tool will only breed new ones.

The old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

Sure, it's true to an extent. But the fact remains, there's really no other weapon that can be used to kill as easily and effectively as firearms. Take any crime where are large number of people were shot, and imagine the perpetrator had a knife or really anything else instead. How likely is it that s/he would've killed anywhere near as many people? How much more likely is it that someone present would've been able to effectively fight back?

As for self-defense, yeah, I don't see that as an issue. Look at any country where firearms are prohibited. Is there a rash of violent home-invasions where the perpetrator had a gun and the people didn't and died because of it? Having guns around decreases the level of safety for everyone, it doesn't increase it. There's also the risk of accidents, and the fact that people will, of course, be more likely to use guns if they get upset or feel threatened or to settle an argument since they're there.

The number of gun-related crimes will drop, sure, but taking away guns will not instantly cure society of the people who would use those guns to do harm unto your precious society.

No one said taking away guns will "cure" society. It does drastically decrease the potential for causing death your average joe has, though.

If anything, it'll just make law-biding citizens that more vulnerable to criminal intent.

Not likely. As I said, look at any country where guns are prohibited. Are people dying left-and-right, unable to protect themselves from criminals? You're much safer unarmed vs. an unarmed criminal than you are armed vs. an armed criminal. Obviously, the point of any gun control legislation is not to keep guns away from people who won't use them to shoot other people, but to keep them away from the people who will. Since there's no even remotely accurate method to separate one from the other before a crime takes place, the only solution is a universal one. And yes, it will be much harder for criminals or a homicidal person to get a hold of a gun if there's no legal market for them.

But hey, I always wanted to learn how to handle myself with a sword!

I believe swords (besides dull, mostly unusable display pieces) are prohibited in many places, since, you know, they serve no actual function besides killing other people.

 

[fallout ranger]

you'll find that EXPONENTIALLY more people die from cigarettes, alcohol or cars than they do by guns, even in a violent country like the USA.

Yes, and the US isn't as violent as many think, we don't go around looking over our shoulders waiting to be shot at.

hell, if the recent laws in the UK and Australia proved anything, is that rigorously enforced firearm laws lead to more violent crime...

Jeez it's about time someone said that. Do we really think that someone who wants to strongarm someone at gunpoint will have any qualms about *stealing* a gun?

A punch to the nose does not kill people, a bullet between the eyes does. Killing someone because he can give you a black eye and a nosebleed? Firearm do not save lives, dude. Firearms TAKE them.

The fact that you spewed this makes me want to vomit. The real culprit is people who think that using a gun is the way to get back at those who wrong them.

I just had to quote and reply to this, it's so very, very lol. A gun in your possession means you can instantly kill another living human being, on but a whim.

And someone can't do the same with a knife, car, bare hands or baseball bat?

Having guns around decreases the level of safety for everyone, it doesn't increase it.

Yeah, like LA and NYC that have draconian gun laws and some of the highest crime rates around.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

So assuming that 99% of your population is perfectly satisfied with your gun control laws, that still leaves 165,000 people that are not. Which is a large number of people to marginalize.

No, it's not. Conversely, it's a small number of people to adapt to, in any way. There's no reason to even give an inch to a single percent, that's just now how democracies work.

My guess is that those who are strongly opposed to your country’s laws have simply done the expedient thing, which is to say that they have voted with their feet.

The Netherlands hasn't had any significant emigration in the past half century, so I'm sure they did, and I'm sure nobody cares.

You, at least, I enjoy arguing with. We clearly come from two different countries with different beliefs. Not much either one of us will say to the other is likely to sway the other’s opinions. Nonetheless, if you ever do make it over to the US, you have a formal invitation from me to give the sport a try.

I'll keep that in mind. But I repeat I'm not arguing against gun control laws in the US. Considering that I'd consider the current gun laws to work fairly well, I don't feel any tendency to push for stricter or looser gun control laws, either way. I do have a feeling that the laxer attitude of the populace will eventually lead to stricter gun control laws, though, at least in some states.

I would argue that we are pragmatic more then paranoid.

Up to this point, I have nothing to argue against with any of your assertions. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps. The thing is, this odd concept of leaders leaving because the right number of people didn't put an X under the leader's name on a ballot is something that's worked flawlessly for quite some time. I think Europeans in general trust that if someone tries to gain control undemocratically the army will stand as guard for democracy, simply by not listening to the usurper. Why the US of all countries would not know this trust is confusing.

But the sad truth is that this has simply not been the case historically. I refer you to the Wiemar Republic, a functioning liberal democracy.

