Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Woolie Wool on April 07, 2004, 02:41:18 pm
-
I personally believe that:
--You should be able to use deadly force on anyone who attacks you, poses any physical threat to you or those around you, or breaks into owned or rented land or housing of yours with intent or reasonable possibility of intent to commit crimes the persons or property of any occupants of the land or home. There are no exceptions and no "duty to retreat" clause.
--ou should be able to use non-lethal force (pepper spray, physical restraint, etc.) against those actually in the process of commiting a nonviolent crime against you or your property. Again, no exceptions.
--Certain types of small, compact automatic SMGs (HK MP7, Steyr TMP), etc should be legalized as self-defense weapons. There would be stricter gun-control laws for these weapons than for other firearms.
-
I agree with all but this:
--Certain types of small, compact automatic SMGs (HK MP7, Steyr TMP), etc should be legalized as self-defense weapons. There would be stricter gun-control laws for these weapons than for other firearms.
Reason being is those defending have access to guns, which means those attacking do to. Bigger guns means a bigger war.
People will say that a blunt or sharp object can kill just the same as a gun, but a gun is more impersonal then bludgeoning or stabbing someone to death, therefore i beleive that death counts would be lower and arrests would be higher if guns werent available to the mass market.
What the heck do you need a gun for besides defending yourself from someone else with a gun? Nothing IMO, therefore if its not available its not a problem on either side.
Kill someone with your bear hands too if you want to, just take the guns out of the equations im sure many will live longer.
-
I figure anyone who breaks into my house or attacks me gets what they deserve. If I break your legs or ribs, or if I put out one of your eyes, well, you shouldn't have come after me or my posessions. Whilst I would refrain from outright killing anyone, if I could avoid it without putting myself or my wife in danger, there are cases where dropping the criminal dead is the best option. You shouldn't be punished for self-defense.
Non-lethal methods of dealing with a criminal should not be restricted. You're lucky you didn't get killed, don't complain about the pepperspray.
Now guns are an interesting issue. I've got a problem with certain classes of weapons as I don't beleive they have a legitimate use outside of a battlefield, but that's a different discussion. ;)
-
I believe lethal force should be applied if and when you see no other way (like clobbering him/her on the head instead of stabbing/shooting).
Non-lethal force is legal IIRC. At least it is here in Holland.
Small arms should not be legalized IMO cause then the possibility that an attacker posseses a gun is much higher. Besides, legalizing guns is bad thing IMHO. Like in the US. Basically everyone can get a gun. Now, most people are sane and won't use it very often or not at all. But at least a percentage will use it for other means then defence. And there are about a dozen other reasons why I think guns etc should not be legalized but I'm not in the mood to write an essay.
-
I agree, if someone is in your house against your will then on their own head be it. I think guns etc only encourage the use of lethal force which is a pity, I find that long drawn out torture is far more effective on Burglars :)
-
Gun control laws do not stop criminals from obtaining automatic weapons
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
What the heck do you need a gun for besides defending yourself from someone else with a gun? Nothing IMO, therefore if its not available its not a problem on either side.
Ummm, maybe it's useful to kill someone with a knife or stone or bludgeon or whatever. Guns make an excellent self-defense weapon because those that DON'T have guns will be shot to pieces before they can launch a good blow. I in particular like guns for self-defense. because I'm not very strong and would never have a chance in hand-to-hand combat. The majority of muggers and other violent criminals of that sort are powerful, tough guys. You probably would not be able to last very long even if you had a knife, let alone a rock, club, or plain old fists.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Gun control laws do not stop criminals from obtaining automatic weapons
\
Making them completely illegal doesn't either. What's your point?
-
"Those who do not have swords can still die upon them"
-
I remember reading something quite assuming from discworld linked to weapon control laws hehe.
-
No, but they make it harder to acquire them and smaller guns, which would or has (depends on the case you're talking about) saved a lot of lives.
:nervous:
-
If a criminal really wants an automatic weapon he can get one, just like if a junkie really wants a bag of snow, he can get one. You can't just solve a problem like this with legislation.
-
uhm, we should give every civilian military issue weapons so they can defend themselves from criminals with military issue weapons?
-
But legislation can make it harder for (example) delinquent teenagers get a gun.
-
No, we selectively choose weapons that work more as tools of defense than tools of offense (when you're trying to protect yourself, an MP7 is great. When you're trying to attack someone, a more accurate and powerful weapon is desired), and sell them with strict controls so that criminals and thugs can't get them from legitimate gun dealers. You can't stop a dedicated criminal from getting his hands on contraband weapons, but you can stop the small-time criminals who don't use the black market.
