Gun ownership thread #2323344

[Blakut]

To own a gun in my country you have to be at least one of the following:
a. Rich
b. Ex military
c. working for the military/government
d. have connections in the police, bribe the right pesons = a.

I think that the best system for gun ownership for self defense should consist of a few simple things:
a. in order to get a gun you have to have no criminal record
b. you have to undergo a psychological examination
c. you have to take some classes so you won't shoot yourself in the leg

For those who say guns should be legal because you can use them for self defense, what about less than lethal weapons? Are there any effective weapons for that kind that can replace real guns? In case, of course, the criminal doesn't own a gun himself?

 

[Sander]

Also, good for you that you contributed to a gun debate a while back. The contribution of your conversation with me right now goes no further than "It's a right, live with it".

Thanks for admitting to not reading a thread before commenting in it.

Especially when you claim I've made no contribution in that thread.

Are you ever not trolling, DB?
I've never said that you haven't made a contribution in this thread or the Gun Owners thread, and I've read all of this thread before commenting on it.

Yet again: all you've said in response to *my posts* has been "It's a right".
Again: this is not an argument.

 

[Malky]

Yet again: all you've said in response to *my posts* has been "It's a right".
Again: this is not an argument.

The United States Supreme Court would like to have a word with you.

 

[Sander]

Yet again: all you've said in response to *my posts* has been "It's a right".
Again: this is not an argument.

The United States Supreme Court would like to have a word with you.

The people who understand what a discussion of merits is would like to have a word with you.

By the way, the Supreme Court understands very well that this isn't an argument for or against the right to bear arms.
All the Supreme Court did was acknowledge that the US Constitution grants every US citizen the right to bear arms. It made no qualitative judgement on the right.

I never have argued that this isn't a right in the USA. This has never been my point. This hasn't even ever been the subject of this thread. Why you people continually mention the fact that in the USA it's a right to bear arms as if it's a valid argument for said right, even though this has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion is beyond me.

 

[DammitBoy]

Are you ever not trolling, DB?

Yup, I'm not trollling, and if you'd read this thread - you'd know I've already stated that fact in this thread.

Here's what I think my rights are as a human being.

I have the right to speak my mind.
I have the right to read whatever I like.
I have the right to worship or not worship any religion as I see fit.
I have the right to be left the fuck alone by my government, unless I do something really criminally stupid.
I have the right to show up in a group and not get shot at, unless we're rioting.
I have the right to hunt food.
I have the right to bear arms unless I'm convicted of criminal activity.
I have the right to protect myself, my family and my property.
I have the right to vote for my elected officials or not.

Anybody who disagrees with my rights as I see them is welcome to a bullet in the ass.

 

[Brother None]

Oh boy, a gun discussion. I bet we'll end up agreeing with each other this time, joy!

Yup, I'm not trollling, and if you'd read this thread - you'd know I've already stated that fact in this thread.

Here's what I think my rights are as a human being

I'm avoiding this thread for the most part, but GTFO DB. Sander has repeatedly said that simply stating gun ownership is a right is not an argument, you have to back up why it is a right.

"The Supreme Court/US constitution says so" is not an argument. Not is "I think it is".

Ya troll.

 

[DammitBoy]

GTFO DB. Sander has repeatedly said that simply stating gun ownership is a right is not an argument, you have to back up why it is a right.

Okay, I'll give you a reason. It's a basic human right to defend oneself.

Like if the germans came to my country, we'd shoot them and make them leave.

Unlike your country, which just greased up and bent over when the germans showed up.

Not that I expect you to understand a right to defend oneself - you and most of europe is made up of spineless pacifist cowards that think standing up for one's basic rights is unseemly.

Care to explain why being able to defend yourself shouldn't be a basic human right?

 

[Sander]

Aaaaaaand strike one for trolling. You don't get to derail a thread into you bashing Europe with a bunch of bullshit.

As for your final sentence, why do you need a gun to defend yourself?
As in most countries, people are always allowed to defend themselves. But they are often not allowed to defend themselves by any means.
If someone comes at you with their bare hands, shooting them through the head is not considered appropriate force in any court of law.

Do you think you should be allowed to use a nuclear weapon to defend yourself? Do you think you should be allowed to to pre-emptively bomb a neighbours house because you think they might attack you at some point? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Malky]

Aaaaaaand strike one for trolling. You don't get to derail a thread into you bashing Europe with a bunch of bullshit.

So are you giving him a strike for trolling or giving him a strike for pissing you off because you're a Eurotard hippie? I'm kind of confused.

 

[Blakut]

Not that I expect you to understand a right to defend oneself - you and most of europe is made up of spineless pacifist cowards that think standing up for one's basic rights is unseemly.

Well, us Europeans started two world wars and we were butchering each other with metal spikes even before your USA was born. So...

I have the right to show up in a group and not get shot at, unless we're rioting.

What if you riot because your government is wrong, or a dictatorship?

I have the right to speak my mind.
I have the right to read whatever I like.

You forgot about the right to think freely. Speaking and reading are nothing if you live in a state where the minds of the people are being manipulated and the children indoctrinated, for example.