I feel you are missing the point. Here's a fuller excerpt of Texas v White:
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred.

But there was no such call before the war, and the South's secession was perfectly legal. But any state seceding after the civil war would be breaking the law due to precedent. Many argue that the 10th amendment gave the right to secessions (and I think you could uphold that argument in a legal sense), but after the civil war it no longer does.

I'm not talking the suspension of habeas corpus here, war-time decisions aren't relevant, the important fact here is that during the civil war, the North's actions were unconstitutional, but after the civil war they were reconstituted as legitimate and any future secession has been declared illegal.

That's quite a huge leap in rights (and nice rewrite of history).

You can make arguments to precedent, but the fact is that there is no express prohibition on secession in the Constitution. Our system is also founded on the idea that our body of laws be dynamic. I am an engineer by trade, and not a lawyer or historian, so I do not know which laws you refer to as being later given legitimacy following the war. I do know the basics of American Civics. If legitimacy was confered to these actions within the power of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, then the laws of our land were complied with, whether I like it or not.

Hang on, no. The right to take up arms refers to armed rebellion within the framework of the united states. It does not give the right to secede, and the South's actions do not fall under the right to take up arms.

You have me on a technicality. Our South had no Constitutional prohibition on secession, which, if successful, would sever itself from any Constitutional obligations. Which would leave it with the right to defend itself as inherent in all soveriegn nations. Again, our Constitution neither gives nor denies the express right of secession.

If we're going to keep going with this, can we keep it in the context of gun control?

 

[Paladin Solo]

The old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

The old, "I come up with short, fancy arguments to present my case" argument. But yes, the gun pushes a button on a person and forces him to pull the trigger, hence, the gun tells the person to kill.

Sure, it's true to an extent. But the fact remains, there's really no other weapon that can be used to kill as easily and effectively as firearms.

Yes there are. I think you meant to say, no other weapon that is as *conventional* as firearms. There's plenty enough weapons that can kill even easier and more effectively than a gun.

Take any crime where are large number of people were shot, and imagine the perpetrator had a knife or really anything else instead. How likely is it that s/he would've killed anywhere near as many people? How much more likely is it that someone present would've been able to effectively fight back?

Did you just skim through my post? "presumptions, assumptions, etc..."? You really think that if someone is intent on killing someone that taking a gun away will magically make him rethink his philosophy? Maybe you're far more docile than most people. When the football team's bus was egged, we didn't say "haha, you got us" the majority of the team got out, chased the kids down, and beat them with their helmets while the coach was packing up in the locker room. That's a mild case. You think that someone with intent will just back away and say "haha, you took away my gun, you got me!" The good old "if he doesn't have a gun, will he kill?" argument. Because, y'know, people don't kill people, or y'know, people are more likely to make heroic acts because they don't have teh gunz!!!111!!!

As for self-defense, yeah, I don't see that as an issue.

Good for you. How does that make you right?

Look at any country where firearms are prohibited. Is there a rash of violent home-invasions where the perpetrator had a gun and the people didn't and died because of it?

We haven't had a nuclear war yet, but I guess that means it's ok to keep making nuclear weapons. See, I can make analogies too!

Having guns around decreases the level of safety for everyone, it doesn't increase it.

You're much safer unarmed vs. an unarmed criminal than you are armed vs. an armed criminal.

Plugged that into the world supercomputer data base of incredible logic systems manufacture x2 did you? How does my gun make you less safe? But yeah, you're right, I'm much safer going into combat mode unarmed against an unarmed criminal. I'll just target his groin and hope my 25 percent chance roll will happen. Or do you like generalising far more than you should?

There's also the risk of accidents, and the fact that people will, of course, be more likely to use guns if they get upset or feel threatened or to settle an argument since they're there.

That's a stupid argument. Let's ban something because people can be hurt by accident! Lock up your kids, don't feed them food! Don't clothe them with anything! Don't cook with your eyes open! Don't drive at night! Don't drive at all! ACCIDENTS ARE APLENTY!

No one said taking away guns will "cure" society. It does drastically decrease the potential for causing death your average joe has, though.

I don't know Average Joe. Is he a cool guy? Does he sing to you? Does he make you pancakes in the morning? I wasn't aware life could be classifed by average and unaverage. I thought stuff just happened and we couldn't predict everything. Silly me.

Not likely. As I said, look at any country where guns are prohibited. Are people dying left-and-right, unable to protect themselves from criminals?