-
That's like saying better legislation would stop young neds getting bucky. Ain't gonna happen.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
No, we selectively choose weapons that work more as tools of defense than tools of offense (when you're trying to protect yourself, an MP7 is great. When you're trying to attack someone, a more accurate and powerful weapon is desired), and sell them with strict controls so that criminals and thugs can't get them from legitimate gun dealers. You can't stop a dedicated criminal from getting his hands on contraband weapons, but you can stop the small-time criminals who don't use the black market.
so you say you wouldn't give up when someone stook an MP7 in your face in a bar?
there is no way to reliably defend yourself once a gun is pointed at you from point blank range.
that, and any gun is lethal from that same point blank range.
and what about a drunk in a bar being funny with a bullet in the chamber? with a semi, one guy would die, with a full autoamtic, half the bar is dead.
-
Young neds WILL use highly illegal and dangerous methods of procuring their drugs because they're addicted to them. There is much less incentive to use such methods to procure weapons because no one gets addicted to guns.
-
im sorry, but i don't follow what you're saying in the queens english
neds is lads i assume, bucky ?= getting high?
-
Yes.
Besides, most dedicated criminals would want something with more accuracy, range, and punch than a stubby little MP7.
and what about a drunk in a bar being funny with a bullet in the chamber? with a semi, one guy would die, with a full autoamtic, half the bar is dead.
Actually, the damage potential for an MP7 in the hands of a drunkard really isn't that high. A gun like an MP7 requires a steady hand and careful technique to fire accurately farther than about 10 feet. Drunks are usually wobbly and not able to concentrate because of the influence of alcohol. A more likely scenario with an MP7 in a bar would be one or two people dead and the walls and furniture riddled with a random spray of bullets.
-
No. Neds = young thugs, trouble makers, arseholes in a word.
Bucky = Cheap alcohol called Buckfast.
Welcome to my crash course in glaswegian. :P
-
Young thugs and JDs were exactly what I thought "neds" were.
-
Ok, first of all you make th mistake of distinguishing between guns. Real life is not like counter-strike. Outside of a military environment, all guns are as lethal as all others. You don't do more "damage" with a Desert Eagle than with a Glock. Either one is good enough to kill somone.
A shotgun is a lethal as a handun is as lethal as an assult rifle. The types of people who do smash and grabs aren't going to pick up an assult rifle cause "it has higher accuracy when shooting at 500m". No, they pick up a simple handgun, cheap and gets the job done.
So, any gun is as good as any other gun when defending yourself. If he's got a shotgun and you've got a handun, your chances of survival are not diminished.
______
Secondly, all of America is scared of the big bad burglar comming to kick in your door and rape your wife. The thing is, this doesnt happen very often. Most people here propbably don't even know anyone who was ever part of an armed robbery. The statistical chances of it happening to you are so tiny, its practically not even worth considering. Gun companies loooove this fear, cause thats how they make their money.
You consider yourself a "decent, white American" and don't want some "black junkie thug" killing you for your wallet. But this is an unfounded fear.
That, and you could just legalize all drugs. That way, these "thugs" don't have to rob or steal, they can get them in a store and everyone is better off.
-
A shotgun is a lethal as a handun is as lethal as an assult rifle. The types of people who do smash and grabs aren't going to pick up an assult rifle cause "it has higher accuracy when shooting at 500m". No, they pick up a simple handgun, cheap and gets the job done.
They might need something like a rifle or assault rifle at around any distance greater than 20m. Pistols and SMGs are very short-ranged. Also, a lot of policemen, which can be quite an obstacle to smash-and-grabbers, wear body armor. Shoot a guy wearing a bullet-proof vest in the chest in the pistol and he'll get back up relatively unharmed. Shoot the same guy with an assault rifle and the bullet will tear right through the vest and kill him.
Also, some guns are more lethal than others because most of the time you will NOT score a direct hit to something like the heart or head. A glancing hit from a 9mm pistol round will wound you moderately. A glancing hit from a shotgun or .50 AE might blow a large chunk of your body away. A glancing hit from a concealable "pocket pistol" might not break the skin. Also, consider that people can die from pain and shock. A large round will cause more trauma and more blood loss, resulting in quicker, more reliable kills.
-
1.Can you see a place in your house that is more than 20m from wall to wall? If so, you live in a very big house. Also, what is easier to carry and conceal, a gun or an AK? The simple fact is, there has only been a very limited amount of robberies done with automatic weapons, and they were high-risk professional jobs like bank robberies.
2. Yes, but then again most smash-and-grabbers don't count on running in to cops, so they don't plan for it. If they think that police will be present, they're not going to be stupid enough to try and take them down.
