Gun Control

[TheGM]

Has anyone been appealing to emotion much here?

Yes.

Also, simply stating that quoting an old document is not the same as making an arguement isn't shifting the goalposts. It's fairly obvious that "This document says so" without any extra reasons isn't a good line of arguement IMO.

That happens in both sides a lot. For example, many gun owners do not want better regulation and measures in place because they are scared the government will take their guns away, if that is not making arguments based on emotion, fear and anger, then I don't know what it is

When the Government can take away your freedom to have a drink because of some noisy assholes anything can happen. While the federal government hasn't taken away guns, they have banned the sale of guns multiple times. some lapsed others haven't. States and Counties have done it, when they did they got struck down by the Supreme court but that can take years and right now the supreme court have been going out their way to avoid hearing any gun related cases.

 

[Jogre]

"Some 200 year old document says I'm right, therefore I'm right"

I'm literally just saying make an actual argument rather, is that really so hard?

I have posted both homicide statistics and gun homicide statistics on this thread, whereas all you seem to be doing is saying "But the Constitution". It'd help if you actually tried arguing something.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

That's another thing, are there many other democratic countries that, instead of having had several Constitutions, has kept editing and piling over the original one?

I don't know you, but I'd like mine to be atmost a century away of my birth, not four. Not implying that the US' is outdated, it's just that it's more appropiate to redo them from the ground up, for, you know, by and for people who've been dead centuries now.

 

[TheGM]

"Some 200 year old document says I'm right, therefore I'm right"

I'm literally just saying make an actual argument rather, is that really so hard?

So they should just start calling it the Bill of Being Right! I take it any argument I would have to make would need to follow some unknown rules to be deemed valid by you. Got to admit that sounds kind of silly.

I have posted both homicide statistics and gun homicide statistics on this thread, whereas all you seem to be doing is saying "But the Constitution". It'd help if you actually tried arguing something.

So now it's the size of the post that makes for a valid argument? Not like most of you could use a few lessons on brevity.

That's another thing, are there many other democratic countries that, instead of having had several Constitutions, has kept editing and piling over the original one?

The UK? France has had like 18 republics and I'm sure others have had more.

 

[Jogre]

So they should just start calling it the Bill of Being Right! I take it any argument I would have to make would need to follow some unknown rules to be deemed valid by you. Got to admit that sounds kind of silly.

No, I'm just saying that simply quoting a document doesn't make you right.

Why is "This holy document says this thing" in any way proof of anything?

So now it's the size of the post that makes for a valid argument. Not like most of you could use a few lessons on brevity.

That's a strawman.

I said that I quoted actual statistics in a few of my posts, whereas you haven't been doing so at all.

 

[YeeCop]

You're confusing me. You say that the army is to uphold and defend the constitution and it will not shoot against civilians that are making a coup, but then you say that it is the civilians job to overthrow their tyrannical government and that the army can go bad... Your words contradict themselves there. Wouldn't a tyrannical government be already against the constitution?

I thought what I was saying made sense? Ok.

Or the army upholds the constitution or the civilians do... I guess both could, but your words before and now were that it is one or another.

I don't wanna have to give an American civics lesson, but yes, the army upholds the US Constitution. It's hard to amend the Constitution, as to deter corruption and to ensure the unalienable rights presented to the American people. The Constitution keeps the government in check.

Also every government is tyrannical to someone. Who gets to decide when the government is tyrannical enough to start shooting? Even though many people, minorities, groups, etc keep saying how oppressed they are, keep making protests and marches, etc. Those that revolt against the government are considered criminals and terrorists. Why? Who has the power to decide when a government is tyrannical enough to start shooting and not be considered a terrorist and criminal?

If you look throughout history, nation-scale anti-government protests have been a reaction to huge taxation, a controversial political party or politician being appointed to office (Trump doesn't count since not everyone hates him), inflation, mass starvation, etcetera. If something drastic happens in your country and you and many, many others across your country feel the need to bring yourself to the Capital's doorstep and change the system of government, whether violently or nonviolently (like the Indian independence movement), that's a revolution.