Are people dying left and right in North Dakota, the state with the most lax gun control laws (which aren't really gun control laws at all)? No, in fact, we're really friendly. Boom, your Class II Frigate the HMS Generalisations just sank.

Obviously, the point of any gun control legislation is not to keep guns away from people who won't use them to shoot other people, but to keep them away from the people who will.

Since there's no even remotely accurate method to separate one from the other before a crime takes place, the only solution is a universal one. And yes, it will be much harder for criminals or a homicidal person to get a hold of a gun if there's no legal market for them.

Just like drug-control laws keep drugs off the streets! If it worked for one, it will work for the other!!! Since, y'know, criminals always use legal markets for gunz.

I believe swords (besides dull, mostly unusable display pieces) are prohibited in many places, since, you know, they serve no actual function besides killing other people.

Woosh! Did you happen to catch that on your high-speed camera? My point flew right past your head!

 

[Madbringer]

But your point of view isn't feeble just because it's your own life? So you're willing to take guns from people, who haven't taken human life, or possibly any life just because you feel uneasy about guns?

If they are not serving an active duty, which justifies having a gun of their own, yes, pretty much.

So your point of view is more justifiable than theirs? Just because some nut-case uses a gun to kill people doesn't justify you supporting authorities coming into my home and telling me I can't own a gun just so you can feel more safe at the cost of me feeling less safe.

Either way, one of us will end up in a situation where his paranoia will be soothed. Your way is, when you have a gun. My way is, when i know you don't have a gun. And do you honestly believe i'm the only person in the whole world that thinks guns should be not available to ordinary people?

What if I were to live in a neighborhood plagued by violence and threats to my own safety, and that of my family's? I shouldn't own a gun just because they *can* buy one legally or illegally?

Obviously, i'm not saying "OMG TAKE THE GUNS FROM EVERYONE SO PSYCHOS CAN KILL THEM". I know my view about guns in general is a little unreal, considering the world social and political situation. People are not ready for that yet. Maybe they will never be.

If you can't trust me with a gun, you certainly can trust me with other lethal or non-lethal (though still harmful) weapons!

Actually, i only trust people who i know for a very long time. I would never trust someone who owns a gun. What other lethal weapons do you have in mind? Combat knives? Swords?

Non-lethal weapons, yeah, i would sooner trust you if you owned a taser, not a Glock.

Right, my gun sitting in my room will inevitablly tell me to go on a shooting rampage at my local mall. The spirit of Satan himself plagues all firearms and talks to their owners. If all points of view are feeble, then this thread is pointless except to rouse the spirits.

Do excuse me for generalizing. Of course, not every gun owner will go nuts, but that does not mean none of them will.

Also, i think you misunderstood me a little, or maybe i didn't express myself clearly enough. I didn't mean, point of view as in, an opinion, but a binary point of view, the "good guy - bad guy" one. It doesn't take much for most people to change their point of view about a given person.

Tragically, the stereotypical view of gun-owners prevails in some people. I still don't know how self-defense is viewed as a laughable cause, and should be compromised for the slow response of proper authorities. Of course, it's proper because it's appointed by people who think it's proper by their non-feeble point of views. But I guess we're all just a bunch of vigilante-wannabes. Yeah, and you're all a bunch of no-good, tree-hugging, lazy hippies who just want to party and contribute nothing to society. Or are we not making stupid claims?

I don't know. Are we? I saw a person being shot in the stomach because someone, who legally owns a firearm, did not like the color of his shoe-laces.

We always look for other things to blame when something bad happens. It's never the perpetrator's fault. It's always violent games, violent movies, his parents, society, the gun, the knife, the car, God's will, Satan's voice, a sex-book, a cheating wife, etc.. etc...

I was never threatened or harmed by a firearm myself, so that's not the case here.

Because we can't possibly foresee who will do what crime and where, we want to take from people who don't have anything to do with it. Take the tool away, take the insipiration away.

That would be the idea, yes.

Hell, while we're at it, let's just nuke the whole world and solve the problem once and for all. I can't be sure that you aren't just trying to take away my method of home defense which gives me a better advantage than I would have with a blade or my bare fists to make it easier for you and your goons to break into my home, or that you may one day breed criminal spawn, invent something used to kill, create an inspirational work of art that inspires crimes, wars, and horribly-made Hollywood A movies, or cheat on your partner and convince him or her that mass-slaughter is the only way to redeem his or herself. So by that logic I should have you all locked up because it makes me feel safer.

xD

Let's not dramatise too much, aye? I already said, i know my view on gun control is unreal, and considering that guns would still be acquirable through illegal means, it would probably even make the whole point of banning them legally pointless.