-
Rictor: what's with the racist overtones - you're really starting to offend me with your stereotyping
-
Just alittle word from a Canadian perspective of the right to defend ones property. The use of lethal force is only deemed necessary should the property owner's life, or friends & family, be in danger. To remove an unwanted person from your home legally, the property owner is only permitted to as much force deemed nessary. Should someone use lethal force, he or she must be capable justifying that use of force. By allowing open season (unchallenged lethal force) we would only be permitting vigalanties to rule our communities. Without some rules to live by we would be allowing people to shoot first and ask questions later. "I didn't know Uncle Bob was coming by oops."
As for gun control there is no real solid solution. The idea of Gun Regulations are basically geared to monitor the existing amount of firearms. Though it seems that these regulations are only policing the honest people, documenting each weapon is a positive start but not the solution. The real problem with guns are the changes in ideals and values in a culture. What does someone need an automatic weapon for?
-
The simple fact of the matter is, burglars don't even NEED a large gun, even if they want it. The fear of being assalted with a gun is so great in the "average, white, middle-class American," that the simple threat of getting shot is enough to cow anyone. In my opinion, at least.
Also in my opinion, I believe that the brave, freedom fighters of American past are dead for a long time, if not permanently. American sedentary (correct word?) and shameless consumerism has led to a sstate where America does not even care if it is fighting a war or not. Unless, of course, a relation of yours dies, and then you care. And that's what's sad. We should ALL notice that we have thousands of our sons and daughters fighting in a foreign country.
Why did I just go on about all that? Because it states what I think: That the average American is much more cowardly than he or she was during, say, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. (Even the latter, as we had people actually fight against the government, not be led around like neutered dogs).
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: what's with the racist overtones - you're really starting to offend me with your stereotyping
:wtf: :wtf:
You do realize I am only talking like that demonstrate the mind-set of a typical pro-gun person. Here's a rule of thumb; if you ever find my comments to be rascist, chances are I'm being sarcastic or I'm talking from someone else's perpective.
-
1.Can you see a place in your house that is more than 20m from wall to wall? If so, you live in a very big house. Also, what is easier to carry and conceal, a gun or an AK? The simple fact is, there has only been a very limited amount of robberies done with automatic weapons, and they were high-risk professional jobs like bank robberies.
20m is actually a very high estimate. A skilled marksman can't get good accuracy beyond 12m with most pistols. The effective range of a handgun for your average joe is around 5-7m. The combined length of my living room and hallway is around 12m (my house is long and narrow). The burglar comes in through the foyer, which opens into one side of the living room. My bedroom is on the end of the main hallway clear on the other side of the house. There's your long-range standoff.
2. Yes, but then again most smash-and-grabbers don't count on running in to cops, so they don't plan for it. If they think that police will be present, they're not going to be stupid enough to try and take them down.
Here's something you should know: Cops are very good marksmen. Trying to run from a cop shooting at you won't help you much. Blowing his head off will. Also, at least in this city, if the cops are alerted, they can be in striking distance within 15 minutes, even if you attempt to escape by car.
-
I don't think you can really take a stance with regard to protecting your life, but you can take one with regards to property. Here's my view:
If the person facing you is set on killing you, then you should do everything in your power to protect yourself, but that doesn't mean you have to kill him, if you can prevent it. It you do kill someone who is a threat to your life, than there is nothing you could do about it, and that's they way it turns out.
If another person is trying to kill you for whatever reason, you have the right to live your life just as much as they do theirs. But if a person tries to take your life willingly, they have, in a sense taken a stance that your life is less imprtant than theirs. Thus, you have the right as an individual to protect your own life.
With regard to property, things get a bit tricky. Property in today's world can mean a lot of things, and some things are worth protecting, while other proterty is just stuff that doesn't really matter.
If you talk about a country, it's your right to defend your land from aggressors trying to take it away from you. However, this statement I just made is so complex that I don't think you can ever debate it fully and ever find a real solution. It's so complex, as per who 'owns' what, and who had the rights to this land or that land.
I can't give a complete answer at this point, but I will say that anyone who sits back while an agressor takes over their land should not sit by idly. And this applies to everyone. It creates messed up situations, no doubt.
The only solution is people listening and talking to eachother.
But this is Earth afterall.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, because it is worth it.
-
IMO;
- 'reasonable force' can be defined as proporionate to the threat - in the event of theft of property, I'd say that covers the necessarry physical restraint. In the event of an attack, sufficient to repulse that attack and drive off the attack. Only in cases where escape is impossible, or where there is no other action possible, should murder / killing be acceptable.