Anybody who disagrees with my rights as I see them is welcome to a bullet in the ass.

So much for right number one, eh?

 

[Sander]

Aaaaaaand strike one for trolling. You don't get to derail a thread into you bashing Europe with a bunch of bullshit.

So are you giving him a strike for trolling or giving him a strike for pissing you off because you're a Eurotard hippie? I'm kind of confused.

I'm giving him a strike for trolling, and I'd advise you to stop trolling as well before you get your third strike, Malky.

 

[Cromlech]

Like if the germans came to my country, we'd shoot them and make them leave.

Unlike your country, which just greased up and bent over when the germans showed up.

Not that I expect you to understand a right to defend oneself - you and most of europe is made up of spineless pacifist cowards that think standing up for one's basic rights is unseemly.

Why does it so often come to this type of insult/claim in these debates I have seen on the net? Now, continuing with the theme makes me guilty of derailing also, but it wasn't the fault of all the European people who laid down before Hitler. The governments were the ones who caved in, and even in France you had the resistance who made many Allied victories possible. Hell look at the brave souls from Poland. Those hard bastards gave a hell of a fight considering that they were facing what was at the time the greatest war machine ever seen by such people. Even when driven from home their pilots fought alongside the British in the Battle of Britain, not only giving a good account of themselves, but being the best damn pilots we had, probably on account of their passion for defeating the Germans.

All in all, the Polish fighter pilots downed 8.5% of the 2 375 enemy planes that were claimed to have been destroyed (by all means, including anti-aircraft artillery and etc.) during Battle of Britain, according to the data released by the British Air Ministry. The share of the Polish victories achieved only in air-to-air combat is considerably greater.

The 303-rd Fighter Squadron "Kosciuszkowski" was the single most successful Allied unit in the Battle of Britain. The significant discrepancy between the 303-rd's and 302-nd's results, is due to the former's more busier geographical location, which offered more opportunities to down enemy aircraft. It must also be mentioned that the 303-rd achieved the best result despite of having been committed to the Battle of Britain for one of the shortest periods of time of all the Allied air units involved. It is also important to know that the 303-rd was not some sort of an elite "show-off" unit with specially pre-selected personnel, that was designed to outshine all the other units on the battlefield. The selection of personnel for this squadron was in no way different from the personnel selections of the RAF's other Polish squadrons, and during the Battle of Britain the squadron flew the unfancied Hawker Hurricane aircraft, and not the famous Spitfires.

On average the Polish fighter pilots scored more victories than their British counterparts, and, at the same time, they suffered fewer casualties. For example, the 303-rd Squadron downed three times as many enemy aircraft as the avarage Allied squadron, and it suffered three times fewer casualties in the process.

Sorry for going off on a tangent guys.

 

[DammitBoy]

Aaaaaaand strike one for trolling. You don't get to derail a thread into you bashing Europe with a bunch of bullshit.

The difference in social constructs between the U.S. and Europe is a valid part of my argument, even if I didn't say it nicely or put a pretty bow on it.

As for your final sentence, why do you need a gun to defend yourself?

Because it levels the playing field, you know - like a democracy. An 80 year old woman can defend herself against three attackers with a pistol. She won't do so well with a wooden spoon.

If someone comes at you with their bare hands, shooting them through the head is not considered appropriate force in any court of law.

Funny, it's considered appropriate here in the states everyday. If some grown man comes at my 16 year old daughter with his bare hands, she's going to shoot him and it will be justified.

Do you think you should be allowed to use a nuclear weapon to defend yourself? Do you think you should be allowed to to pre-emptively bomb a neighbours house because you think they might attack you at some point? Where do you draw the line?

Give yourself a strike for going off topic about WMD's and the Bush Doctrine when we are discussing small arms. It's a crappy boring typical strawman's argument and you pretend to be smarter than that.

In conclusion: pistols, rifles, and shotguns are the great equalizer so one can defend oneself from multiple attackers/intruders/rapists/criminals or in the case of being attacked by a person of superior strength and mass.

Like the 75 year old guy with arthritis and a pacemaker in Florida, who held two twenty-something robbers at gunpoint until the police arrived 20 minutes later.

One robber had a crowbar, the other a hammer. I suppose in SanderWorld, the old guy could have just layed down and prayed no harm would come to him or his wife or he could have held them off valiently until the cops showed up to outline his corpse...

 

[Kyuu]

Like the 75 year old guy with arthritis and a pacemaker in Florida, who held two twenty-something robbers at gunpoint until the police arrived 20 minutes later.

One robber had a crowbar, the other a hammer. I suppose in SanderWorld, the old guy could have just layed down and prayed no harm would come to him or his wife or he could have held them off valiently until the cops showed up to outline his corpse...

Uh oh, you outlined a rather uncommon scenario to prove your side of the issue.

Of course, we'll happily ignore all the times that people were killed by guns who probably would've otherwise lived had the person doing the killing not had a gun. Because you know, I'd take my chances as an 80 year old against a large, muscular man with a crowbar any day of the week over going up against anybody with a gun, whether I'm in possession of one myself or not.