The other way would be to restrict civil rights and impose a level of social control on a scale that would make the authorities aware of where every gun in the world is. I would never stand for that.

So i lose either way. Don't kick the fallen. :p

Paranoia, statistics, theories backed up by diplomas, and feeble and non-feeble point of views aside, you really think taking away guns will make for better society? The lunatics and reasons for those crimes will still be there. The number of gun-related crimes will drop, sure, but taking away guns will not instantly cure society of the people who would use those guns to do harm unto your precious society. If anything, it'll just make law-biding citizens that more vulnerable to criminal intent. Taking away guns from history will do nothing except make killing as personal as it was before firearms came into play. But hey, I always wanted to learn how to handle myself with a sword! Not-to-mention, if people can learn how to make improvised bombs and chemical weapons, they can learn how to make more guns. The problem is not the tool, it's us. Getting rid of the tool will only breed new ones.

While i really don't like it, i have to agree with the above. Doesn't change my view on guns, mind. I dislike the idea that people can have them at their leisure.

We, the humans, are flawed. The most obvious proof is that we invented things like guns.

The list of the most dangerous items on this planet is so incredibly long, and the items subject to such mundane uses. But you're absolutely right. It's not about what you can or cannot do. That's a capacity argument. However it's also not about the means you have at your disposal. I have quick access to the local Home Depot, where all the means to produce a pipe bomb are at my disposal. Yet somehow, I have no desire to produce a pipe bomb, even though I have the means.

But that wouldn't be a legally acquired pipe bomb, would it? I mean, legally acquired components, but the end result you still cannot own without fearing a reaction from the authorities. That's the difference.

I've got a knife, too. So if I was inclined to kill you for screwing my wife, what makes you think I will be less inclined to do so when you take away my gun? Maybe I will just wait until you're leaving my house, and run you over with my car? Fact is, you are right - anyone could be a murderer, and the variety of means they have to do you in are by no means isolated to the firearm.

Still, the gun is the most efficient and deadly. I could dodge the car, or try to disarm you when you wield the knife, or simply run away (and come back with friends xD), but with the gun, you decide whether i live or i die with nothing more then a press of the trigger.

Mostly, because I do not want to end up in U.S. Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Federal Prison. Secondly, because, as a reasonable person, I view the taking of another life without just cause to be morally reprehensible. These are the same things that keep me from running you over with my riding mower or planting curare in your Wheaties.

That's you. But the truth is, most people who decide that it's killing time neither fear the prison, nor have moral breaks to stop them from committing acts of violence.

Now, i would never be scared of a man without a gun, as i would be of a man with a gun. You tell me, is that irrational? Even if i know that man can kill me in a thousand of different ways? I can probably defend myself better against those thousand different ways. I don't have any means to defend myself against bullets, however. That's the scary thing, that's why i think guns are so much more dangerous then a knife or a car, that's why i think people who own a gun are, simply, scary.

You're absolutely right. All men have limits. My limit is when I believe you are going to do me or my loved ones great bodily harm. Then I will respond in force.

What are your limits? Have you already killed a bunch of people with the means at your disposal?

I've never killed a person (not to my knowledge, anyway), i did however, bruise several up pretty bad (and was beaten myself, i'm no superman.

I've never been actually pushed to my limits, so i don't know where they lie. I wanted to kill people several times in my life, but never actually did anything towards that goal.

And that's the thing. I'm normally a very calm, slightly introverted person, and even i wanted to end someone's life at one point. I also know not everyone is so calm, and some of these people have guns. And how can i know where their limits are? I'm not really all that paranoic, but it makes me uneasy.

So we agree that guns serve a reasonable purpose in society. What we disagree on is whom should have them. In my country, the police are reactive - they come when called. Their ability to prevent crime is sorely lacking. Their ability to solve crime after the fact is far better. So if someone breaks into my house with a baseball bat and the intent to do harm, locking the door then calling the cops will most likely result in my survivors having at least some satisfaction at my wake.

While that is true, i do not think killing a person, even if they intrude your privacy, with intent to harm, baseball bat or some other weapon, should be the default reaction. There are various non-lethal weapons that can incapacitate the intruder.

Of course, as i wrote in response to Paladin Solo already, and as i agreed with him, taking guns away from citizens cannot do any actual good. It's only my personal opinion that guns in a productive society should be completely obsolete, wielded by only a selected few.