That's another thing, are there many other democratic countries that, instead of having had several Constitutions, has kept editing and piling over the original one?

I don't know you, but I'd like mine to be atmost a century away of my birth, not four. Not implying that the US' is outdated, it's just that it's more appropiate to redo them from the ground up, for, you know, by and for people who've been dead centuries now.

Have you not heard the term "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
The American Constitution has held out far longer than most countries constitution, mainly because it's immensely difficult for radically political change in the American branches of government. Don't see why a new one needs to be drafted.

 

[TheGM]

Why is "This holy document says this thing" in any way proof of anything?

That's a strawman.

It this real life or is this irony, caught in a land slide rampant smuggery.

Telling people to employ some brevity now and then is a suggestion, not a strawman.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Yes, because dismissiveness and memes are totally an argument. After all, you can't possibly be wrong if you don't listen to who says so...

What Jogre (probably) means is that you've been in the defensive stance of "NU-UH!" every other thing for a while.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Cerni, the main crux of your argument is that because left-wing politics have managed to create some pretty horrible situations such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia, Communist North Korea, and Socialist Venezuela that defending yourself even en masse against the government would be impossible. well, to that i would say, it would seem easiest to block left wing politics from taking root in the US. then there would be no possibility of a tyrannical government.

Yes it waz all ze damn leftistzt!

Now I know that you havn't understood anything I wrote.

 

[TheGM]

What Jogre (probably) means is that you've been in the defensive stance of "NU-UH!" every other thing for a while.

What?

it's a small thing, who cares if criminals have a speedy and public trial?

Well that is there with the idea that you are going to get a trial as opposed to the major practice that was popular at the time were you would go to trial when they felt like it...which was often years later. Now it can takes a time just do the amount of people in the system unless it's a major deal then you get moved up to the front of the line.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The US military are the defenders of the Constitution, not the American government. Plus I'm pretty sure any self-respecting American soldier would not be game to murder fellow Americans in the situation of a civilian-led coup.

Oh, I am pretty sure people can do quite terrible things under the right conditions. Google Milgrim experiment if you don't believe it. If the right people with the wrong mindset assume power, very terrible things can happen. We have checks and balances, but they are not perfect. Democracies have fallen before in the past and that is why you actually need people that believe in democratic institutions, and the truth is only very few people are actually true democrats where they would also stand up for the rights of others and not just their rights.

Americans have proven in countless wars that there are individuals which can and have done war crimes, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. And that's because the political leadership had no issue to plan and almost execute an operation which involved terrorist attacks on their own population and even the idea of funding a terrorist organisation. All to fight the evil Cubans, because some military leaders wanted to have their war geting rid of the communists once and for all.

And there have been detention camps for Japanese american citizens where have their constitutional rights been? What a powerfull paper that is! Not to mention what happend to black people (slavery, segreation), chinese migrants, or native americans. Even till the 60s and 70s. Racism and tribalism was kinda huge thing in the US and it still is in some parts. You can wave your constitution around all you want, but at the end of the day it stays a peace of paper. Nothing more. Nothing less. It won't do anything, when the right people are in charge with enough support.

This is satire, but it is closer to the truth than most people like to believe ...


Don't give me this But ... but ... americans are special! That's bullshit. You have a consitution. Cool. You have freedom and liberty! And all that jazz! Yaaay! But what is that worth if the population stops to believe in it? If judges, high ranking officials and many ordinary people start to believe in other things, coming up justifications and their interpretation.

I can say this again and again, Germany was not born in to Nationalsocialism. We pretty well undertsand today, the mechanics and reasons that lead to it, the politics and ideology and psychology. And yes, it can happen everywhere even the United States.