- in the event of serious injury or death to an attacker, I think the police should have a duty to investigate if the force was excessive, and prosecute if so. For example, beating someone after they are unconcious is wrong. Shooting an attacker - ok if they are armed similarly, not otherwise unless they refuse to put down - for example - a knife
- all this should, of course, be considered in great detail on a case-by-case basis. 'Reasonable force' is hard to define in general terms (as you can tell by what I've written), unfortunately - so what I've written is not 100% accurate as to my opinion (it may seem too harsh on the houseowner, etc).
- All guns should be banned. Is there any good reason why people should be encouraged to own lethal weapons?
- Non-lethal but incapcitating weapons should be allowed, provided that the user completes profiiciency tests to ensure they will use them responsibly. This would be stuff like tasers or stun guns. The excpetion would be items like mace, which should be freely available (as AFAIK it's less dangerous). Obviously, the degree of licensing should depend on the 'lethality' of the weapon, and how dangerous misuse is.
Note that one of my fundamental reasonings behind this is that killing someone is wrong - everything should be done to prevent it, regardless of who the victim is. I.e. avoiding 'vigilante justice'.
NB: this is my opinion. You can argue with me if you want, but you won;t change it. And i'm not willing to get drawn into a pissing match like happens so often on these types of threat.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
- 'reasonable force' can be defined as proporionate to the threat - in the event of theft of property, I'd say that covers the necessarry physical restraint. In the event of an attack, sufficient to repulse that attack and drive off the attack. Only in cases where escape is impossible, or where there is no other action possible, should murder / killing be acceptable.
I disagree because it is difficult or impossible to ascertain the exact extent of a threat before it is carried out.
- in the event of serious injury or death to an attacker, I think the police should have a duty to investigate if the force was excessive, and prosecute if so. For example, beating someone after they are unconcious is wrong. Shooting an attacker - ok if they are armed similarly, not otherwise unless they refuse to put down - for example - a knife
I disagree. The use of force is not merely do drive away the attacker, it's also a punitive measure to discourage the attacker from commiting such an act again.
- all this should, of course, be considered in great detail on a case-by-case basis. 'Reasonable force' is hard to define in general terms (as you can tell by what I've written), unfortunately - so what I've written is not 100% accurate as to my opinion (it may seem too harsh on the houseowner, etc).
Be careful. Cases like this can get very complex and difficult to sort out.
- All guns should be banned. Is there any good reason why people should be encouraged to own lethal weapons?
Really dedicated criminals will be able to get guns no matter what you try to do. What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own. Besides, the Consitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and overriding the 2nd amendment with a new amendment would be impossible due to public sentiment.
- Non-lethal but incapcitating weapons should be allowed, provided that the user completes profiiciency tests to ensure they will use them responsibly.
A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle.
This would be stuff like tasers or stun guns. The excpetion would be items like mace, which should be freely available (as AFAIK it's less dangerous). Obviously, the degree of licensing should depend on the 'lethality' of the weapon, and how dangerous misuse is.
Practically anything can be lethal if you misuse it the right way. A can of hair spray can become a firebomb. A can of gasoline can become an exceptionally destructive firebomb. A baseball bat can kill someone by being used to bash someone over the head. A taser can be modified to deliver a lethal jolt. A plastic bag can be used to suffocate someone. A piano string can be used as a garrote.
Note that one of my fundamental reasonings behind this is that killing someone is wrong - everything should be done to prevent it, regardless of who the victim is. I.e. avoiding 'vigilante justice'.
I prefer lethal force to ensure that the assailant will never pose any threat to me ever again. I don't want there to be a "next time". Besides, sometime lethal force IS needed to protect your own life. Some people can shrug off many non-lethal self-defense devices, especially things like mace.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I disagree because it is difficult or impossible to ascertain the exact extent of a threat before it is carried out.
I disagree. The use of force is not merely do drive away the attacker, it's also a punitive measure to discourage the attacker from commiting such an act again.
Be careful. Cases like this can get very complex and difficult to sort out.
Really dedicated criminals will be able to get guns no matter what you try to do. What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own. Besides, the Consitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and overriding the 2nd amendment with a new amendment would be impossible due to public sentiment.
A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle.
Practically anything can be lethal if you misuse it the right way. A can of hair spray can become a firebomb. A can of gasoline can become an exceptionally destructive firebomb. A baseball bat can kill someone by being used to bash someone over the head. A taser can be modified to deliver a lethal jolt. A plastic bag can be used to suffocate someone. A piano string can be used as a garrote.
I prefer lethal force to ensure that the assailant will never pose any threat to me ever again. I don't want there to be a "next time". Besides, sometime lethal force IS needed to protect your own life. Some people can shrug off many non-lethal self-defense devices, especially things like mace.