Also, I am not sure what a "declared social liberal" is. Do you advocate just some liberties, or all of them? How do you pick and choose?

With a few small deviations, like a no for the liberty to wield arms, my beliefs are very close to the ones depicted by the concept of negative liberty, meaning, alienating the individual from government and authority. I still think authority is needed to maintain order, but should focus on improving the standards of society as a whole, not at all by severely restraining the freedom of the society's citizens.

Not as much an "invisible authority", but an authority which does not invade your privacy without really heavy reasons to do so.

Then you'd be hoping for some other guy with a gun to take me out before I took you out. Ouroboros.

Ehehe. You have me there. I cannot, however, tell you if i'd be grateful or scared of my saviour, or if that would really shake the foundations of my beliefs about guns. Hopefully, i'll never be in a situation when someone kills another person in my defense.

 

[Paladin Solo]

If they are not serving an active duty, which justifies having a gun of their own, yes, pretty much.

Justifies how? Because they're a martial authority? They're still human beings behind the trigger, and sometimes, amongst military authorities, trigger fingers can be a bit twitchy. If you're going to eliminate guns, then eliminate them as a whole, otherwise, it's just pointless.

Either way, one of us will end up in a situation where his paranoia will be soothed. Your way is, when you have a gun. My way is, when i know you don't have a gun. And do you honestly believe i'm the only person in the whole world that thinks guns should be not available to ordinary people?

I didn't say you were the only person. No, what I said is you're not right just because you don't trust me with a gun anymore than I'm not right because I don't care if you trust me or not. I like to think I'm mature enough to know when lethal force is necessary, but just because you don't like how some people aren't at that level of maturity doesn't mean I'm one of them. I know enough mature people that own firearms to make me believe that we're not some strange, small pocket of chance that happened unto this world.

Obviously, i'm not saying "OMG TAKE THE GUNS FROM EVERYONE SO PSYCHOS CAN KILL THEM". I know my view about guns in general is a little unreal, considering the world social and political situation. People are not ready for that yet. Maybe they will never be.

Ok, so you don't like guns. That's fine.

Of course, I'm just speaking in hypotheticals, here, but how does that give you the right to dictate who gets to own what? Because of mob rule or minority rights? Funny, if you tear down any argument, it always eventually comes down to someone's rights. Someone will always be offended. Why should I level myself to their standards? Because they have feelings? Well, welcome to Humanity. I'm not going to punish myself for some other retard's crimes. Society has to deal with its problems, and if they can't do it right, then they shouldn't try to turn it around on me, a law-biding citizen with rights.

What other lethal weapons do you have in mind? Combat knives? Swords?

Yeah, I like to play with my kabar. But maybe fists? My feet? My steel-toe boots? Death is such an easy thing to accomplish. But take away my gun, and you take away the leveling-field I had against the potential of me getting harmed. And isn't what this whole thing is about, potential? I'm not going to sacrafice my potential for yours, and apparently, you don't want to sacrafice yours for mine, and that's the hard truth. So here it comes down to individuals looking out for #1, hence, a no-win situation. Because even if you prevail and my guns are taken away, you just contributed to the oppression of civil liberties. Well, have fun with that in ten years. I'll see you in the interrogation room when they'll be asking me why I illegally had copies of pre-Utopian pr0n. Ok, that might've been an overboard assumption, but you get my point.

Non-lethal weapons, yeah, i would sooner trust you if you owned a taser, not a Glock.

Ok, so imagine the same fucktard with a taser and not a Glock. Hmm... this isn't lethal, I could have FUN with this! LET'S ROLL HOMIES! I'm not blindly assuming here, I know people who've thought the same thing, only with paintball and airsoft guns, lots of damaged property and bloody faces, in fact, they asked me to go on the Hell raising-fest with them that Halloween night, though left out the details, which I would later find out through public channels called 'court'. Ever see any of those videos where a bunch of morons drive around in cars and paintball pedestrians at night? You think these idiots would act the same or different with a gun? You think that just because they have a gun, or don't have a gun, they'll assume responsibility and maturity for their actions? Gun or no gun, people will be the same.

Do excuse me for generalizing. Of course, not every gun owner will go nuts, but that does not mean none of them will.

Doesn't mean they won't either. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Again, sacraficing my rights for yours is not justice or good government, it's oppression of mob rule. By such philosophy, our troops in Iraq should just lay waste to all of the country, Hell, all of the Middle East, y'know what, just nuke Asia because there is the potential for violence and war. That sort of thinking just won't do, no. I know, I know, analogy, but the point still carries.