You ASSUME that "(...)Plus I'm pretty sure any self-respecting American soldier would not be game to murder fellow Americans in the situation of a civilian-led coup", but you do not know it. Most Germans in the 1920s have been Self-respected Germans and yet many 'ordinary' people have been capable of comitting some of the worst crimes one can imagine, against others but also their own people. If this 'no sane person would hurt their fellow citizens' would be somehow self-evident and such a sure thing, then we wouldn't need systems like the seperation of power, checks and balances, ethic comissions, and all kinds of institutions with the intention to check each other. Because history has proven countless of times, that anything like a constitution can be abolished, it can be swept away. And pretty easily even! Given the right conditions ... people can do all sorts of crazy things when they become desperate.

For people arguing so heaily in favour of gunrights, you guys put a hell of a lot of faith in the constitution and the military 'doing the right thing!'. Strange how you do not display the same trust when it comes to the police and other authorities, cuz they want our gunz! (maybe?).

I don't wanna have to give an American civics lesson, but yes, the army upholds the US Constitution. It's hard to amend the Constitution, as to deter corruption and to ensure the unalienable rights presented to the American people. The Constitution keeps the government in check.

The constitution keeps no one in check, the same way how guns don't kill people. People kill people and people keep each other in check. You need people that believe in the consitution, to have any power at all. The moment the majority doesn't uphold the constitution anymore, is the moment it stops to work. Hell I would even put more trust in a gun at this point, as that thing can at least kill someone. A constitution can't be even used to club someone.

It's still surprising me how gun-righters place so much faith in a piece of paper, while fearing at the same time that the government will take their rights away ... if it's such an powerfull object, then what do you guys have to fear? There really are way to many paradoxical and illogical arguments in this debate for my taste.

Either, you fear the government and thus it means the constitution alone isn't doing it, or you don't because the constitution is such a strong basis. Second, the military IS(!) part of the government, the state, it is not seperated from it. So either you argue for individualism and a small government AND small military so the civilians can oppose it, if needed, or you have a strong military which can defend your rights if they have to. But this means that the military requires the power to do so, as the government, what surprise, is also made up of 'the people'!

You guys really can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to this debate.

 

[TheWesDude]

Yeah, the removal of the division of powers, laying most if not all decisions in all departments of government to a single person and its reduced council is totally a thing those pesky leftists would do. You know, deep down, Kings, dictators, emperors and would-be such are known to be the very nice and progressive folk.

Actually, the one in the few cases this isn't ironic is in Napoleon's empire. Other than that, nah, you're full of shit

well, yes actually, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism are left-wing ideologies. no matter if you like it or not, they are. and they are the source of the greatest tyrannical governments in the past 200-300 years. i am not sure why you pivoted to dictatorships and feudalism to argue the point as i did not bring them up. my point was that since those forms of government are left-wing and also the sources of the greatest incidences of tyrannical governments in recent history, banning them would be the easiest way to prevent repeating mistakes of the past and proven track records to evolving into a tyrannical government.

but i guess "nah, you're full of shit" is an instant win in your book.

You're confusing me. You say that the army is to uphold and defend the constitution and it will not shoot against civilians that are making a coup, but then you say that it is the civilians job to overthrow their tyrannical government and that the army can go bad... Your words contradict themselves there. Wouldn't a tyrannical government be already against the constitution?
Or the army upholds the constitution or the civilians do... I guess both could, but your words before and now were that it is one or another.

Also every government is tyrannical to someone. Who gets to decide when the government is tyrannical enough to start shooting? Even though many people, minorities, groups, etc keep saying how oppressed they are, keep making protests and marches, etc. Those that revolt against the government are considered criminals and terrorists. Why? Who has the power to decide when a government is tyrannical enough to start shooting and not be considered a terrorist and criminal?

there is no guarantee that ANY government cannot turn tyrannical. because of this, what is your recourse for if YOUR government turns tyrannical? what precipitates a tyrannical government? thats what the "bill of rights" were intended to do. they are intended to limit what forms of "oppression" the government can do to the people in attempt to delay the US government from becoming tyrannical as long as possible, AND to ensure the people have the forms of redress to ensure they can stop it. such as the rights of free speech and being able to own weapons. it is up to the people to decide when their government has become tyrannical enough for them to take up arms against their government. that is how it has always been throughout history.