But I guess, with your line of thinking, handing everybody a gun so they all have the ability to blow each other away is the way to go.

Like if the germans came to my country, we'd shoot them and make them leave.

Unlike your country, which just greased up and bent over when the germans showed up.

Gotta love when people who buy into their own country's utterly biased interpretation of history but don't actually know much of what actually happened start slinging trash talk about World War II of all things. I mean hell, the Europeans were the ones who started killing each other by the tens of thousands while Americans were throwing themselves out of windows because they lost their jobs and stock market money during the Great Depression. But Americans are the hard-asses while all of Europe are spineless cowards right?

Note: I'm not presenting the case that America sucks while Europe rules either. I'm simply rejecting the "America rules, Europe sucks, therefore I'm right" argument.

And, of course, nevermind that our sorry asses would never have even managed to "win" our independence without, *gasp*, the assistance of the French of all people. But I guess I'm going a bit off topic there...

So much for right number one, eh?

D'oh, looks like he caught you there. You say having the right to speak your mind is a right, but then you say that anyone who disagrees with what you say is welcome to a bullet in the ass. Hmm. That's certainly not contradictory in the least. Unless of course you were listing all those rights with an emphasis on the I.

 

[Blakut]

In conclusion: pistols, rifles, and shotguns are the great equalizer so one can defend oneself from multiple attackers/intruders/rapists/criminals or in the case of being attacked by a person of superior strength and mass.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to fight crime and prevent and reduce it? Where i live no one puts it that way, because intrusions and robberies don't happen every day. The last bank robbery in my country... i think it was before WW2...

 

[iridium_ionizer]

The thing that everyone should be able to agree on, is that all people have as a basic human right, in the Montesquieu sense, the right to self defense. Just as the intentional slaughter of innocent civilians is a crime against humanity, so do all people have the right to defend themselves, their families, etc. against robbers, thugs, invaders, etc.

Note there are some rights that we give up for the benefits that come from our government (e.g. we lose the right to some of our income in taxes in exchange for roads, military protection, rule of law, etc.). If you don't like that you lose those rights then you can try to change the system, engage in civil disobedience (but expect jail time with your protest), or move someplace else. So it is with the right to self-defense, the government decides what weapons (or in what uses, locations) cause more harm than good and make those illegal.

Now in the United States, the first 10 amendments (called the Bill of Rights) to the Constitution were enshrined just a short time after its ratification. One of them is

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.

Just because it's in the U.S. Bill of Rights doesn't mean that it is some magical right for everyone in all circumstances in the world should have. It just means that the founders thought it was important enough to specified, which is understandable considering that they had just fought a war against government oppression. The war was sparked by the Brits sending troops to disarm local volunteer militias (which were armed with their own guns). At the time of the Constitution, people were still weary of the possibility that their government could turn tyrannical.

Some in the U.S. think that this specified right only means national guard, which in the U.S. can be called up for terrorist threats, riots, disasters, etc. Most people ascribe to the view that civilians are allowed to own guns, unless they are criminals, and are allowed to use them for self-defense with some limitations: hand-gun waiting periods, background checks, gun registrations, a special license required for concealed weapons. The gun lobby tries to do away with most of the red tape, but most of it will probably stand.

The point is unless you are a total anarchist you would probably agree in some kind of check or limit on gun ownership. I'm not positive, but I wouldn't think that the early U.S. government just let any old civilian have a cannon. Likewise I think most of us would be pretty freaked out if our neighbors had tactical nuclear weapons.

 

[Sander]

The difference in social constructs between the U.S. and Europe is a valid part of my argument, even if I didn't say it nicely or put a pretty bow on it.

Oh, don't be retarded DB. You know as well as I do that you were trolling.

If you want to speak about a difference in mentality between the USA and Europe, then that's fine. But then do it in the context of an actual argument, instead of trolling.

Give yourself a strike for going off topic about WMD's and the Bush Doctrine when we are discussing small arms. It's a crappy boring typical strawman's argument and you pretend to be smarter than that.

I didn't bring up Bush, and the examples were an essential part of my Slippery Slope argument (I didn't see until now that it could be seen as a reference to Iraq, it wasn't meant to be). That is, is there a line somewhere? If not, you should realise what that means, and if so, where and why?

Also, this is a gun thread, not a 'Why Europe isn't filled with pussies' thread.

 

[DammitBoy]

...

I noticed you avoided all the major points and questions in my post. I bow to your superior ability to deflect and ignore arguments and reasoning that differ from your own.

ps - Ignoring the argument doesn't make you the winner by default.

 

[TorontoReign]

I love how this thread derailed into a country bashing contest. Really. Now when we are referring to Trolls are we talking about the ones that turn to stone in daylight or the ones that come out of the Mines of Moria because I'm totally confused. If I had guns I would shoot them though. Because I'm an American. That means I can own a AR-15 which has very little penetration, but could totally hurt a troll. Theoretically speaking of course.

 

[Sander]

Well, this is going nowhere fast.

Locked.