Also, i think you misunderstood me a little, or maybe i didn't express myself clearly enough. I didn't mean, point of view as in, an opinion, but a binary point of view, the "good guy - bad guy" one. It doesn't take much for most people to change their point of view about a given person.

Ok, say you have a definite black-and-white case of a crime that was carried out through the use of firearms. What do you do? Arrest everyone in the courtroom and have a nation-wide shakedown on a witch-hunt for gun owners? While we're at it, we might as well just give guns away at Bakara Market to doped up kids. If one person committing an act of crime is enough reason to take away my rights, then by the same principle, I have the same justification for taking away your rights if one person doesn't. So, let's just go around and put guns in everyone's hands just because I like being a responsible gun owner. No, I wouldn't support that, save for some kind of very violent, very close war, but the point is, your justice is my oppression and vice versa.

I don't know. Are we? I saw a person being shot in the stomach because someone, who legally owns a firearm, did not like the color of his shoe-laces.

I saw my friend put a trigger-lock on his revolver, lock the revolver in a heavy steel box, and put the box high up in his closet head-space behind some dirty magazines and behind some smelly shoes. So by previous logic, everyone should now own a gun because of that one incident.

I was never threatened or harmed by a firearm myself, so that's not the case here.

Never said it was. But people seem to think gun+person=rampage by default.

That would be the idea, yes.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying, take away the tool, you still have motive, take away the motive, you still have basic instincts. What are we eventually going to do? Take away our existence? It was related the the 'feeble pov' argument. Just because you think we've taken away enough, doesn't mean we have. Someone's still feeling unsafe.

Let's not dramatise too much, aye? I already said, i know my view on gun control is unreal, and considering that guns would still be acquirable through illegal means, it would probably even make the whole point of banning them legally pointless.

Exactly! Legally pointless! You know, you could've just said "I don't like guns, they go 'bang!' when you pull the trigger."

The other way would be to restrict civil rights and impose a level of social control on a scale that would make the authorities aware of where every gun in the world is. I would never stand for that.

So i lose either way. Don't kick the fallen. :p

And thus, the dilemma of our race.

Not as much an "invisible authority", but an authority which does not invade your privacy without really heavy reasons to do so.

But that's up to debate. By what, and more importantly, who's reasons? And, if it is a clear-cut black and white situation, is it already too late to make much of a difference save for putting said criminal behind bars to invade privacy at this point? Civil liberties are a bitch, mang.

Alsoplustoo, for some reason, I heard a .45 going off everytime I pressed a key on my keyboard typing up that last paragraph. Not of any importance, just thought it was a funny relevance.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

I don't know. Are we? I saw a person being shot in the stomach because someone, who legally owns a firearm, did not like the color of his shoe-laces.

You have lived quite a life! I have had the good fortune to never have personally directly killed anyone, nor have I ever seen anyone murdered in front of my eyes. I have had the misfortune of being shot at, and being stabbed, tasered, and OC'd. But most of that came with the job and some of it was voluntary. I have certainly seen plenty of dead bodies from a variety of accidental and intentional causes, but I have never actually witnessed anyone being murdered in front of my own eyes, particularly over the color of my shoe-laces! I can see how this trauma would inform your opinions.

However, my thought would be that if he also had a gun, the innocent victim might still have the right and capability of wearing the shoe-laces of his choice.

Anyways, on to our discussion:

But that wouldn't be a legally acquired pipe bomb, would it? I mean, legally acquired components, but the end result you still cannot own without fearing a reaction from the authorities. That's the difference.

What you say is absolutely true, but it is also irrelevant to the point previously made, being that means do not equal intent.

So we will treat it as a new point. It is illegal to manufacture, use, or possess a pipe bomb. Provided you meet federal and state requirements, it is not illegal to own a firearm in my country. However, it is illegal to use either or both in the commission of a crime. And once you are a convicted felon in this country, even after you have served your time, it becomes illegal. The difference being that a pipe-bomb serves no legitimate public purpose while simultaneously representing an undue risk of harm. Firearms pass both components of this test. There are legitimate purposes for the use of a firearm that are legally recognized in this country, including hunting, sport, and self defense. Furthermore, although the damage a firearm can do is considerable, it poses considerably less risk to the public at random then a bomb does.

Still, the gun is the most efficient and deadly. I could dodge the car, or try to disarm you when you wield the knife, or simply run away (and come back with friends xD), but with the gun, you decide whether i live or i die with nothing more then a press of the trigger.