"Some 200 year old document says I'm right, therefore I'm right"

I'm literally just saying make an actual argument rather, is that really so hard?

I have posted both homicide statistics and gun homicide statistics on this thread, whereas all you seem to be doing is saying "But the Constitution". It'd help if you actually tried arguing something.

well 2-3 pages ago i tried to pose some questions for people to answer. so far i have not seen people answer those questions, is that really so hard?

what it boils down to is the right of self-defense.

as to your argument of "it is a 200 year old document! it needs to be updated!"

based on that logic, the Queen of England should dissolve Parliment and then at her leisure create another as the current form of your Parliment was done in 1688 and last updated in 1707. which is older than the US constitution. you would be ok with that right?


there is a reason the easiest way to amend the US Constitution does not even involve Congress or the President. the US Constitution has 2 roles:
1: define the structure and powers of each branch of government
2: limit the powers of government

that #2 is the sticking point and why it is so hard to modify the constitution. that is why the only amendment imposing rules against the people is the only one to have been removed. the ones that enshrine further protections of the people against the government are all still there.

For people arguing so heaily in favour of gunrights, you guys put a hell of a lot of faith in the constitution and the military 'doing the right thing!'. Strange how you do not display the same trust when it comes to the police and other authorities, cuz they want our gunz! (maybe?).

It's still surprising me how gun-righters place so much faith in a piece of paper, while fearing at the same time that the government will take their rights away ... if it's such an powerfull object, then what do you guys have to fear? There really are way to many paradoxical and illogical arguments in this debate for my taste.

Either, you fear the government and thus it means the constitution alone isn't doing it, or you don't because the constitution is such a strong basis. Second, the military IS(!) part of the government, the state, it is not seperated from it. So either you argue for individualism and a small government AND small military so the civilians can oppose it, if needed, or you have a strong military which can defend your rights if they have to. But this means that the military requires the power to do so, as the government, what surprise, is also made up of 'the people'!

You guys really can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to this debate.

it is all about redress and recourse. the government has the power to rule over the people and ensure our national protection through the military. the "piece of paper" is what ensures we have the ability to do something when the government stops serving the needs of the people.

there are very predictable steps governments take on the road to tyranny. that is the point of the bill of rights. when the government wants to erode or take away or severely limit/curtail those rights, it is starting on the path of tyranny.

it could actually be argued that the US government has already started down that path. it would be much easier to make those arguments for some of the european countries.

best way to look at it is, when the government wants to limit or take away rights defined in the bill of rights, those are the red flags your government is turning tyrannical.

 

[Jogre]

as to your argument of "it is a 200 year old document! it needs to be updated!"

based on that logic, the Queen of England should dissolve Parliment and then at her leisure create another as the current form of your Parliment was done in 1688 and last updated in 1707. which is older than the US constitution. you would be ok with that right?

Erm, no that is literally not my line of reasoning at all.

I never said that everything over 200 years old needs to be disregarded entirely.

I just think that a document, especially one written without today's standards in mind isn't a valid argument for policy.

Policy should be determined by what works for a country, not on maintaining a status quo. Dissolving parliment and replacing it with the monarchy would be a disaster for most people who'd no longer get a say in policy, therefore meaning it's not what works for the country.

Gun control on the other hand is debatable whether it could improve the country, and a case could be made that if homicides/gun homicides went down as a result everyone would be better off.

well 2-3 pages ago i tried to pose some questions for people to answer. so far i have not seen people answer those questions, is that really so hard?

I personally thought those questions were mostly irrelevant, but if you insist.

1: do you think an individual has an inherent/natural right to defend themselves from others? - Yes, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that they ought to own a gun. Lots of countries without gun cultures don't legally consider gun's necessary for self-defence, due to the fact that people rarely if ever get in to situations where a gun is needed to defend yourself.

2: do you think an individual has the right to use lethal force against another person? Only if all other options are exhausted, and as a last resort. If there's even a chance that an issue could have been solved non-violently, then I do not.