So let me get this straight?
You are working under the assumption that a criminal will go through the trouble of buying an assult rifle, learning how to use it, and break in to your house to steal your TV.
At this point, you will be cursing yourself for not buying and SMG, becuase it could have saved your life if only you hadn't been an idiot and tried to fight him.
Jeez, no wonder you're scared ****less. But its never going to happen. Sorry, but there are more important things in this world than your crappy TV or the $150 you have in your wallet.
oh and, I agree with what aldo said abouy non-lethal weapons. They're the way to go. Outlaw guns. I've never seen anyone die from a can of pepper spray.
-
Right - i said I wouldn;t get in an argument, and I won't. Because my mind is set. however, I would like to point out that you've not given a good reason for selling guns - firstly, I'm talking on a moral level, not constituional. I come from Scotland, and we made the wise step of banning guns after the dunblane massacre.
Secondly, if an 'armed gang' tries to rob you, odds are they will shoot when you go for a gun, or shootback when you do. either waym, death is more likely.
what you should be looking for is ways to facilitate the complete removal of guns, not ways to encourage use. It may be the 'hard' option, but it;'s the one that will save lives, not cost them.
The rest - i honestly can't be arsed responding to. But I don;t think any of your reply invalidated what I said. what I did note, was that you were looking for ways in which people could be killed - i was looking for ways in which this could be avoided. Maybe that's the difference in our reasoning.
-
all this should, of course, be considered in great detail on a case-by-case basis. 'Reasonable force' is hard to define in general terms (as you can tell by what I've written), unfortunately - so what I've written is not 100% accurate as to my opinion (it may seem too harsh on the houseowner, etc).
Yes! Reasonable force is defined by the legal perspective of the Criminal Code. Though when an issued is directed in court it can often fall into a lawyer's interpretation (pending on the situation). However there is such a thing as a use of force continum. This is where the choice of force can be scrutinized. For example: an unwanted person who is much stronger than you enters your home and pushes you toward another room. The resident can escalate their use of force one degree higher then the invader (pick something up as a weapon and us it for protection- until the threat is gone)... or a police officer draws his or her weapon to someone with a knife. (Though knives can sometimes be just a dangerous as a gun in some situations. Most gun fights are usually within 10 feet. Knives obviously can be dangerous at close proximity aswell.)
The bottom line is that should someone use lethal force they had better be prepared to answer some hard questions- the police are no fools and can determine many things within the realm of a criminal investigation.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You are working under the assumption that a criminal will go through the trouble of buying an assult rifle, learning how to use it, and break in to your house to steal your TV.
Who says they will use an AR? If they have an assault rifle, you're screwed no matter what kind of weapon you have. More likely they'd have a large-caliber pistol or a knife.
At this point, you will be cursing yourself for not buying and SMG, becuase it could have saved your life if only you hadn't been an idiot and tried to fight him.
People should have the right to protect themselves and their property by whatever means they deem necessary. A small SMG is designed for people who may encounter close-range fights with multiple threats. It may be an extravagance in Anytown, USA, but it could wind up being a lifesaver in, say, Detroit. SMGs would NOT be intended for general-purpose use. They are designed to protect you in a highly dangerous situation. Few of them would actually be sold in the civilian market. Most would go to law enforcement and other areas of local governments. A pistol will be enough for most people.
Jeez, no wonder you're scared ****less. But its never going to happen. Sorry, but there are more important things in this world than your crappy TV or the $150 you have in your wallet.
The value of a life in my eyes depends on what that life does with itself. My house, my property, and my person are worth more than the life of a dangerous criminal whose very presence is a detriment to society.
oh and, I agree with what aldo said abouy non-lethal weapons. They're the way to go. Outlaw guns. I've never seen anyone die from a can of pepper spray.
That is foolish. It is better to own an instrument of death than to fall to one because you did not have your own. Lethal force is an ugly thing, but it is better than being unable to stop an assailant. Remember that some people are not fazed by pepper spray or tear gas, especially those who have been trained to resist its effects.
-
Shouldn;t you be trying to remove lethal weapons altogether, rather than being caught in a civil arms race?
Simple question - do you want any civillian to be able to have a gun (period)?
-
Yes.
Remember that guns can do more than kill people--they can be used for hunting, for sport, for collecting, and just shooting off a few rounds on the firing range for fun.
-
[color=66ff00]Concerning the second amendment Woolie; it makes me feel fortunate I'm not a citizen of america.
I've lived in northern Ireland for almost 25 years and none of the crap I've seen happening makes me want to grab a gun.
Everyone can theorise about killing someone who perpetrates a crime against them but I would only ever use lethal force if someone threatened the lives of my friends, I'm reasonably capable of subduing most physical attacks and conventional cutting and bludgeoning attacks. To actually kill someone is the single most heinous act I can consider, and to kill someone for murdering someone else is most hypocritical.
Common sense is something that few people consider. :sigh:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Yes.
Why?
-
I put the "why" in my above post.
Everyone can theorise about killing someone who perpetrates a crime against them but I would only ever use lethal force if someone threatened the lives of my friends, I'm reasonably capable of subduing most physical attacks and conventional cutting and bludgeoning attacks. To actually kill someone is the single most heinous act I can consider, and to kill someone for murdering someone else is most hypocritical.
Also, a gun is not always a lethal weapon. Shooting someone with a small-caliber weapon in a nonvital body part is an excellent way to incapacitate someone with relatively low risk of death.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I put the "why" in my above post.
no, I was asking if you would prefer to have freely available guns oppossed to an environment where guns were heavily restricted and extremely difficult to obtain (and illegal). i.e. virtually no criminals have (or are able to have) guns.
In short, would you prefer to have guns or no guns - atall?
-
I think excessive restrictions would be unnecessary and would really not stop the most dangerous criminals from getting their weapons (many of which are illegal weapons anyway). You'd still have a lot of violent crime and hunting and the various sports associated with firearms would be all but extinguished. That would result in a lot of really pissed-off people.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I think excessive restrictions would be unnecessary and would really not stop the most dangerous criminals from getting their weapons (many of which are illegal weapons anyway). You'd still have a lot of violent crime and hunting and the various sports associated with firearms would be all but extinguished. That would result in a lot of really pissed-off people.
So you prefer more guns to less guns? i.e. you'd rather work towards a world where everyone needs an SMG to walk down the street, than one working towards completely safety?
-
"What's your standpoint on use of force in defense of life and property? "
Pretty much the same as Aldo's.
"A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle."
...So people shouldn't need to pass a driving test to drive, is what your saying? You can't just hand out weapons to anybody who claims its their right.
Woolie - so ok, you have your pistol. The robber, realising that most people now own a pistol, gets a bigger gun, an automatic rifle or something. What are you gonna do, get a machine gun?!
Your either gonna end up with;
A. all your neighbours getting machine guns (so they dont get robbed) and being more of a threat on their own than a simple robber
B. A robber attacking you with RPGs and rocket launchers just so he can theive your TV.
"What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own"
Ok, 6 big guys with guns pointed at you walk up to you in a dark street and tell you to hand over your wallet. Do you think:
A. I'll nicely give them my wallet, report it to the police, get some new cards and claim insurance.
OR
B. I'll pull out my gun and shoot myself some punk ass.
Unless you've got a Predator style minigun under your jacket, B isnt an option, is it?
You can't give people the right to carry a lethal assult weapon - because somebody always wants a bigger one.
-
I want a world where no one would need a gun on a day-to-day basis, but one could acquire a gun for sport, for hunting, for stashing in a collection, or for "just in case" (because you can't just stamp out violent assaults on people and property) without excessive difficulty.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I want a world where no one would need a gun on a day-to-day basis, but one could acquire a gun for sport, for hunting, for stashing in a collection, or for "just in case" (because you can't just stamp out violent assaults on people and property) without excessive difficulty.
But how could you differentiate between who's going to use them for mugging or whatnot, and who's going to use them 'legitemately' (not that I consider bloodsports anything to be encourage - hunt the hunters, maybe then they'll appreciate it. And as for moose hunting.......). Especially without excessive difficulty.
?
Or more importantly, if we have a world where we don;t need guns - why have them atall? If you don;t need to kill someone, what do you need a gun for?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
for stashing in a collection, or for "just in case"
Fortunatly i live in a part of the world where i don't feel a constant threat that someone is going to shoot at me in the street. Yes, a few people own guns to shoot deer or birds, whatever....
But nobody has a gun rack - on their gun rack.
Swamping civilians with weapons doesnt make the world a peaceful place.
Of course there's still crime and all, but that's the business of the Police.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
"What's your standpoint on use of force in defense of life and property? "
Pretty much the same as Aldo's.
"A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle."
...So people shouldn't need to pass a driving test to drive, is what your saying? You can't just hand out weapons to anybody who claims its their right.
Incompetent drivers generally avoid driving because of the human instinct to avoid suicidal acts. Also, I'm not saying that we should toss out M16s to absolutely everyone, but you shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of beauracracy and licensing to get one. People don't generally use cars as weapons because they risk injuring or killing themselves. People use guns as weapons because guns are safe to the user unless you do something incredibly stupid like put your hand over the muzzle. Besides, driver's licensing is a bit easier to enforce than gun licensing because you can't exactly hide a car in your pocket.
Woolie - so ok, you have your pistol. The robber, realising that most people now own a pistol, gets a bigger gun, an automatic rifle or something. What are you gonna do, get a machine gun?!
Your either gonna end up with;
A. all your neighbours getting machine guns (so they dont get robbed) and being more of a threat on their own than a simple robber
B. A robber attacking you with RPGs and rocket launchers just so he can theive your TV.
First of all, only an idiot would use an RPG for attacking anything but an armored vehicles. They are inaccurate, clumsy, and dangerous. Second, there are some very nasty pistols and shotguns on the market, but not everybody owns a .44 magnum or 10-gauge. Why would it be any different with SMGs?
"What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own"
Ok, 6 big guys with guns pointed at you walk up to you in a dark street and tell you to hand over your wallet. Do you think:
A. I'll nicely give them my wallet, report it to the police, get some new cards and claim insurance.
OR
B. I'll pull out my gun and shoot myself some punk ass.
No, you first take steps to position yourself to get out of the line of fire. Quickly. Then you get behind cover like a wall or car, and then draw them into your gunsights. Typical strategy. Plus a gang of 6 tough guys may not just want your wallet.
You can't give people the right to carry a lethal assult weapon - because somebody always wants a bigger one.
Then why isn't everyone walking around with hugely powerful handguns like the Desert Eagle or .44 Magnum?
-
But how could you differentiate between who's going to use them for mugging or whatnot, and who's going to use them 'legitemately' (not that I consider bloodsports anything to be encourage - hunt the hunters, maybe then they'll appreciate it. And as for moose hunting.......). Especially without excessive difficulty
It's impossible to tell, but the US public would probably rather start another revolution than be deprived of their firearms. Or just vote your ass out of office. Not that a gun-banning amendment would get through in the first place because it has to be voted on by the American people as well as Congress and get two-thirds of the vote. From both.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
It's impossible to tell, but the US public would probably rather start another revolution than be deprived of their firearms. Or just vote your ass out of office.
So? What's your point?
People would change as they got used to it - even if they're not already sick of needing a sub-machine gun to feel safe. Public opinion would change as people took stock of the benefits.
And that's assuming there is a large base of public opinion against gun control / abolition.
And foregoing the philisophical issue of the whole issue.
EDIt
PUBLIC OPINION POLLS AND GUN CONTROL
Since the Gallup organisation first polled on the gun issue in 1938, two-thirds of Americans have consistently favoured stricter gun controls. This is in spite of the fact that any representative survey sample would contain a proportion of gun owners. Polls have also revealed that majorities do not favour a complete ban on the civilian ownership of handguns ( Harding 1998 , 215-7).
A May 2000 Gallup poll conducted one week before the Million Mom March found that 62% (72% of women and 52% of men) favoured stricter gun controls; 73% supported handgun registration and 69% the licensing of gun owners; 82% approved of raising the minimum age for handgun possession from 18 years to 21 years; 79% were in favour of the requirement that all new guns sold be equipped with trigger locks and 89% of respondents agreed that mandatory sentences should be imposed on all felons who commit crimes with guns ( Gallup 2000) .
(http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:me2OH_92JcgJ:apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/beauchamp.rtf+Us+citizens+in+favour+of+banning+guns&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
I think the percentage in favour of outlawing guns is around 40%, but I can;t find stats for that yet.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Really dedicated criminals will be able to get guns no matter what you try to do. What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own. Besides, the Consitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and overriding the 2nd amendment with a new amendment would be impossible due to public sentiment.
Ever heard of the number of death by year due to firearms in Japan ? Less than one hundred. More than ten thousands a year in America. Even the policeman in Japan don't have a free access to firearms. If there are so few really dedicated criminals, I'd say that banning firearms would be a good idea. But then, I don't have the right to own a weapon in case of my country being invaded by those pesky English people :p
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
First of all, only an idiot would use an RPG for attacking anything but an armored vehicles. They are inaccurate, clumsy, and dangerous. Second, there are some very nasty pistols and shotguns on the market, but not everybody owns a .44 magnum or 10-gauge. Why would it be any different with SMGs?
No, you first take steps to position yourself to get out of the line of fire. Quickly. Then you get behind cover like a wall or car, and then draw them into your gunsights. Typical strategy. Plus a gang of 6 tough guys may not just want your wallet.
By the RPG example, i didnt mean an actuall RPG, it was just an example of excessive fire-power.
"take steps to position yourself to get out of the line of fire".
So three guys walking down the street fairly innocently, aim guns on you just as they get to. Three more from behind. Its a pretty empty street, no cars to dive behind. But in your blind self power you pull your gun out and get shot to **** by them, and they steal your blood soaked wallet anyway.
If you believe so strongly in the right to defend yourself when only a fool would, you need to have a serious think about things.
-
OK, all this crap about robbers getting bigger guns is just that - crap. If someone wants to steal your TV or computer or whatever, they don't intend to murder anyone. In a more just world, allowing a householder to defend his property by any means necessary would allow them to legally kill a criminal on their property or at least seriously injure them. That's how I see it - a criminal should forego EVERY right during the moment of a crime.
-
Somone is after your TV so you think that a just punishment is death?
And should we start cutting off people's hands for shoplifting? How about cutting out their tongues for treason? Maybe a quick shot to the balls for looking at you the wrong way?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Somone is after your TV so you think that a just punishment is death?
And should we start cutting off people's hands for shoplifting? How about cutting out their tongues for treason? Maybe a quick shot to the balls for looking at you the wrong way?
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -Ghandi
-
NRA = Not Really American
"Get your stinking paws off my gun you damn dirty apes!"
-
Rictor: I was talking about the fact it sounded liek you were stereotyping all white americans as racist
------------------------
A good rifle in the hands of a skilled marksmen is immensely more powerful than an automatic weapon - someone could break into my house and have an automatic weapon and I'd probably win just given a .22
Why? I am a great marksmen, I know the terrain and I don't need a very large target profile to put a bullet in their head -- I am a skilled enough marksmen that I probably wouldn't need lethal force and would shoot the gun out of his/her hands and then pop one in their knee before they fled
-
Need MP7s to defend yourself? I've met some seriously paranoid people but that just takes the bisket (sp)
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm
That's probably relevant, its an article about a farmer who got jailed for shooting dead a burglar in his home.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
A good rifle in the hands of a skilled marksmen is immensely more powerful than an automatic weapon - someone could break into my house and have an automatic weapon and I'd probably win just given a .22
Why? I am a great marksmen, I know the terrain and I don't need a very large target profile to put a bullet in their head -- I am a skilled enough marksmen that I probably wouldn't need lethal force and would shoot the gun out of his/her hands and then pop one in their knee before they fled
Ah, but - and this is besides the point - what about the effect of adrenaline? I'm assuming you've not been in any gunfights, of course.
-
tbh gents, i think it's your culture in the US that's the problem - not the ownership of guns.
-
what about....national service for all gun owners? that way they can be trained and certified killing machines.
-
aha.
wasn't it Swiss that did that?
-
Originally posted by kasperl
aha.
wasn't it Swiss that did that?
Think so.... but i didn;t use that example cos the Swiss, IIRC, are given rifles as part of their National Service.
-
yeah, an assault rifle in every home.
strangely enough, i rarely ever hear about school shootings in Switserland.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
yeah, an assault rifle in every home.
strangely enough, i rarely ever hear about school shootings in Switserland.
There has been a hostage / shooting incident in a school, tho - a few years back IIRC.
also;
http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4402821-110908%2C00.html
"Switzerland is also reconsidering its gun laws, which are the most relaxed in western Europe, after Friedrich Leibacher went on the rampage in the regional parliament in the northern city of Zug last September. He killed 14 people and himself, apparently over a grudge against a local official.
Switzerland's part-time militia keep their weapons at home. New laws in 1999 required anyone buying a gun from a store to have a permit, which is issued by local police or authorities in the different Swiss cantons, or states. But the only document required in a private sale is a sale contract. "
-
As opposed to the anual school shooting in the US :p (On top of hundreds of other gun related crimes ofcourse)
-
Originally posted by vyper
tbh gents, i think it's your culture in the US that's the problem - not the ownership of guns.
Yep, i think Canada has more guns per head than the US, but a lot less gun-crime.
-
aldo: I rock climb, I'm quite used to staying calm with excessive ammounts of adrenaline in my system
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: I rock climb, I'm quite used to staying calm with excessive ammounts of adrenaline in my system
Maybe so, but i'd still contend that you* can never be 100% sure of your reactions in any stressful situation. i.e. that you can handle rock climbing because, i'd imagine, you're used to it in both physicla and mental terms.
*in the general case of you, ie. anyone
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Yep, i think Canada has more guns per head than the US, but a lot less gun-crime.
Yeah, if we really want to get rid of violent crimes, it's gang culture that we have to get rid of, not guns.
-
1) eliminate gangster/rapper culture
2) ?
3) Profit!