I agree with you completely. A gun in either of our hands negates any physical advantages either one of us might have over the other. Which is why I have one.

You could run away from the gun, the gun could fail to go off, or any number of things could happen in between. Only the outcome matters. You say that you would try to disarm me or dodge me. If I am stronger or better skilled or luckier then you, it would suck to be you. I do not want to place my survival in that situation on my ability to outrun you or beat you into submission and/or compliance.

One of the things cops fear the most is the knife. The damage it can inflict and the speed in which it can be inflicted are quite impressive. I can tell you from personal experience that a bullet proof vest is abysmally bad at providing protection from knives. In my own experience, a pen knife punctured right through mine with little difficulty. As I have said earlier, I have never seen anyone shot in front of me. I have, however, seen plenty of prisoners in the aftermath of a knife fight. Human flesh isn't so thick nor so resiliant, and it doesn't take much to divest you of yours.

So if confronted with a knife, I would want to put as much distance between me as possible, then I would want to shoot the assailant. Being unarmed, I'd want to run and sincerely hope I am faster then he is. As a last resort, I'd look to isolate the knife from myself as best as possible, and hope that I am strong enough and capable enough to stop my assailant with a minimum of harm to myself.

In regards to a car, I am both slower and lighter then any car out there. Can't out run it, can't out fight it. Best hope is to outmanuever it. Even if I could "take out" the operator, it still poses a threat.

My point with all of this is that it matters not what you are attacked with, only that you are attacked, and that you can respond appropriately.

That's you. But the truth is, most people who decide that it's killing time neither fear the prison, nor have moral breaks to stop them from committing acts of violence.

Thats true, and I agree with you. That is why it is reasonable that I should be capable of defending myself from such people.

Now, i would never be scared of a man without a gun, as i would be of a man with a gun. You tell me, is that irrational? Even if i know that man can kill me in a thousand of different ways? I can probably defend myself better against those thousand different ways. I don't have any means to defend myself against bullets, however. That's the scary thing, that's why i think guns are so much more dangerous then a knife or a car, that's why i think people who own a gun are, simply, scary.

See above, re: knives. It is not irrational to be more afraid of an armed man then an unarmed man when that man wants to inflict harm on you. It is irrational to be unafraid of a man with the intent to inflict harm on you, just because he is unarmed.

You then go on to make a critical logical failure:

I am afraid of being shot.
My neighbor owns a gun.
Therefore he is likely to shoot me.

That works along the lines of:

Pitbulls are dogs that can kill people.
My neighbor owns a dog.
Therefore I will get killed by the neighbor's dog.

You can be justifiably afraid of criminals. Criminals can own guns. That does not make all gun owners criminals. If I put a scalpel in your hand, that doesn't make you a surgeon. It also doesn't make you a serial killer.

I've never killed a person (not to my knowledge, anyway), i did however, bruise several up pretty bad (and was beaten myself, i'm no superman.

I've never been actually pushed to my limits, so i don't know where they lie. I wanted to kill people several times in my life, but never actually did anything towards that goal.

I'm over thirty, and my fighting days are long over. I generally try to settle my disputes with words, or failing that, with a timely exit. I don't beat people up to make my point, and I don't want to be beaten up to have a point made upon me. I greatly prefer to be prevailed upon by reason. A firearm is my last resort, when reason has failed, my escape is unlikely, and harm is going to be inflicted on me.

I want to kill tonnes of people as well, on a day to day basis, so I know how you feel. Somehow, though, I have managed to avoid carrying it out despite all the implements at my disposal.

And that's the thing. I'm normally a very calm, slightly introverted person, and even i wanted to end someone's life at one point. I also know not everyone is so calm, and some of these people have guns. And how can i know where their limits are? I'm not really all that paranoic, but it makes me uneasy.

I'm normally a calm and easygoing guy myself. As mentioned above, though, I've wanted to kill a few folks now and then myself. But, since I, like you, am a rational human being, I realize such actions would be both wrong and morally reprehensible. I have a firearm to protect me from such people as cannot make that same distinction.

While that is true, i do not think killing a person, even if they intrude your privacy, with intent to harm, baseball bat or some other weapon, should be the default reaction. There are various non-lethal weapons that can incapacitate the intruder.

I am left to believe that you are:
a. A much better judge of character then I am, and
b. An expert in unarmed combat.

In general, when someone intrudes on my privacy with the intent to do harm, I have a difficult time telling if the guy coming at me with the bat is going to kill me or just give me an ass-beating.