3: do you think that Capital Punishment should be legal and the State should be able to execute convicted criminals? I am on the fence on this issue. On the one hand it makes me uncomfortable to think we as a society are able to decide a persons death, but from a practical perspective I can see the advantages to not have to channel resources in to certain dangerous inmates.

4: are you in favor of legalized abortions? Absolutely. I am of the view that a thing's ability to feel and respond to the world around it is what ought to determine the rights we give it. Since fetuses are basically braindead for the entire period they can be aborted, I do not view them as being especially worthy of our consideration.

 

[TheGM]

I never said that everything over 200 years old needs to be disregarded entirely.

Only things you disagree with or don't like

Gun control on the other hand is debatable whether it could improve the country, and a case could be made that if homicides/gun homicides went down as a result everyone would be better off.

But crime has been going down in the US without a gun ban. I'd post a chart but it would most likely be met with Sorry but it doesn't meet my preferred pixel size, better luck next time kiddo.

 

[TheWesDude]

Erm, no that is literally not my line of reasoning at all.

I never said that everything over 200 years old needs to be disregarded entirely.

I just think that a document, especially one written without today's standards in mind isn't a valid argument for policy.

Policy should be determined by what works for a country, not on maintaining a status quo. Dissolving parliment and replacing it with the monarchy would be a disaster for most people who'd no longer get a say in policy, therefore meaning it's not what works for the country.

Gun control on the other hand is debatable whether it could improve the country, and a case could be made that if homicides/gun homicides went down as a result everyone would be better off.

"if it saves 1 life, its worth it!"

you are aware that given current numbers, guns save FAR more lives than they take every year?

I personally thought those questions were mostly irrelevant, but if you insist.

1: do you think an individual has an inherent/natural right to defend themselves from others? - Yes, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that they ought to own a gun. Lots of countries without gun cultures don't legally consider gun's necessary for self-defence, due to the fact that people rarely if ever get in to situations where a gun is needed to defend yourself.

2: do you think an individual has the right to use lethal force against another person? Only if all other options are exhausted, and as a last resort. If there's even a chance that an issue could have been solved non-violently, then I do not.

3: do you think that Capital Punishment should be legal and the State should be able to execute convicted criminals? I am on the fence on this issue. On the one hand it makes me uncomfortable to think we as a society are able to decide a persons death, but from a practical perspective I can see the advantages to not have to channel resources in to certain dangerous inmates.

4: are you in favor of legalized abortions? Absolutely. I am of the view that a thing's ability to feel and respond to the world around it is what ought to determine the rights we give it. Since fetuses are basically braindead for the entire period they can be aborted, I do not view them as being especially worthy of our consideration.

these are all linked actually, that is why i asked the questions.

a babies brain is developed within the first trimester and begins to function along with the heart and other internal organs. babies have been born as early as 21/22 weeks and survived thanks to modern medicine. that is within the 2nd tri-mester. as you live in the UK, the limit is 24 weeks from what i was able to find. the babies brain and heart are working at 10-12 weeks, so you are actually wrong in the "braindead for the entire period they can be aborted" part. oops.

but the point of this question, you are in favor of a single person condemning another person to death but against 12 people determining a persons crimes to be so heinous they are not worth even attempting to rehabilitate and that society would be better off without them? there is a logical disconnect here.

as to the "exhaust all other options", that is a flawed argument that has been discussed many a times.

a mother of 2 was home alone with her children in georgia when their home was broken into by 2 men with crowbars. she gathered her children and ran to the upstairs bedroom closet where there was a handgun in a biometric locked handgun case. she called the cops on her cell phone reporting the home invasion. she got the gun out and hid in the closet. when the 2 men got to the closet door, broke it open, she used the firearm to kill both intruders. did she exhaust all other options? no, she did not. she could have taken both of her children, dropped them out of the 2nd story window, and then herself jumped trying to avoid the intruders. she should have stripped naked in the bedroom and when the 2 men got there offered to allow them to rape her if she let her and her kids live. she could have waited to see what the 2 men were going to do to her without using the gun in the hope they did not harm her and her kids.

she used lethal force without exhausting all other options. by your standard, she is guilty of a double homicide. by our standards in the US, she is innocent of any crime. which is why no charges were ever brought against her. in your country, she would go to jail.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

well, yes actually, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism are left-wing ideologies.

Not sure on what Socialism has fone bad lately, but whatever:
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce[3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
[...]
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[9] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[9] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[10][11][12][13] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.

Only real part of genuine left is that it won't override the economy, just choke it into Autocracy. Also, Communism, as much as it looks accurate to put it in the extreme left, is actually quite just out of the traditional Left-Right spectrum in practice, it's just that the mandatory step towards it, Socialism, does belong in it.

Wes, do you even know how those worked? Hell, the only "muh tyrannical government that could have been stopped early" I can remember was Franco's dictatorship over Spain. And that was because it was a military coup against the "tyrannical" progressive measures of the Republic. In their view, they WERE right. But let's just say that the would-be Axis allies, the veteran military training and equipment of an invasion force (they were on the Morocco war) was uncontested by rowdy chumps with guns, huge surprise.

"if it saves 1 life, its worth it!"

It is.

she used lethal force without exhausting all other options. by your standard, she is guilty of a double homicide. by our standards in the US, she is innocent of any crime. which is why no charges were ever brought against her. in your country, she would go to jail.

There's a pretty big pit in your example. The men are unarmed, she is. While it's completely excusable, and nuts, even the most cold law procedure will acknowledge it, she could have deterred them while the cops came and get done with it.

there is a logical disconnect here.

Not really, guns are a catalyst for violence, criminality and empowerment of desperate individuals. That people "get saved" by guns isn't a positive number, it won't CREATE people. People dying is a negative number. Not really that crazy to picture.

 

[Hassknecht]

Alright @TheGM, this is your last warning before you get a reply-ban as well. Stop shitposting and being a dick. I know you think you're making actual arguments, but you're not.
Everyone else can stop being a dick, too, btw.

 

[Buxbaum666]

a mother of 2 was home alone with her children in georgia when their home was broken into by 2 men with crowbars. she gathered her children and ran to the upstairs bedroom closet where there was a handgun in a biometric locked handgun case. she called the cops on her cell phone reporting the home invasion. she got the gun out and hid in the closet. when the 2 men got to the closet door, broke it open, she used the firearm to kill both intruders. did she exhaust all other options? no, she did not. she could have taken both of her children, dropped them out of the 2nd story window, and then herself jumped trying to avoid the intruders. she should have stripped naked in the bedroom and when the 2 men got there offered to allow them to rape her if she let her and her kids live. she could have waited to see what the 2 men were going to do to her without using the gun in the hope they did not harm her and her kids.

she used lethal force without exhausting all other options. by your standard, she is guilty of a double homicide. by our standards in the US, she is innocent of any crime. which is why no charges were ever brought against her. in your country, she would go to jail.

You've embellished that story quite a bit, eh? It was one guy, there's no mention of a biometrically locked case, nor did she call the police before shooting, and the guy survived the encounter.
I couldn't find another case of a Georgia woman with 2 kids shooting at crowbar-wielding intruder(s) while hiding in the attic so I guess you're either just lying your ass off or parroting something without fact-checking.

well, yes actually, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism are left-wing ideologies. no matter if you like it or not, they are.

There it is, the right-wing equivalent of "everyone I don't like is Hitler". I'm waiting for the "They called themselves National Socialists for a reason" argument.

 

[Risewild]

you are aware that given current numbers, guns save FAR more lives than they take every year?

This is untrue. I posted the official FBI numbers in this thread before and unlawful killings using a gun are way more than lawful ones. I will quote it again:

The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.

As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”

 

[TheGM]

Well that just refers to blowing somebody away. got anything about people scaring attackers off with a firearm?