Also, although I am 6'0 and 230 lbs and in reasonably good shape for a middle-aged man, I doubt I am good enough to disarm and incapacitate the bat-weilding nut job in unarmed combat. At least, I'd hate to take the risk involved in finding out that I am wrong.

I have yet to find a non-lethal weapon capable of incapacitating the bat wielding nut-job that is available for widespread use. Having been sprayed with OC, I can assure you that though irritating in the extreme, I can still beat the living hell out of you with a baseball bat with my eyes teared up and trailing snot out of my nose. Tasers are great, but they aren't widely available to the civilian populace, you get one shot with which to hit your assailant. Stun guns require physical proximity to the assailant, which I would like to avoid as much as possible.

Of course, as i wrote in response to Paladin Solo already, and as i agreed with him, taking guns away from citizens cannot do any actual good. It's only my personal opinion that guns in a productive society should be completely obsolete, wielded by only a selected few.

Believe it or not, there are several places in the US where only law enforcement officers are allowed to own guns, and where the citizens enjoy very high-tech security features including 24-hour surveillance and a cadre of armed guards. These are US Supermax prisons.

The inmate population is carefully searched any number of times in a day, as are their living quarters. Everybody is equal in the sense that they are all incarcerated, and have meals and healthcare provided for them by the state. In the event of conflict between two citizens, the state should be there to serve as mediator immediately.

And yet, the human criminal shows an incredible ability to improvise a weapon. That way, when he gets into conflict with another inmate, physical attributes and abilities do not always prevail. In the absense of firearms, improvised knives become the implement of choice.

So a US Supermax Prison does it's utmost to insure the safety of all personnel, to the detriment of any personal liberties an inmate may have. And yet, the Supermax Prison is one of the most violent places one could ever have the misfortune to be in.

Granted, a prison is filled with people who do not fit the definition of reasonable and productive members of society. But they came from society, and many of them go back to it.


I am going to take a moment and say that I believe I understand the points you are trying to make. Your primary concern is that guns make it easy to kill, and that combined with poor impulse control, gun possession leads to a disproportionate number of gun killings. We both agree that people with poor impulse control should not own firearms. We disagree in that I believe people with good impulse control should own firearms, and should have the right to protect themselves against the bad.

Gun Control is a fairly broad topic. We are talking about the right to own and the right to use. There are three legitimate reasons to use a gun - to hunt, for sport, and for self defense. Of the legitimate reasons, the one people get caught up in the most is on the right of self defense.

You believe the state will protect you from others, and that you will minimize that need by eliminating guns from the civilian populace. I believe that our state is far more reactive then proactive, and that eliminating guns limits my ability to defend myself from those that would do me harm by any means.

With a few small deviations, like a no for the liberty to wield arms, my beliefs are very close to the ones depicted by the concept of negative liberty, meaning, alienating the individual from government and authority. I still think authority is needed to maintain order, but should focus on improving the standards of society as a whole, not at all by severely restraining the freedom of the society's citizens.

Not as much an "invisible authority", but an authority which does not invade your privacy without really heavy reasons to do so.

We're not so different. We share the same basic concepts of what a government should do. However, I am more liberal then you in regards to the idea that the government should not limit my ability to defend myself in a reasonable manner and with just cause. Also, I do not believe that your right to avoid all possible harm should be asserted over my right to possess and use things without an undue risk of harm.

Then you'd be hoping for some other guy with a gun to take me out before I took you out. Ouroboros.

Ehehe. You have me there. I cannot, however, tell you if i'd be grateful or scared of my saviour, or if that would really shake the foundations of my beliefs about guns. Hopefully, i'll never be in a situation when someone kills another person in my defense.

I sincerely hope that neither you nor I will ever find ourselves in such a situation, either. You don't seem like a bad guy, and you might even enjoy competitive shooting if you tried it.

 

[fallout ranger]

I don't know. Are we? I saw a person being shot in the stomach because someone, who legally owns a firearm, did not like the color of his shoe-laces.

And that person should have his right to own a gun taken away, don't punish me because of something someone else did.

 

[SuAside]

seems that the thread has rolled on without me when i was away

on a lighter note:

gun control means using both hands

Watching a gun cycle is near porn.

you should go watch an FNC cycle, the dustcover is downright hypnotic!

 

[welsh]

you'll find that EXPONENTIALLY more people die from cigarettes, alcohol or cars than they do by guns, even in a violent country like the USA.

Well hold on now. While I agree with you that lots of things cause lots of death, homicides are usually caused by guns, as are suicide.

And according to this, guns rank pretty high.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe