Dreadclaw69 wrote: You are very clearly set in your view towards firearms, the laws that allow people to own them, and the society in the US and it's relationship with guns and you seem quite content with that.
Just going to point out, he's probably taking after your own (non-existent) track record of malleable opinion on the matter.
Can't complain on others not wanting to change when you yourself never do either, really.
Now you're just insulting me. I know how huge the US is, and how huge it's population is.
I facepalm at thee, together with this entire thread,
Or he's simply telling the truth based on this thread's sample size of your commentary.
I promise, no one here is facepalming at djones.
So, me giving, sure, unresearched (why do I even need to research my own opinions?) opinions gives him full rights to insult me? Huh.
And also, if I use unresearched 'facts', why does it even matter? I started arguing against US gun laws, now people are insulting me.
You're admitting to being ignorant. You are admitting to arguing from a stance of ignorance. And yet you are being insulted when people assume you are ignorant?
No, I'm being insulted when people assume they have the rigt to insult me. Sure, I could've done my research, but why the need for insulting me? I might've been ignorant, but that doesn't give anyone the rights to insult me.
And also, if I use unresearched 'facts', why does it even matter? I started arguing against US gun laws, now people are insulting me.
These aren't a thing though. You're arguing against fiction. Beyond the broad fact that gun ownership can't be made illegal in the base case, it's a state-by-state and city-by-city matter. It's not a matter of "US Laws".
And as to why you should research your opinions: Because, quite frankly, un-researched opinions, particularly when they are presented as abrasively as yours, make you look foolish.
You should probably remove the "might" and move this to present tense if you want an accurate reflection of your participation on this thread. Just a friendly tip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matthew wrote: It's like 'Hey look, a guy didn't research his facts, let's call him stupid and force 'MURICA upon him!
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
Yeah, that was an insult to me.
Also, I could squeeze in a pun about many US citizens being fat, but I don't fat to stoop so low.
"That Matthew kid is a total tool bag, it's obvious he's talking out of his ass, and has no clue what he's saying."
That would be an insult, which is not what I did. What I did was make a single statement saying you don't know what you are talking about, which you have agreed with in your own statements.
You should probably remove the "might" and move this to present tense if you want an accurate reflection of your participation on this thread. Just a friendly tip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matthew wrote: It's like 'Hey look, a guy didn't research his facts, let's call him stupid and force 'MURICA upon him!
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
Yeah, that was an insult to me.
Also, I could squeeze in a pun about many US citizens being fat, but I don't fat to stoop so low.
Ha, massive.
That was not an insult. Judging by your previous posts in this thread, I'm pretty sure it was accurate. You clearly demonstrated you have little to no understanding of how the country works. This led him to believe that you might not realize how big it is compared to Sweden. If you spent more time trying to learn a bit, instead of making ridiculous opinion posts that you admit are completely devoid of any actual research on your part, you could have completely avoided other people coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Its all good Matthew.
We all have bad days debating in the OT forum. Just that today is your bad day to debate and on a particular subject matter that your not strong in. Just say your having a bad day and that be it
"That Matthew kid is a total tool bag, it's obvious he's talking out of his ass, and has no clue what he's saying."
That would be an insult, which is not what I did. What I did was make a single statement saying you don't know what you are talking about, which you have agreed with in your own statements.
Yeah, you said I don't know how big the US is compared to Sweden. Only stupid people don't know that the US is huge.
You said something about me blowing off my steam, which in my eyes makes me look like an immature teenager. I may be a teenager, but I don't consider myself immature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Its all good Matthew.
We all have bad days debating in the OT forum. Just that today is your bad day to debate and on a particular subject matter that your not strong in. Just say your having a bad day and that be it
After observing a fair few debates on this subject here, I am fairly sure I have developed an opinion of my own.
It is a complex problem, caused by history, status quo and national... 'mindset'.
I am of the belief that control would yield greater dividends in the long run than ultimately unnecessary civil rights that come at the price of stability (specifically, gun rights), but removing/limiting those rights at this point seems unfeasible because
1. There are too many illegal guns available, meaning that a gun ban would primarily remove guns from the... responsible users
2. The major focus and fierce protectiveness of civil rights means that any change would be met with great resistance
3. Large in-country differences in income, living standards, education et cetera makes for instability, instability that would be even more problematic with heavier gun restrictions. Though guns arguably work against the consequences, not the root of the issue
In conclusion? I will continue to argue that an ideal country, and the state a country should aspire to, is one where publically available firearms are unnecessary. However, the United States is not a case where cold turkey on guns would work, it would do more damage than help. In the long run more/entirely restricted guns will be best, but only once other problems that lie beneath have been acted upon.
Of course, keep guns for sports or whatever, that is fine by me. But in public situations - ie the store - it should not be required, and that people feel it's necessary currently speaks volumes about the effects of previously mentioned problems (like gaps in income).
Of course, it is also unlikely that this idea will yield much approval, since Americans tend to assign different values to civil rights than people of Sweden do. Case in point, Matthew.
Whew, that was a mouthful. I hope it did not come across as offensive, as it's not intended to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Its all good Matthew.
We all have bad days debating in the OT forum. Just that today is your bad day to debate and on a particular subject matter that your not strong in. Just say your having a bad day and that be it
This is quite possibly the best post in the thread.
Matthew wrote: You said something about me blowing off my steam, which in my eyes makes me look like an immature teenager. I may be a teenager, but I don't consider myself immature.
I think you're taking this way more negatively than it was meant.
I'm pretty sure we've all been showing you a lot more respect than you showed us by coming into a thread to tell us what you think is wrong with our country, without actually knowing what you are talking about.
Hey everyone -- this thread has generated a lot of alerts and I see tempers are flaring. So here I am to remind you all that Rule Number One is Be Polite and you all agreed to abide by it when you made an account. Doing so is required for everyone who wants to keep posting on this site. Now below, I have quoted what a reasonable post on a controversial subject looks like. And I totally disagree with the points made by the way. Point is, that's how to do it without being rude, even from an opposing viewpoint on the merits. Thanks
Ashiraya wrote: After observing a fair few debates on this subject here, I am fairly sure I have developed an opinion of my own.
It is a complex problem, caused by history, status quo and national... 'mindset'.
I am of the belief that control would yield greater dividends in the long run than ultimately unnecessary civil rights that come at the price of stability (specifically, gun rights), but removing/limiting those rights at this point seems unfeasible because
1. There are too many illegal guns available, meaning that a gun ban would primarily remove guns from the... responsible users
2. The major focus and fierce protectiveness of civil rights means that any change would be met with great resistance
3. Large in-country differences in income, living standards, education et cetera makes for instability, instability that would be even more problematic with heavier gun restrictions. Though guns arguably work against the consequences, not the root of the issue
In conclusion? I will continue to argue that an ideal country, and the state a country should aspire to, is one where publically available firearms are unnecessary. However, the United States is not a case where cold turkey on guns would work, it would do more damage than help. In the long run more/entirely restricted guns will be best, but only once other problems that lie beneath have been acted upon.
Of course, keep guns for sports or whatever, that is fine by me. But in public situations - ie the store - it should not be required, and that people feel it's necessary currently speaks volumes about the effects of previously mentioned problems (like gaps in income).
Of course, it is also unlikely that this idea will yield much approval, since Americans tend to assign different values to civil rights than people of Sweden do. Case in point, Matthew.
Whew, that was a mouthful. I hope it did not come across as offensive, as it's not intended to be.
If I may, I feel I might address the root of the problem from a European perspective, and I will do my best to keep it respectful.
I think the big disconnect for most of us, and the thing which leads to the most misunderstanding (which in turn leads to quite insulting language from some of the more insensitive and arrogant europeans, as we've seen) is the 'fun' aspect of gun ownership. It's disconcerting for us. We see guns as serious business, not to be trifled with. Yes, a gun is a tool, but it is a tool for killing. A handgun is a tool for killing people - that's it's only real purpose. So, in truth, we find it kind of creepy that someone would own a handgun for 'fun' - what on earth is fun about that? Over here, the sort of people that would find that fun would generally be considered as nutters and to be avoided. With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that. We have the legal right to own a gun if we want, most of us just choose not to exercise it. It's a cultural thing. Americans just like guns, and that's something we can't wrap our heads around. We see them as dangerous toys, essentially, owned on very thin nationalist or paranoiac pretexts. Americans see them as tools they have grown up around that, if handled properly, can be a fun and rewarding hobby, the exercise of which is enshrined in the constitution. I get that. More power to you. It's none of my business and doesn't really affect me anyway.
I am entitled to express my opinion on the subject, however.
I think the other main reason people cite for owning guns, self-defence, is largely due to the societal arms race caused by the widespread ownership of handguns. This is not to invalidate self-defence as a reason, (I would own a handgun if I lived in the US and was legally allowed to do so, no question) but it is nevertheless a thing. That is not going to be a societally endogeneous change. People own handguns because other people own handguns. I think they should be banned. I see no legitimate reason for a private citizen to own one. I do not consider 'fun' to be a legitimate reason. You can defend your home with a shotgun, you can hunt with a rifle, your right to bear arms would not be infringed, and this (admittedly, daft) woman would probably still be alive. You'd still get to be Americans, you'd just be safer. You could still overthrow the government if you needed to.
After all, your guys didn't defeat our Redcoats with Glock 19s, did they?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Sorry to drag everyone back to the original topic, but has anyone commented on the fact that the deceased was a nuclear scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory?
It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.
Spoiler:
Hey, I'm just glad that through all the link exchanging and international wiener measuring, someone acknowledged my off-color remark.
Jihadin wrote: Insurgency at its finest. Shoot the Redcoat officer and run off into the woods
That and something like a huge pond between UK and the Colonies.
And the bloody French, the fact that you still nearly lost and the fact that the Caribbean (which we kept) alone was worth more than the 13 Colonies, yaddayadda...
I was trying to appeal to your sense of patriotism to win you over and you had to go and ruin it, didn't you?
After all, your guys didn't defeat our Redcoats with Glock 19s, did they?
No, but if they had had Glock 19s it would have been a curbstomp.
On the subject of the Revolutionary War and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Back then, there was no concept of civilian vs military weapons. Private citizens often owned full on warships, the most powerful weapons at the time. A ship could have dozens or even hundreds of cannons. Even the smallest of merchant ships had at least a half dozen cannons. Ships often had more artillery on their decks than entire land based armies.
The soldiers of the Revolutionary army were equipped with muskets that were more or less identical to what the British were using.
After the war, there was a huge movement to disband the Federal army. Heck, the government had a fight on its hands just to issue money and even collect taxes.
This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place. The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yourself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Albatross wrote: With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that.
But why is shooting paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
Albatross wrote: If I may, I feel I might address the root of the problem from a European perspective, and I will do my best to keep it respectful.
I think the big disconnect for most of us, and the thing which leads to the most misunderstanding (which in turn leads to quite insulting language from some of the more insensitive and arrogant europeans, as we've seen) is the 'fun' aspect of gun ownership. It's disconcerting for us. We see guns as serious business, not to be trifled with. Yes, a gun is a tool, but it is a tool for killing. A handgun is a tool for killing people - that's it's only real purpose. So, in truth, we find it kind of creepy that someone would own a handgun for 'fun' - what on earth is fun about that? Over here, the sort of people that would find that fun would generally be considered as nutters and to be avoided. With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that. We have the legal right to own a gun if we want, most of us just choose not to exercise it. It's a cultural thing. Americans just like guns, and that's something we can't wrap our heads around. We see them as dangerous toys, essentially, owned on very thin nationalist or paranoiac pretexts. Americans see them as tools they have grown up around that, if handled properly, can be a fun and rewarding hobby, the exercise of which is enshrined in the constitution. I get that. More power to you. It's none of my business and doesn't really affect me anyway.
I am entitled to express my opinion on the subject, however.
I think the other main reason people cite for owning guns, self-defence, is largely due to the societal arms race caused by the widespread ownership of handguns. This is not to invalidate self-defence as a reason, (I would own a handgun if I lived in the US and was legally allowed to do so, no question) but it is nevertheless a thing. That is not going to be a societally endogeneous change. People own handguns because other people own handguns. I think they should be banned. I see no legitimate reason for a private citizen to own one. I do not consider 'fun' to be a legitimate reason. You can defend your home with a shotgun, you can hunt with a rifle, your right to bear arms would not be infringed, and this (admittedly, daft) woman would probably still be alive. You'd still get to be Americans, you'd just be safer. You could still overthrow the government if you needed to.
After all, your guys didn't defeat our Redcoats with Glock 19s, did they?
That was a very well thought out response and quite enjoyable to read. Thank you. As someone who is not a native to the US I can understand and empathize a lot with where you are coming from.
Concerning handguns they are used more frequently for self defense than for "fun". Especially when the owner is in public. A handgun is significantly less intrusive than longer firearms such as shotguns and rifles, and less likely to draw attention. Owing to the length of long guns they are more likely to get in the way of simple tasks like shopping as they require a sling or hand to keep them out of the way. This is further compounded if you have young children with you, or are physically impaired. Longer guns with more recoil may also be less well suited for those of a more slender frame, a physical disability, or those more advanced in age. Also handguns are a lot easier to operate in confined spaces, such as if you are accosted in your vehicle in a public parking lot.
In public spaces you should have the ability to defend yourself as much as within your home. I know that the legal landscape in the UK was changing after the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 so that police would take a more pro-active stance in safeguarding the right to life. That is not the case in the United States. Here it has been upheld in several cases that the police are under no duty to protect individuals; http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
Spoiler:
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
by Peter Kasler
Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.
Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."
England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.
Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:
Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]
Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today's society. Police and Sheriff's departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department "dropped" [2] 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]
It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.
Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."
It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we've seen that they have no duty to do so. And we've also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.
Now it's time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren't duty-bound to protect us, and they can't be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won't protect us if they have the opportunity?
One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.
Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York's high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]
Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco's violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she'd be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn't notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.
In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.
But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman's estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief's. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren't at all rare.
In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because "the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather." [15]
In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that "no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing..." [17]
Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let's leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood "real world." I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.
One client of my partner's and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they'd witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn't enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.
In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we're often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can't or won't do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.
She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.
It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn't taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn't or wouldn't help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.
Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren't), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it. It's about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.
Add to that now the problems with response times in parts of the United States, and not just in rural areas. In large cities it can be 10 minutes before police arrive to an emergency call. While that may seem like a short time a lot can happen. This video is only six minutes long and the assailant was still able to reach the victim before police arrived
You may wish to exercise your discretion before pressing play
Now take the fact that the police do not owe a duty to protect individuals and apply it to events past and present where law and order is stretched thin; LA Riots, Hurricane Katrina, Ferguson. Even in a genuine life or death emergency it is extremely unlikely that the police will arrive in any meaningful time to protect you and your loved ones.
So when George Carlin jokes that "We live in a country where a pizza arrives before the police" he is right. And tragically it should be no laughing matter. That is why people choose to be their own first responders and want to take steps to protect themselves and their families should the worst happen.
Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
Albatross wrote: With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that.
But why is shooting recycled paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same recycled paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
Stop.
Because we have grown up in a fire arm culture.
Also deer hunting
duck hunting
turkey hunting
elk hunting
moose hunting
ram hunting
Pheasant hunting (almost typed peasant hunting)
boar hunting
bison hunting
bear hunting
...........
we do a lot of damn hunting here. Granted I own fire arms that I am familiar with but I own just to OWN and for peace of mind for the "Oh Hell" moments. Though I shoot more often on the range now then I did when I was active duty since its more fun plinking targets and swapping tales with other shooters.
Hoo boy. Well, I read through this thread but skimmed the last few pages as I wanted to reply to a few points.
First of all, man, that is a terrible thing to happen, that a toddler kills their parent.
Second, on gun control and Europe vs America. When I first started posting here, I was pretty ignorant about US gun laws and gun culture. I posted some pretty stupid and arrogant stuff, and I got called out on it.
Some of the most educational conversations I had on Dakka Dakka were about that. Now I think I have a greater understanding of the laws, and you know what, I don't think they are that crazy. I also think many EU posters are a bit pie in the sky when they talk about gun law reform. This is unrealistic because there are simply so many guns in the US, it is much harder to control.
Some of the arguments about reasons for having guns are a bit silly to me (like, America has the most awesome military in history, and I mean awesome in all senses of the word, how in the hell are an armed militia supposed to compete?! A militia can overthrow the government in places where military power is weak- we could probably do it in Ireland because our military is a joke. But the US? It's just laughable!) But I guess that doesn't really matter- it's a huge part of the culture. Just because another culture does something I don't understand, it doesn't mean they have to stop. Even if it is harmful. Look at the EU- France has a really high consumption of wine, and it therefore has a very high rate of death from liver disease. I don't see anyone yelling at the french about the need for wine control.
The US can make it's own decisions about that. Most of us are happy with the conditions in our own cultures.
So I think many EU posters need to tone down the rhetoric and listen a bit more to the US guys about this (and lots of other things- listening is important).
At the same time though, don't talk about disrespect like it's a one way street when you talk about "a country that raises terrorists" or diss Europe for needing to be "saved" in WW2 or being "afraid of getting it's hands dirty". That's pretty hypocritical.
Also, edited to add: Police in Ireland are unarmed in the vast majority, and they do not have vans full of guns that they can use whenever they want. There are strong arguments that the police need guns to operate due to the changing nature of crime, however I hope they remain unarmed as it helps them to remain part of the communities they serve.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
Grey Templar wrote: This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place.
This is assuming a lot about their inability to adapt to the modern world. If nothing else I think they would have been able to understand the vast difference in potential for accidental damage and deaths between a 1700s-era military and a modern one. For example, owning a cannon (if you could afford one) might not have been so unreasonable in the 1700s if you had a ship to protect and plenty of empty land to shoot it on. But you'd have to be insane to think that private citizens should be allowed to own modern artillery without restrictions. Hardly anyone is even remotely qualified to operate it safely, and even fewer have enough empty land to use for an artillery range. Same thing with military aircraft. There's a very good reason that the FAA imposes strict licensing requirements on flying old military aircraft*, if you assume that everyone has a right to own a fighter jet it would be a massacre.
*High minimum flight hours requirement, training on that specific aircraft from an FAA-approved instructor, no flying over populated areas, etc.
The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
And here's the key problem with this argument: those insurgent forces of the past two decades are only winning because the US has very little stake in their country, other than a stubborn refusal to accept that the war was a mistake, and is not willing to resort to blatantly unethical methods to end the resistance (for example, kill everyone and replace them with US settlers). The same is not going to apply to a domestic rebellion. The government is not going to have the same ability to say "well, we're tired of this, let's go home" once the war becomes a bit inconvenient, and if the government ever reaches a point where violent rebellion is justified I doubt they're going to be concerned with things like minimizing civilian casualties when they bomb a whole town off the map.
And here's the key problem with this argument: those insurgent forces of the past two decades are only winning because the US has very little stake in their country, other than a stubborn refusal to accept that the war was a mistake, and is not willing to resort to blatantly unethical methods to end the resistance (for example, kill everyone and replace them with US settlers). The same is not going to apply to a domestic rebellion. The government is not going to have the same ability to say "well, we're tired of this, let's go home" once the war becomes a bit inconvenient, and if the government ever reaches a point where violent rebellion is justified I doubt they're going to be concerned with things like minimizing civilian casualties when they bomb a whole town off the map.
Not really.
Not even the most callous government would exterminate its own citizens in large numbers to stop a rebellion. It would only build sympathy elsewhere in the country at a rapid rate.
There is also not much point to destroying your own citizens, it leaves you without a country to rule.
Its far easier to do that to people who aren't your own citizens.
Grey Templar wrote: Not even the most callous government would exterminate its own citizens in large numbers to stop a rebellion.
But the premise of a violent rebellion is that there aren't large numbers of citizens to kill. If the rebellion has such widespread support that exterminating it wouldn't be practical then how exactly is this intolerably evil government still in power? Where are the elections? Where are the non-violent refusals to obey the government? Why hasn't the military removed them from power? The only way to answer those questions in a way that leads to violent rebellion is if you assume that most people like things exactly they way they are and support the government.
Its far easier to do that to people who aren't your own citizens.
Which, conveniently, is why the first step in genocide is stripping the enemy of their citizenship and making them a second-class group that is barely considered human. Your hypothetical rebellion isn't going to come from the noble leaders of society, it's going to come from an oppressed minority that everyone already hates and the government will be praised for their slaughter.
Grey Templar wrote: Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yourself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Exactly.
A lot of people seem to have trouble comprehending this. The 2nd amendment actually grants zero rights. What it does do is recognize that keeping and bearing arms is the right of any citizen and subsequently places restrictions upon the government from passing laws that infringe on a citizen's right to do so.
The federal government may seek to repeal the 2nd at some point, but even if they succeed, they won't be repealing anyone's right to keep and bear arms because that is not granted by the 2nd, rather it is regarded as inherent to us as human beings.
Grey Templar wrote: Not even the most callous government would exterminate its own citizens in large numbers to stop a rebellion.
But the premise of a violent rebellion is that there aren't large numbers of citizens to kill. If the rebellion has such widespread support that exterminating it wouldn't be practical then how exactly is this intolerably evil government still in power? Where are the elections? Where are the non-violent refusals to obey the government? Why hasn't the military removed them from power? The only way to answer those questions in a way that leads to violent rebellion is if you assume that most people like things exactly they way they are and support the government.
Plenty of dictatorships have risen without the support of the majority.
The Nazis were a great example.
I would guarantee that if they had started blowing up entire towns and exterminating the Jews in the streets that civil opposition would have cropped up real quick. It only didn't because they kept the true nature of what they were doing in the Concentration camps under wraps. Most Germans had no idea what was going on.
Grey Templar wrote: Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yours not a fundamental right. It's a right granted to us by the US Consitution. Your assertions here condemns every nation that does not provide the same recognition our 2nd amendmeself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Exactly.
A lot of people seem to have trouble comprehending this. The 2nd amendment actually grants zero rights. What it does do is recognize that keeping and bearing arms is the right of any citizen and subsequently places restrictions upon the government from passing laws that infringe on a citizen's right to do so.
The federal government may seek to repeal the 2nd at some point, but even if they succeed, they won't be repealing anyone's right to keep and bear arms because that is not granted by the 2nd, rather it is regarded as inherent to us as human beings.
The idea that right to arms and firearms in particular is some kind of fundamental human right is plainly absurd at its surface. To assert such a thing requires that all humans living in the 12th century and earlier were either having their rights violated by virtue of the gun not having yet been invented or that prior to the gun they were not yet fully human. Even more primitive weapons had some point of origin. I may as well claim have a fundamental right to Ice Cream, a Car or Sunglasses.
People have a fundamental right to life because they're born with their lives. People have a fundamental right to not be made to suffer as we're all born with the capacity for suffering. People have a fundamental right to food, water, air, and reproduction because these are all basic parts of being a living human.
Nobody crawled their mother's crotch clutching a 9mm. We have a right to guns by virtue of the 2nd amendment. Your assertion paints every nation that doesn't have those same protections as a violator of basic human rights. That's somewhere between insulting at best to... I don't even know at worst. I'm bewildered that you'd even try to frame it that way.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
Physical and mental harm
Care to clarify?
The individual (victim) is physical harmed and mentally scared (harmed) by a criminal element. Its a lesser form of PTSD but its what called a "Significant Emotional Event."
The Holocaust: What the average Germans knew[edit]
Debate also continues on how much average Germans knew about the Holocaust. Recent historical work has found that the majority of Germans knew about the concentration camps and that Jews were being indiscriminately killed and persecuted in the death camps:[17]
“Hitler exterminated the Jews of Europe. But he did not do so alone. The task was so enormous, complex, time-consuming, and mentally and economically demanding that it took the best efforts of millions of Germans… All spheres of life in Germany actively participated: Businessmen, policemen, bankers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers, railroad and factory workers, chemists, pharmacists, foremen, production managers, economists, manufacturers, jewelers, diplomats, civil servants, propagandists, film makers and film stars, professors, teachers, politicians, mayors, party members, construction experts, art dealers, architects, landlords, janitors, truck drivers, clerks, industrialists, scientists, generals, and even shopkeepers—all were essential cogs in the machinery that accomplished the final solution.”[18] - Konnilyn G. Feig
In an entry in the Friedrich Kellner diary, "My Opposition", dated October 28, 1941, the German justice inspector recorded a conversation he had in Laubach with a German soldier who had witnessed a massacre in Poland.[19]
Robert Gellately, a historian at Oxford University, conducted a widely respected survey of the German media before and during the war, concluding that there was "substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in aspects of the Holocaust, and documenting that the sight of columns of slave laborers were common, and that the basics of the concentration camps, if not the extermination camps, were widely known.[20] The German scholar, Peter Longerich, in a study looking at what Germans knew about the mass murders concluded that: "General information concerning the mass murder of Jews was widespread in the German population."[21]
Grey Templar wrote: Plenty of dictatorships have risen without the support of the majority.
But have those dictatorships reached the point where violent revolution is justified? Remember that the hypothetical situation where the 2nd amendment protects you from the government doesn't just involve a government that you disagree with, there needs to be a government that has become so thoroughly evil that it's ok to start killing people to oppose it.
I would guarantee that if they had started blowing up entire towns and exterminating the Jews in the streets that civil opposition would have cropped up real quick. It only didn't because they kept the true nature of what they were doing in the Concentration camps under wraps. Most Germans had no idea what was going on.
The average German might not have known all of the precise details of the death camps, but the Nazi policies in general had plenty of support. And they're hardly the only example of the average person standing by and doing nothing. For example, the average person in the 1950s US south might not have personally participated in lynchings, but they certainly didn't do anything to stand in the way or dispute that the victim deserved punishment (even if murder was a little too far).
Also worth mentioning that the second time hitler made his play for power, he did so legally. Same thing happened in egypt with the recent coup (the word probably isn't the best one). If mohamed morsi hadn't done things so quickly and bluntly he might still be chief dictator of egypt.
Grey Templar wrote: Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yours not a fundamental right. It's a right granted to us by the US Consitution. Your assertions here condemns every nation that does not provide the same recognition our 2nd amendmeself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Exactly.
A lot of people seem to have trouble comprehending this. The 2nd amendment actually grants zero rights. What it does do is recognize that keeping and bearing arms is the right of any citizen and subsequently places restrictions upon the government from passing laws that infringe on a citizen's right to do so.
The federal government may seek to repeal the 2nd at some point, but even if they succeed, they won't be repealing anyone's right to keep and bear arms because that is not granted by the 2nd, rather it is regarded as inherent to us as human beings.
The idea that right to arms and firearms in particular is some kind of fundamental human right is plainly absurd at its surface. To assert such a thing requires that all humans living in the 12th century and earlier were either having their rights violated by virtue of the gun not having yet been invented or that prior to the gun they were not yet fully human. Even more primitive weapons had some point of origin. I may as well claim have a fundamental right to Ice Cream, a Car or Sunglasses.
People have a fundamental right to life because they're born with their lives. People have a fundamental right to not be made to suffer as we're all born with the capacity for suffering. People have a fundamental right to food, water, air, and reproduction because these are all basic parts of being a living human.
Nobody crawled their mother's crotch clutching a 9mm. We have a right to guns by virtue of the 2nd amendment. Your assertion paints every nation that doesn't have those same protections as a violator of basic human rights. That's somewhere between insulting at best to... I don't even know at worst. I'm bewildered that you'd even try to frame it that way.
Not firearms specifically, but the ability to effectively defend yourself against an aggressor.
A spear or a bow back in the middle ages or earlier was perfectly sufficient. Today, its not. But a hand gun, shotgun, or any other type of firearm is.
To effectively defend myself against an aggressor, be that a corrupt government or a violent intruder, I currently need firearms. That inalienable right is clarified and codified by the 2nd amendment, but its unquestionably a right everyone deserves.
This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place. The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
The Founders, The Founders, The Founders. Jeez Louise I'll never understand this obsession with The Founders.. I swear listening to some people is like watching an episode of DS9. Why the hell should anyone give a crap would the founders would think about anything in today's society? They'd incapable of even comprehending the modern world, much less forming anything resembling relevant opinion about it. They'd be horrified about a lot of things, like that women can vote... and I'm not somebody's personal property.
This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place. The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
The Founders, The Founders, The Founders. Jeez Louise I'll never understand this obsession with The Founders.. I swear listening to some people is like watching an episode of DS9. Why the hell should anyone give a crap would the founders would think about anything in today's society? They'd incapable of even comprehending the modern world, much less forming anything resembling relevant opinion about it. They'd be horrified about a lot of things, like that women can vote... and I'm not somebody's personal property.
Because they wrote the damn Constitution, thus their PoV should be used to interpret what the original document and amendments meant. Obviously changes to the document would use whatever the new context is, but any of the original amendments should certainly use their PoV.
I think you might be selling the founders a little short. If they were alive today they'd comprehend it just as well as anyone else.
For me, a lot of it comes down to the fact that I believe the right to self-defense is a basic human right, and as such a free, law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own a weapon if he wishes. I am suspicious of any government or government official who would move to restrict that right, especially in the US.
Europeans don't want to have weapons, and that's cool for them. Most of them are comfortable with that and don't face all of the same issues that we do in the US that make owning a weapon a more attractive option for some people than simply relying on the police to protect you. When I was living in Europe I didn't feel the need to own or carry a weapon either. In the US, my feelings are different. Having experienced both sides of the coin, I have little patience for Europeans trying to tell me my life in the US would be better if I wasn't able to own a gun. I'm quite able to make that decision for myself.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit the existence of one. It does allow for a federal army, army in this case meaning any armed forces.
No, Army means Army.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
If Armies means "any armed forces" then why does it list Navy as a separate branch of the armed forces if it is already included under Army?
The Army Air Corps was still part of the Army, so it was kosher. But now we have entire branches of the Armed Forces that are not mentioned in the Constitution at all. At least the Marines are somewhat/kinda/sorta/maybe part of the Navy . But there is zero mention of an Air Force or any other flying planes in that document!
Edit: Of course this whole discussion is just to point out that the Constitution is a living breathing document and we can't be stuck with "that's what Founders thought back then and that's that". Pretending that we know what the Founders would have decided if they wrote the thing with all the knowledge that we have today and that it would be exactly the same is a bit silly.
The foundation would still be very similar, but I would imagine that there would also be some major differences.
But why is shooting recycled paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same recycled paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
Stop.
Because we have grown up in a fire arm culture.
Also deer hunting
duck hunting
turkey hunting
elk hunting
moose hunting
ram hunting
Pheasant hunting (almost typed peasant hunting)
boar hunting
bison hunting
bear hunting
...........
we do a lot of damn hunting here. Granted I own fire arms that I am familiar with but I own just to OWN and for peace of mind for the "Oh Hell" moments. Though I shoot more often on the range now then I did when I was active duty since its more fun plinking targets and swapping tales with other shooters.
We do all that hunting and more in Canada with Handguns being rare and AR15s being illegal
But why is shooting recycled paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same recycled paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
Stop.
Because we have grown up in a fire arm culture.
Also deer hunting
duck hunting
turkey hunting
elk hunting
moose hunting
ram hunting
Pheasant hunting (almost typed peasant hunting)
boar hunting
bison hunting
bear hunting
...........
we do a lot of damn hunting here. Granted I own fire arms that I am familiar with but I own just to OWN and for peace of mind for the "Oh Hell" moments. Though I shoot more often on the range now then I did when I was active duty since its more fun plinking targets and swapping tales with other shooters.
We do all that hunting and more in Canada with Handguns being rare and AR15s being illegal
That's your Country laws and regulation hence I will not travel to Canada with my personnel fire arms. Since I own multiple fire arms I must be a very bad person on some people perception. Hell I am even evil for teaching Boy Scouts fire arm safety and Marksmanship
What's even more amazing is that according to the victim the gun was unloaded! That dog must be absolute dynamite, being able to load a pistol without any thumbs!
What's even more amazing is that according to the victim the gun was unloaded! That dog must be absolute dynamite, being able to load a pistol without any thumbs!
2008 RC East Afghanistan. KOP. Some poor NCO came in on a medevac with a bullet wound to his hand. Received the Purple Heart from being shot by one of his guy who fired the SAW at a aggressive dog who's owner was duped out from opium nearby. One of the rounds punched through the dog which in turn hit a rock which ricochet back at the platoon going through the NCO hand. Since the dog belonged to the "Insurgent" for the owner also had a RPG just in the grass by him the NCO was therefore wounded by enemy gunfire for the round that wounded him was "fired back" at him because of an Insurgent dog.
Yes yes it was one funny award to be read out loud. It was one creative wording to pass through the CoC to grant it
Hordini wrote: I think you might be selling the founders a little short.
That's only because people to continue to overstate their importance to modern society.
People talk about the Founders as if they were a monolithic organization of men, all bound by the same set of rigid standards... but they weren't. They were a diverse (for the time at least) group of men with different ideas, views, and values. The fact that they were able to put to paper what they did and get that ratified by all thirteen states was pretty impressive in its own right. How they pictured the United States is important of course, but the world we live in today is nothing like the one they lived in in 1789. It's also wrong to ascribe the title of "genius" to the authors of the Constitution; of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention, that word would only describe, at best, one or two of the men in attendance. Let us also not forget that three of the men present refused to sign the Constitution after it was drafted, so even in the end they all couldn't agree. Not to mention the fact that some of the most influential men that we see as the Founders weren't present at the Convention: Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and John Adams. The bottom line is that none of us can say with any certainty what the authors of the Constitution would say about 21st century America so it's pointless to claim otherwise.
To me, the larger issue is that people revere the Constitution and then men that authored with an almost religious fanaticism to point that people talk about the document in ways no different that theologians do about the Bible or the Qur'an. This often coincides with a belief in the unerring correctness of the authors; an idea that if it were any other group of men at any other point in time in any other place in history, would be met with disdain because men are not perfect.
Hordini wrote: Europeans don't want to have weapons, and that's cool for them. Most of them are comfortable with that and don't face all of the same issues that we do in the US that make owning a weapon a more attractive option for some people than simply relying on the police to protect you. When I was living in Europe I didn't feel the need to own or carry a weapon either.
And that must be where factors like culture and society come in. We have several countries here that have a lot of guns per capita (though not as much as the US), but gun crime is still low. Hell, we have Switzerland where reservists age 18-42 are by law required to keep their government-issue personal weapon at home!
We also have the media, ofc. If they need a US article and can choose between reporting a shooting or writing about the many places where no one has had to brandish a weapon for 40 years, we know which one they'll run. Everyone gets to read about the gun violence, few people even in the US read about that Inuit village where everyone except the cops get to carry guns. Village elders thought cops with guns will shoot people for being drunk and uncooperative so the solution is no guns for the cops. Bring the guy more booze until he falls asleep, he'll be properly ashamed and beg forgiveness when he wakes up. Truly, the USA is a huge country where you might find anything if you look. It's just easier and sells better to print bad news.
What's even more amazing is that according to the victim the gun was unloaded! That dog must be absolute dynamite, being able to load a pistol without any thumbs!
2008 RC East Afghanistan. KOP. Some poor NCO came in on a medevac with a bullet wound to his hand. Received the Purple Heart from being shot by one of his guy who fired the SAW at a aggressive dog who's owner was duped out from opium nearby. One of the rounds punched through the dog which in turn hit a rock which ricochet back at the platoon going through the NCO hand. Since the dog belonged to the "Insurgent" for the owner also had a RPG just in the grass by him the NCO was therefore wounded by enemy gunfire for the round that wounded him was "fired back" at him because of an Insurgent dog.
Yes yes it was one funny award to be read out loud. It was one creative wording to pass through the CoC to grant it
Once saw a video of some guys shooting a .50 cal rifle. One guy fires a shot, and suddenly his ear pro flies off his head. Turns out his shot ricochet back off a rock. A few inches to the side... quite the freak accident.
What's even more amazing is that according to the victim the gun was unloaded! That dog must be absolute dynamite, being able to load a pistol without any thumbs!
2008 RC East Afghanistan. KOP. Some poor NCO came in on a medevac with a bullet wound to his hand. Received the Purple Heart from being shot by one of his guy who fired the SAW at a aggressive dog who's owner was duped out from opium nearby. One of the rounds punched through the dog which in turn hit a rock which ricochet back at the platoon going through the NCO hand. Since the dog belonged to the "Insurgent" for the owner also had a RPG just in the grass by him the NCO was therefore wounded by enemy gunfire for the round that wounded him was "fired back" at him because of an Insurgent dog.
Yes yes it was one funny award to be read out loud. It was one creative wording to pass through the CoC to grant it
Once saw a video of some guys shooting a .50 cal rifle. One guy fires a shot, and suddenly his ear pro flies off his head. Turns out his shot ricochet back off a rock. A few inches to the side... quite the freak accident.
Yeah, I've seen that video. That was both crazy bad luck and crazy good luck striking right at the same time.
So, Matthew tried to start another thread and it got locked since there was already an open thread on the subject. I was in the middle of writing a post in response. Since he seems to be posting in good faith and trying to learn something about firearms in the US, I've decided to post my response here. I did my best to keep it civil. I'm not trying to stir anything up, and I can only speak for myself, but I feel like after taking him to task in this thread, if he's willing to ask some legitimate questions, I'm willing to give him an answer. Try to remember we're all friends here.
Matthew wrote: Since my last attempt at OT-ing failed miserably, I want to take the advice I learned with me. US citizens, I ask thee the following questions:
Exactly what process do you need to go through to buy a normal handgun, say a M1911?
Do you feel safe knowing that every single house (probably) in your neighborhood has a gun?
Or, knowing that atleast half the people on your bus/train are doing concealed carry?
Is it really worth it to have those not-so-strict gun laws, and then hear about shootings every single day?
As a Swede who has only seen weapons on parades, the concept of having to own a weapon to feel safe and protect yourself feels foreign and dumb. I myself trust my government enough to let them do all the protecting bits.
I appreciate that you're trying to educate yourself, so I'm going to do my best to answer your questions as best I can.
To buy a gun (any gun, not just a handgun): The process is going to vary by state. Some states have a mandatory waiting period. In my home state, I can purchase a gun (handgun or otherwise) and walk out with it the same day. However, to the best of my knowledge, in all states, you have to fill out a questionnaire and pass a background check to buy a gun in a gun shop. Even in states that allow you to buy a gun with no waiting period, you have to fill out the background check paperwork, and the salesman calls the background check in. If it is approved, you can buy the gun. If something pops, you'll either be denied the sale or told you have to wait for it to clear. Things like prior felonies and domestic violence misdemeanors will disqualify you from legally purchasing a firearm of any sort. If you buy a weapon to give to someone who you know is unable to purchase a weapon legally, that is considered a straw purchase. Straw purchases are illegal and carry stiff penalties.
I can all but guarantee you that not every house in my neighborhood has a gun, although this varies by region. In my hometown, I wouldn't make the same claim. That said, my hometown is basically a low-income rural area, and I feel safer and more comfortable in my hometown than pretty much anywhere else on the planet (and I've been a lot of places and can fit in well, outside of my home state and country).
I don't ride the bus or train where I currently live, but if I did I would literally bet you every cent that I own that less than half are concealed carrying. In fact, it's far less than half.
To me, it is absolutely worth it to have the right to own firearms. I can sleep at night knowing my wife has a chance to defend herself even if I am not around, because she has access to a firearm. I know that I have the ability to defend myself and my family, even if the police are half an hour away. I can supplement my family's food supply with meat when I hunt. We don't keep chickens anymore, but when I was a child we did. If we decide to do so again, I have the ability to deal with pests that would threaten them, such as raccoons, possums, and coyotes.
Literally every single adult male in my family owns at least one firearm (most of them own more than one), and not a single one of them is a criminal. Keep in mind that I also have friends who come from families in which not a single person owns a firearm. Experiences vary widely based on background and upbringing.
Guns are a pain in the arse to get a holdof in australia, as I believe you pretty muc have to report bullet count, type and usage to a parole officer every month, and if you fail to do so the firearm becomes forfeit. Ausralians also do not have the right to bear arms against a corrupt government. funnily enoguh, I'm not sure how knives work in other country, but in australia you an buy fishing knives that are pretty well machetes (known as shark knives or fish-gut knives) from our equivalent of a dollar store and carry it on your person at most times. personally, I just have a rather sharp screw driver in my pocket whenever I leave the house.
You most definitely can't carry a knife without reason, at least in QLD. I think you need to do more research before you come up with things like that. And as to the screwdriver, definitely make sure you can legally carry that before you go crowing about what you're carrying.
I am suddenly very confused.
I will be back after consulting both my fisherman grandfather and the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: well I have no idea what happened there but I was very very wrong. That wa the stupidest thing I've said in the last two months.
also, the screw driver I carry with me is a very small palm-fitting one, the kind used to unscrew tiny toy cars.
I carry it primarily in case my school bag islocked to a fence (you wouldn't believe how common this happens) and otherwise simply just in case. I also carry a small torch, notepad and a small bag of coffee beans at all times.
the shrouded lord wrote: I am suddenly very confused.
I will be back after consulting both my fisherman grandfather and the internet.
No idea about Australia, but around here you're not supposed to be carrying knives or other dangerous tools in public without a proper reason. A construction worker with sharp stuff in his toolbelt is OK in a store, even if he's supposed to leave the belt in the car etc while buying a snack or coffee. Your fishing knife will pass if you're obviously on your way to/from fishing. Pen knives, swiss army knife, multi-tool? OK, usually. Switchblades, butterfly knives and any number of more-or-less silly martial arts weapons? No way, unless they're in your bag with the training suit and you're on your way to or from the dojo.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: To me, the larger issue is that people revere the Constitution and then men that authored with an almost religious fanaticism to point that people talk about the document in ways no different that theologians do about the Bible or the Qur'an. This often coincides with a belief in the unerring correctness of the authors; an idea that if it were any other group of men at any other point in time in any other place in history, would be met with disdain because men are not perfect.
Well said. I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of the Constitution as etched in stone, and really, as something other than a template of laws as you put it above; but of course we've had little qualms previously about updating it to keep it in line with evolving social mores, and theres no reason that could not happen again.
motyak wrote: And as to the screwdriver, definitely make sure you can legally carry that before you go crowing about what you're carrying.
Even in the US, carrying around a screwdriver in some venues can get you arrested for possession of burglary tools. Most places require that plus intent but some don't.
You can most definitely get arrested in many areas in the US for carrying a knife, depending on the local code. Generally speaking I think most places here would consider a knife of any kind with a blade over 4 inches in a pocket here to be a carrying concealed weapon, which requires permitting just like a firearm.
Matthew wrote: Since my last attempt at OT-ing failed miserably, I want to take the advice I learned with me. US citizens, I ask thee the following questions:
1. Exactly what process do you need to go through to buy a normal handgun, say a M1911?
2. Do you feel safe knowing that every single house (probably) in your neighborhood has a gun?
3. Or, knowing that atleast half the people on your bus/train are doing concealed carry?
I4. s it really worth it to have those not-so-strict gun laws, and then hear about shootings every single day?
As a Swede who has only seen weapons on parades, the concept of having to own a weapon to feel safe and protect yourself feels foreign and dumb. I myself trust my government enough to let them do all the protecting bits.
1. Varies by county and state. Generally you submit to a background check through a federal database and fill out some forms. Some places it is more difficult (or impossible).
2. Yep. Granted, I live in a rural area. Hearing the neighbors cap a deer on their property, or target shoot, or blow away a rattler or water moccasin happens.
3. Don't ride a bus or train. I suspect you are again using hyperbole. I would bet a paycheck there are not many busses (and less trains) with 50% concealed carry unless it is a group of off duty cops riding it. Heck, I would bet any random bus search nets you less than 5% carrying, and less than that legal. But the reality is even if it was 100% all the time every time, Who Cares? If they are abiding by the law you NEVER see or know they are carrying.
4. Yep. Except regardless of your hyperbole, the laws are strict. Disobey them and get caught and you wind up in a world of hurt.
You can most definitely get arrested in many areas in the US for carrying a knife, depending on the local code. Generally speaking I think most places here would consider a knife of any kind with a blade over 4 inches in a pocket here to be a carrying concealed weapon, which requires permitting just like a firearm.
Everyplace I have lived considers all kinds of things 'weapons' when applying concealed or open carry laws. Knives, stun guns/tazers, pepper spray and more are often covered by these laws.
Matthew wrote: Since my last attempt at OT-ing failed miserably, I want to take the advice I learned with me. US citizens, I ask thee the following questions:
1. Exactly what process do you need to go through to buy a normal handgun, say a M1911?
2. Do you feel safe knowing that every single house (probably) in your neighborhood has a gun?
3. Or, knowing that atleast half the people on your bus/train are doing concealed carry?
I4. s it really worth it to have those not-so-strict gun laws, and then hear about shootings every single day?
As a Swede who has only seen weapons on parades, the concept of having to own a weapon to feel safe and protect yourself feels foreign and dumb. I myself trust my government enough to let them do all the protecting bits.
As for PA (Pennsylvania):
1. PA is a cash and carry state. We go into the store, pick out the gun we want, they call in the background check, and IF it's a pass you take the gun home same day.
2. I live in middle of nowhere, so I'd be comfortable saying everyone in my neighborhood (all 20 houses in 5 miles) owns a gun. Farms and livestock need to be protected from coyotes (we have been getting more and more every year), and we have a gun club about 10 miles down the road with a range to shoot at.
3. To get a concealed carry permit you have to submit an application to your local sheriff's office, where they look into you (even check your facebook page). A few weeks later if they can't find a reason to deny you you get a legit license in the mail. Also, most trains near me to into Philadelphia, where conceal carry is illegal (you can open carry if you have a CCP, which is a horrible idea).
4. Our gun laws work fine, its the people enforcing them that are lax. And YOU hear about shootings every day. I hear about people dying from car accidents, poisoning, stabbings, and ceramic squirrel related incidents.
On topic though. I feel that purse carrying is a poor decision personally. It was tragic, but easily preventable.
Matthew wrote: Since my last attempt at OT-ing failed miserably, I want to take the advice I learned with me. US citizens, I ask thee the following questions:
Exactly what process do you need to go through to buy a normal handgun, say a M1911?
Do you feel safe knowing that every single house (probably) in your neighborhood has a gun?
Or, knowing that atleast half the people on your bus/train are doing concealed carry?
Is it really worth it to have those not-so-strict gun laws, and then hear about shootings every single day?
As a Swede who has only seen weapons on parades, the concept of having to own a weapon to feel safe and protect yourself feels foreign and dumb. I myself trust my government enough to let them do all the protecting bits.
The following is my understanding pecifically concerning the State of Indiana, and from someone who moved to the US from a country without a culture of (lawful) firearm ownership.
1. The process to buy a handgun is that you go to the Federal Firearm Licensed store. There you can peruse the selection on offer. Some stores may have a range attached so you can rent the same model as the one you are interested in and try it prior to purchase. When your selection has been made the store clerk with have you fill out a form known as 4773. The purpose of this form is to determine if you are a "proper person" for the purposes of firearm ownership. Lying on this form is a Federal offense and carries a lengthy jail term of up to 10 years, and a possible fine of $250,000
Once you have completed this form the store clerk will phone up the FBI to conduct a background check through a system known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for short. All sales of firearms are subject to approval through this system. If a gun store sells to someone who fails a background check then they have committed a felony and will have some not insignificant explaining to do to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF)
2. Does every house in my street have a gun? Probably not. Do I feel safer? That is entirely subjective, but I can say that I do not feel that any of my neighbours are a threat to me or my family.
3. I don't take the bus or train on any sort of consistent basis, but the times that I have taken it I have been unconcerned as to whether or not someone may have had a firearm. What I am more concerned about are the behaviours exhibited by others on the vehicle. That determines whether or not I perceive them as a threat, not what inanimate object they possess.
As an aside Indiana goes not issue concealed carry permits. You may apply for a 4 year handgun permit, or a lifetime carry permit. Whether or not the licence holder carries the firearm openly or concealed is at their discretion, and not proscribed by law. In the almost three years I have lived in Indiana I have seen open carry once.
4. I would dis-agree that the gun laws are not so strict. Failure to comply with them is a Federal offense, a felony, and carries significant jail time. Those in Indiana who have permits have been adjudicated to be of good character, good mental health, not felons, are not domestic abusers, and are not alcohol or drug abusers. Do shootings occur daily, based on the statistics yes. But often these shootings are carried out by those who are not "proper" and who are statutorily disbarred from possessing a firearm.
Some miscellaneous points I want to take this time to clear up some other misconceptions that often get repeated during talks about firearms.
1. "Anyone can buy a machine gun/assault rifle and walk out with it the same day"
This is patently untrue. To clarify matters first an assault rifle is typically considered to be a select fire rifle, that is chambered in an intermediate cartridge, and fires from a detachable magazine. Many journalists and other commentators wrongly claim that an AR15 is an assault rifle. While it matches two of the three criteria it is not select fire. The fire control system on an AR15 limits the selector switch to 'Safe' or 'Semi-automatic'. It cannot fire bursts, or in automatic settings. An AR15 is no different to any other semi automatic rifle on the market.
To return to the topic at hand machine guns/assault rifles are not readily available, and a purchaser must obtain permission from the ATF and buy the firearm from a Class 3 Dealer. There is a very long, laborious process for the purchaser to go through that involves fees, more background checks, finger printing, photographing, and the sign off from the chief of your local police.
Robert recently posted an article on a question posed to a guest by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer:
“On Thursday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked guest [lawyer] Jeffrey Toobin why police weren’t instructed to ‘shoot to injure, instead of kill,’ talkingpointsmemo.com reports. “Blitzer’s questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. ‘They often shoot to kill,’ Blitzer said of police. ‘Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why can’t they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think they’re in danger. Why can’t they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill?’”
Blitzer’s question is, sadly, all too common . . .
Americans are treated to a steady stream of good guys purposely and casually wounding bad guys, usually in the shoulder. On TV and in the movies, such beyond-Olympic-level shooting always disarms and incapacitates the bad guy, and when the good guy is similarly wounded, they are barely inconvenienced and heal with amazing speed.
Not only is this sort of shooting incredibly dangerous to good guys and innocent bystanders, it’s almost always legally disastrous. In addition, any survivable gunshot wound may have life-long health implications. As regular readers may remember from an earlier article, one shoots to stop an attacker, to immediately–to whatever degree that is possible–cause them to cease the hostile actions that made the use of deadly force legally permissible. For the purposes of this article, we’ll assume that all legal burdens have been met. The good guy, under the laws in force when and where he has to shoot, is legally in the right when he pulls the trigger. But how is he going to accomplish his purpose: stopping the bad guy?
There are three primary means of stopping a human being:
Neural damage
Breaking the skeleton
Exsanguination
There are, however, many other considerations.
1) Neural Damage: causing trauma to the brain usually causes immediate cessation of hostile action. In fact, SWAT marksmen try for a brain stem shot whenever possible. They try to hit a hostage-taker exactly where the brain and brain stem meet, at the base of the rear of the skull. If properly placed, a bullet to this spot will cause the potential killer to drop as though a light switch had been thrown. Even if they have their finger on the trigger of a gun, they will not be able to pull it.
Unfortunately, this area is a very small target. In fact, relatively speaking, the human head is also a small target, particularly if it’s moving at all. Notice too that I’m talking about a highly trained marksman making the shot with a scoped, highly accurate rifle, almost always with the benefit of a spotter and from a supported position. Accurately shooting a handgun at the same target, even at close range, is much more demanding.
In addition, the target will seldom present the back of his skull to the shooter and stand still long enough for a perfect shot to be made. Marksmen commonly have to estimate where that tiny spot is while shooting from the front, side, above or below, or various angles of the same.
2) Breaking the skeleton: while breaking a femur or the pelvis, for example, will cause most people to drop to the ground, they may very well still be capable of pulling a trigger. And if so, have merely been rendered less mobile, not stopped. Making such shots with any degree of reliability with a handgun is exceedingly difficult, not only because such targets are small, but also because people move more or less constantly and the precise location of a major, load-bearing bone in a given person’s leg may be difficult, at best, to determine. It’s also particularly difficult because, compared with rifle ammunition, most handgun ammunition lacks the power to reliably break large bones.
3) Exsanguination: someone shot in an artery, or even the heart, may have up to three minutes of useful consciousness if they are truly determined to kill you regardless of the damage they suffer in the attempt. However, once sufficient blood is lost, the resulting drop in blood pressure will inevitably lead to unconsciousness and ultimately death.
Of course, a combination of these three primary effects may be more effective and faster in stopping hostile action.
Fortunately, such matters are not only physical, but psychological. Many people, upon receiving even an easily survivable gunshot wound, immediately drop and cease hostile action due to the “OMG! I’ve been shot!” response. Others–thankfully relatively few–may absorb ridiculous numbers of bullets which might slow, but not stop them, as they try to continue their deadly attacks. This is frequently assisted by drugs present in their system. Such people eventually succumb to one or more of these effects, but “eventually” is not helpful or comforting if they are attacking you.
The best course of action is to aim for “center mass,” or the part of the torso at or around the sternum, and fire enough rounds to force the attacker to stop. It’s the cumulative affect of blood vessel damage, neural shock, and psychological shock that will have the greatest effect, therefore more than one round may be necessary.
Keep in mind that it is always a good idea, even if you cannot avoid or escape a potential deadly force situation, to do your best to avoid shooting. Always remember that when the justification to shoot ends, the shooting immediately ends.
You must never think about “shooting to wound,” let alone try to do it. The law doesn’t require it, and it will be highly likely to backfire for several significant reasons. Obtaining the desired stopping effect with a shot that inflicts only a non-mortal wound is highly unlikely and could conceivably enrage an attacker who will then press an attack he might have otherwise abandoned. The necessary physical damage and psychological effect is simply not there, and making such a shot accurately is highly unlikely.
In fight-or-flight situations, among the first abilities human beings lose–which accompany time distortion, tunneling and hearing loss–is fine muscle control. This makes it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the intention to shoot someone effectively in a small portion of the body so as to immediately disable them, to say nothing of actually carrying out that intention. For most people, it’s simply physically impossible. There are many documented incidents of police officers–people supposedly highly trained in marksmanship and the use of deadly force–emptying their handguns at criminals doing the same from ridiculously close range. When the gunsmoke cleared, both weren’t touched; every round missed. Hitting center mass will be more than hard enough, but with proper training and practice, attainable.
An additional concern is that in the heat of battle, many people suffer serious wounds, but are unaware of it until the danger has passed. Despite suffering multiple gunshot wounds that might eventually kill them, they didn’t so much as feel the bullets hit them. Some people may be so high on drugs they’re incapable of feeing anything. Shooting an arm or leg will likely do nothing more than make a dangerous felon who’s intent on killing you somewhat less mobile, but no less deadly. Hitting center mass will maximize the probability of quickly stopping a dangerous attacker—whether they feel it or not.
Also, substantial legal liability may attach. If you were so cool and detached that you could shoot someone in the knee, did you really have sufficient reason to shoot them in the first place? If you really thought that you were in mortal danger, why did you take the time to shoot them someplace that any reasonable person should know wouldn’t reliably stop them?
Yes, stopping them will likely result in their death, but you didn’t intend to cause their death. You intended only to stop them from causing yours. That they subsequently died is regrettable, but they made that choice and forced it upon you. You aren’t the attacker, but an innocent victim who will be affected for the rest of your life by the action they brutally forced on you.
In all cases, if you shoot at all, you shoot to stop, and you accomplish this by delivering a sufficient volume of accurate fire to that part of the body most likely to cause them to stop. When the threat has stopped, you immediately stop.
At this point, you may find yourself experiencing some degree of revulsion. If so, good for you. You have a conscience. I can’t say often enough that no moral, rational human being wants to harm or kill another. Violence is cruel, nasty, hateful and bloody, but the choice is simple and stark: do you prefer to be alive and unharmed, or bleeding, perhaps dying on the ground, at the mercy of someone cruel and inhuman enough to attack you? Which alternative would you prefer for those you love? Which of these outcomes is morally superior?
Deadly force encounters aren’t scripted scenes in movies. They’re as deadly serious as any human interaction can be, and the loser frequently winds up assuming ambient temperature. Leave shooting to wound to the movies. An action hero’s job is to sell popcorn, and they don’t have to aim and shoot under pressure. They can afford the luxury of shooting to wound. You can’t, regardless of what Wolf Blitzer thinks.
After a self-defense shooting where the aggressor dies, we often hear the same questions asked time and again.
“He didn’t have a weapon. Why was he shot in the chest/head?”
“He only had a bat/knife/fist. Why wasn’t he shot in the shoulder/arm?”
“Why didn’t they just shooting him in the arm/leg?”
When specifically discussing a shooting involving a uniformed law enforcement officer with his duty belt full of tools, we often hear, “Why didn’t they use pepper spray/nightstick/taser instead of a gun?”
One person in a unique position to answer that question is Michael Yon.
Yon is a former Green Beret who left the service after killing a much larger man in a bar fight in self-defense with a single punch.
He then worked private security, including Michael Jackson’s personal security detail.
He is best known, however, as a combat journalist.
Yon rose to prominence during the hottest parts of the Iraq war nearly a decade ago, when he embedded with American and British combat units who experienced heavy fighting. During one battle particular battle in Mosul, Iraq, Yon witnessed an American officer and an insurgent both take multiple serious hits and keep fighting as Yon kept snapping photos.
The ensuing article, Gates of Fire, is one of Yon’s most widely read articles (and is well worth a read).
Yon went on to spend more time embedded in combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other journalist in either war. He’s seen a lot of fighting.
Here are his thoughts on “shooting to wound.”
Ferguson: Why did the officer not shoot Brown in the legs?
Many people are innocently asking this question. The answer could go on for pages, but to be succinct, a couple handfuls of reasons:
1) This ain’t the movies
2) Most police do not fire their weapons much. Most are not great shots.
3) He would have to be an incredible shot to be crazy enough to fire wounding shots.
4) Nearly all firefights are “stress shoots.” The other guy is moving. Heart is beating fast, often out of breath. The officer in Ferguson had just been punched in the face and had been in a wrestling match for his pistol, according to him.
5) Bullets that miss can hit someone else.
6) You always are low on ammo, and you do not want to waste a single bullet.
7) Time spent reloading is dangerous
8) I have seen many people shot who kept fighting. Shot with weapons far more powerful than any officer’s pistol. Many police and combat troops have seen this and will verify.
9) Police and Soldiers never train to shoot to wound. (None that I know of.) All combat shots are center mass of any part of the target that you can see. If you see only a foot. Shoot the foot. If you see a chest — aim for the middle. That is the way troops and police train. If the officer is pointing his pistol at someone, he is one click away from going lethal. There is no in between.
10) This ain’t the movies.
During the firefight at the link below, I was photographing when two people were shot a total of seven times. Two men, shot seven times. (US Soldier three times, al Qaeda four times with M4 point blank.)
After the US Soldier was hit three times in front of me, he continued to fight well. He was hit badly at nearly point blank. The al Qaeda terrorist was hit 4x times. He was still standing trying to shoot. One shot took off a testicle, and then he got tackled by a US Soldier, and despite being hit 4x, he then engaged in aggressive hand to hand combat.
Again, this ain’t the movies…
Police officers and self-defense shooters all learn the same thing: you shoot to stop the threat. The best way to stop that threat is to put bullets in the largest possible part of the body (typically, the upper torso). If that fails to stop the threat, you then rely on your “failure drill” training and move to the head, and if that fails, the pelvis. You “work the problem” by moving your shots from the torso to the head and pelvis.
Killing isn’t a goal, but it is often a side effect of an aggressor who refuses to comply with lawful commands and who continues to demand ballistic attention.
If you don’t want to be shot, you shouldn’t attack other human beings, especially those who are armed.
Yeah the whole "shoot to wound" thing is really unrealistic.
No police force in the world trains for that, and there are very valid reasons for it. An olympic quality marksman might be able to do something like that reliably in a situation that tense, but even a well trained policeman is more than likely just going to miss his target- which is dangerous to everyone else in the vicinity. Aiming for the centre body mass (ie. the biggest target) is the safest thing for the officer and anyone else in the area.
Good post Dreadclaw. Great to see the effort people put into having a civil discussion.
I would actually say Olympic shooters would be less likely to be able to pull such a thing off. Olympic shooters train in controlled environments and aren't expecting to have to shoot at people. The absolute opposite of a life and death situation.
If people who actually expect to have to shoot at hostile people can't do it, nobody can.
Yeah fair enough. I meant that only extremely skilled shooters would be able to do that. Your average soldier or policeman isn't extremely highly skilled, and probably doesn't have the time to dedicate to becoming that skilled, even if they had the natural aptitude. That's why I said "olympic quality" rather than "olympic". Once saw an olympic markswoman shooting clay pigeons with a handgun, which is pretty spectacularly impressive.
A bus full of people, did nothing but try to run away. I'm not attacking the people, just saying that even with dozens of others around, know one did anything for someone holding a knife. This same thing would happen in Sweden, Britain, etc...
Would someone with a concealed handgun stopped that? Maybe. They at least would have had a chance to, instead of no chance at all.
Matthew wrote: Since my last attempt at OT-ing failed miserably, I want to take the advice I learned with me. US citizens, I ask thee the following questions:
Exactly what process do you need to go through to buy a normal handgun, say a M1911?
Do you feel safe knowing that every single house (probably) in your neighborhood has a gun?
Or, knowing that atleast half the people on your bus/train are doing concealed carry?
Is it really worth it to have those not-so-strict gun laws, and then hear about shootings every single day?
As a Swede who has only seen weapons on parades, the concept of having to own a weapon to feel safe and protect yourself feels foreign and dumb. I myself trust my government enough to let them do all the protecting bits.
- Honestly, I've never bought one. Others can comment much more easily. From reputation, you have to qualify to be able to per your state's regulations surrounding it, which involves background checks and sometimes a license specifically for gun ownership, and then there's usually a waiting period with the premise that you can't just buy one out of anger and then waste the guy who pissed you off.
- I don't necessarily feel safe because of it, however I don't necessarily feel unsafe. It's just a thing. Guns are mentally put into the same category as cars and power tools for me. They are bought to serve a very specific purpose for the owner, and while dangerous, at the end of the day, they're just tools.
- This is an interesting one. I know morons who I work with who carry guns in to work though that's a HUGE nono. They're morons apart from that too. I'm less cool about that, but they don't make noise about wanting to use them, so I don't let it get to me much. Like if a guy carried his reciprocating saw around with him everywhere because it "made him safe", I just kind of nod and smile and think "ooookay dude, whatever you gotta do for yourself." To your point of on a bus or train? It's a public enough area, so no, don't really dwell on it much. They might be carrying. They might not. At that point, the more carrying, possibly the better, because then people of that mindset will be less inclined to act. I don't think I've seen a gun in public other than holstered to a cop in the 7 years I've lived in St. Louis, which is supposed to be all scary and crime ridden. It's also the capital of Missouri. I bring that up because a running joke I've heard about Missouri is that you're basically handed your first gun when you get your driver's license.
- Honestly, sometimes I wonder if it's worth it. Not because shootings happen every single day, just because I tire of the agenda of the press blowing it up so much more largely than it should. What I mean by that is that they don't care about the loss of human life. If they did, they'd be covering the almost 100 people a day that die in this country from car accidents, not the one woman who got shot under ironic and possibly irresponsible means a week ago.
- To your final comment about trusting the government, we have a much less hands off approach to cops than I wonder if you do. To relate an anecdote, I called in a domestic dispute that was going on with my neighbor. He was physically assaulting his girlfriend in their car, outside their apartment across from a crowded bar. I was walking home after a walk and heard it, so I called the cops and sat out on my balcony telling the 911 dispatcher about how I'm watching him actually hitting her and that this seemed pretty serious. They took 40 minutes to show up. I'm not saying that a gun would have made that situation better; it wouldn't have. But I'm saying that it took them 40 minutes to show for a woman being beaten. I'm not enough of a tough guy to get involved, and apparently neither was anyone else at the crowded bar, so no one was heroes here, but I don't think the anyone would have stepped up or the cops would have gotten there faster if she was getting cut. And this was in a more upscale area that is supposed to get patrolled often. My point is that sometimes you have to have the means to protect yourself (here, at least) because ultimately, someone might be able to arrest the criminal involved, but they're not going to show up in time to stop the crime from happening.
Even though shootings make the headlines, they're still incredibly rare events. And school shootings are miniscule even just within total firearm deaths/injuries.
In the US in 2010, 480,000 people died from smoking. Only 11,068 people died in a Firearm Homicide in that same year.
43 times more people die because of smoking(including second hand smoke) than are killed with firearms. This is despite very aggressive campaigns of education and general public knowledge that smoking kills.
The number of firearm deaths is miniscule, only 3.6 per 100,000. Its not a problem in any way, shape, or form.
Saying it's not a problem in any way shape or form is hyperbole. Rather, it's a problem you are willing to accept vs. the benefits of having many firearms.
Da Boss wrote: Saying it's not a problem in any way shape or form is hyperbole. Rather, it's a problem you are willing to accept vs. the benefits of having many firearms.
The risk of firearms have been ORM'd, and found to be acceptable.
Da Boss wrote: Saying it's not a problem in any way shape or form is hyperbole. Rather, it's a problem you are willing to accept vs. the benefits of having many firearms.
Not really.
When the total number of deaths for one cause is roughly the same as another cause's margin of error you can safely say its not a problem.
Well, any cause of preventable death is a problem. It just depends whether you think it is a big problem or a small problem, surely.
Unless you're of the opinion that we have too many humans and therefore some of them dying in preventable situations is a good thing. Which is a fair cop.
the shrouded lord wrote: I am suddenly very confused.
I will be back after consulting both my fisherman grandfather and the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: well I have no idea what happened there but I was very very wrong. That wa the stupidest thing I've said in the last two months.
also, the screw driver I carry with me is a very small palm-fitting one, the kind used to unscrew tiny toy cars.
I carry it primarily in case my school bag islocked to a fence (you wouldn't believe how common this happens) and otherwise simply just in case. I also carry a small torch, notepad and a small bag of coffee beans at all times.
In australia you're allowed to defend yourself but not protect yourself. The former being a reactive as a situation occurs, the latter being a proactive to better defend yourself should a situation occur. Once you start carrying anything with the intent to use it to defend yourself at a future date, you're breaking the law. That's why things like capsicum spray, tasers, etc, are illegal for private citizens.
Grey Templar wrote: Even though shootings make the headlines, they're still incredibly rare events. And school shootings are miniscule even just within total firearm deaths/injuries.
This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?
Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.
I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.
Grey Templar wrote: Even though shootings make the headlines, they're still incredibly rare events. And school shootings are miniscule even just within total firearm deaths/injuries.
This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?
Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.
I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.
Of course they matter, but not in the gun debate. They're tragic events and I do feel for people who've lost loved ones in them, but they have no relevance in the debate over guns.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah the whole "shoot to wound" thing is really unrealistic. No police force in the world trains for that.
Ours seem pretty good at stopping armed people with a leg shot, though sometimes a suspect who doesn't give up is severely wounded or killed. Then again, they're also pretty fast at closing off areas so that bystanders aren't at risk, after which one can try reasoning with the suspect. Even heavy criminals will rarely point a gun at police so they can afford to try words first. IIRC they fired a total of six shots in the line of duty in 2013, and had to brandish a gun a few dozen times in total.
Ofc, we have less police in this country of ~5.5 million people than any major US city. And way less handguns either legal or illegal.
Hordini wrote: When I was living in Europe I didn't feel the need to own or carry a weapon either.
Tell me more. What made you make this decision?
Make what decision? To not own a weapon? The fact that I had a residence permit and respected the laws of the country in which I was living was certainly enough reason for me. As a non-citizen, I don't think me owning a weapon legally would have even been possible, and if it was, all the legal hoops I would have had to jump through and all the time and money I would have had to spend wouldn't have been worth it, especially considering virtually no one else had a weapon either. I was quite busy and focused on other things, and was traveling a lot, and wouldn't have spent the money on a weapon even if the laws of the country I was in were the same as in the US. I was living in an urban area with no way to store it or transport it properly either, so basically it would have been nothing more than a waste of money and a pain in the arse. I'm also generally pretty good at avoiding trouble.
It wasn't even something I really thought about at the time. I probably have spent more time thinking about it while writing this post than I ever did when I was over there. In the US, it's different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Well, any cause of preventable death is a problem. It just depends whether you think it is a big problem or a small problem, surely.
Unless you're of the opinion that we have too many humans and therefore some of them dying in preventable situations is a good thing. Which is a fair cop.
It also depends on whether or not you believe passing laws to restrict ownership would actually prevent the problem, and not just deprive citizens of their property (in many cases very expensive property, I might add) and civil rights. As has been pointed out, there are many other things that cause way more accidental, preventable deaths than firearms that are even less restricted, such as swimming pools.
It also depends on whether or not you believe passing laws to restrict ownership would actually prevent the problem, and not just deprive citizens of their property (in many cases very expensive property, I might add) and civil rights.
Guns are also sort of an heirloom item. Less so than other people than have things dating crazy back, my grandfather has a .38 that's been in the family since the late 1800s, if I'm getting my facts straight.
That's a good point as well. I know a several people who have firearms that were given to them that used to belong to their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers. I don't care what your feelings on firearms are, asking someone to give something like that up is a big deal.
Redcruisair wrote: This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?
Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.
I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.
No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context. In the United States; 100 people PER DAY die in car accidents 2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires 167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade
The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).
It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade
The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).
It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.
But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade
The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).
It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.
So then we can go back to cigarettes and alcohol...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No one is trying to diminish the loss of life that occur in these tragic events. What we are trying to do is to put them in context.
In the United States;
100 people PER DAY die in car accidents
2,640 people PER YEAR die from house fires
167 people died from mass shootings… in the last decade
The problem with that 'context' is you imply that things like handguns are as necessary to everyday living as cars and cooking, and a lot of people would disagree with that. In the UK handguns are completely illegal, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are incredibly rare (only 1 since handguns were banned 19 years ago).
It is not just about the number of deaths, it is also about how needless the deaths are.
So then we can go back to cigarettes and alcohol...
Hordini wrote: But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.
Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.
Hordini wrote: But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.
Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.
Yet so many "civilized" people see it as "the moral thing to do"...
Many "civilized" people used to think burning people to death for proposing that the world might revolve around the sun and not the other way around. I've never understood how punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is supposed to keep people safe.
djones520 wrote: So then we can go back to cigarettes and alcohol...
Or motorcycles.
Well those things are not a shield for guns to hide behind. Cigarettes are a terrible curse on humanity, many smokers wish they'd never started. Millions of people struggle with alcohol addiction, and addicts, alcohol causes a lot of social issues and expense. And motorcycles are indeed dangerous.
I'm not going to say that any of those things should be outright banned, and I'm not saying guns should be banned either. But none of these things are just fine a dandy by any standard. It is worth discussing how to make all these things safer, and how much control people have over the dangers.
I would not expect be exposed to the dangers of passive smoking in a Walmart (in the UK it would be a health and safety violation). Why should I have to be exposed to potential firearm accidents?
Hordini wrote: But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.
Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.
Yet so many "civilized" people see it as "the moral thing to do"...
Probably because it happens all the time? Most laws are based around removing the choice or right to do something.
Speed limits, for example. Why can't law abiding citizens decide for themselves whether they want to drive at 40 or 140?
Torga_DW wrote: Many "civilized" people used to think burning people to death for proposing that the world might revolve around the sun and not the other way around. I've never understood how punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is supposed to keep people safe.
It's not supposed to keep people safe, It's supposed to make politicians look good by giving the impression that they are actually doing something about a supposed "problem" and are therefore worthy of re-election.
But y'know, that evil NRA just keeps stopping them from banning everything. Couldn't possibly be that most of us want our rights left alone and for the government to bugger off and keep their noses out of our gun safes.
Hordini wrote: But you also need to take into account the massive number of guns in circulation in the US, and what suddenly making handguns illegal would mean. Handguns are legal in the US, and yet the world keeps on turning, and spree killings are rare. Law-abiding citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have a firearm.
Absolutely. Limiting, or worse abolishing, the rights of millions of people because of the unlawful actions of a few is completely disproportionate.
Yet so many "civilized" people see it as "the moral thing to do"...
Probably because it happens all the time? Most laws are based around removing the choice or right to do something.
Speed limits, for example. Why can't law abiding citizens decide for themselves whether they want to drive at 40 or 140?
Again with the speed limit comparisons
I'll say it once more, and please try to understand because I'm not going to parrot it:
We have the right to bear arms. We do not have the right to drive 140mph. We don't even have a right to drive. It is a ridiculous comparison.
Grey Templar wrote: Even though shootings make the headlines, they're still incredibly rare events. And school shootings are miniscule even just within total firearm deaths/injuries.
In the US in 2010, 480,000 people died from smoking. Only 11,068 people died in a Firearm Homicide in that same year.
43 times more people die because of smoking(including second hand smoke) than are killed with firearms. This is despite very aggressive campaigns of education and general public knowledge that smoking kills.
The number of firearm deaths is miniscule, only 3.6 per 100,000. Its not a problem in any way, shape, or form.
Do you not think that the picture would look better, without those 11,068 deaths?
It would be interesting to see what the figures would be for 'lives altered' on top of that; those wounded in some shape or form that alters both their lives and the people around them, or the families left destroyed by those deaths.
I'm not questioning what is undeniably a part of US culture, and what has come about and continues to persist for a myriad of reasons. But, I just can't understand where this 'isn't a problem' attitude comes from. Look at some of the graphs below, look what kind of company the US is keeping, and tell me that's something somehow acceptable considering we are talking about the richest country in the world, and leader of science, technology and industry?
All of those numbers are still far lower than other causes of death.
If guns were truly this huge problem, they should at least be comparable to other causes of death. But its far lower than others, thus it can't be all that big of a problem.
Redcruisair wrote: This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?
Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.
I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.
It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.
Redcruisair wrote: This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?
Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.
I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.
It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.
Damnit Peregrine, I really hate agreeing with you.
Redcruisair wrote: This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?
Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.
I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.
It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.
Damnit Peregrine, I really hate agreeing with you.
Pacific wrote: Do you not think that the picture would look better, without those 11,068 deaths?
Of course it would, but how do you prevent them? Keep in mind that a gang member can still get an illegal gun even if guns are 100% banned, an abusive spouse can still use a different weapon, etc. It's not as easy as just saying "ban guns and those 11k people are still alive".
Assuming those statistics are accurate, it's interesting how most of those places with the high number of firearm homicides are coincidentally the same places with the tightest gun control in the country.
I think part of the problem is the bill of rights. How many countries actually have such a thing built into their consitution? I'm seeing (google) 196 countries in the world and maybe 15 (tops) with an actual bill of rights. The perspective of someone who has assumed individual rights built into their governmental and legal systems is probably going to be different to someone who doesn't.
I wasn't really advocating for tighter gun control laws when I said that deaths from guns were a problem.
I mean, lots of things are problematic, but we don't need laws to control them. We can just accept that some amount of risk or damage is worth the freedom or usefulness of the problematic thing. And like Hordini says, sometimes we just can't control problems with laws. I could start listing stuff here, but I figure everyone reading this is smart enough to think of their own examples.
I just felt Grey Templar was being a bit hyperbolic in his defense of his position, and since someone would surely point it out if someone anti-gun did that, I felt obliged to say so
Alex C wrote: Assuming those statistics are accurate, it's interesting how most of those places with the high number of firearm homicides are coincidentally the same places with the tightest gun control in the country.
I wouldn't assume too much from that, because we don't know which is the cause and which is the effect. Is it the case that strict gun control has no effect on homicide rates (or even makes them worse), or is it simply the case that places with high homicide rates tend to pass strict gun control laws in an attempt to reduce that rate? Or is it about politics, where cities tend to lean left and also have the strongest factors that encourage violent crime (completely independent of their political bias), while rural areas tend to lean right and don't share those crime-producing factors.
Pacific wrote: Do you not think that the picture would look better, without those 11,068 deaths?
Of course it would, but how do you prevent them? Keep in mind that a gang member can still get an illegal gun even if guns are 100% banned, an abusive spouse can still use a different weapon, etc. It's not as easy as just saying "ban guns and those 11k people are still alive".
I think you have to start by wanting a change. No one said it would be easy, it could take a hundred years, but it needs to start somewhere. The problem is there are a lot of people that are so caught up in the idea of someone taking their guns away, that they don't even want to look at the big picture.
Torga_DW wrote: I think part of the problem is the bill of rights. How many countries actually have such a thing built into their consitution? I'm seeing (google) 196 countries in the world and maybe 15 (tops) with an actual bill of rights. The perspective of someone who has assumed individual rights built into their governmental and legal systems is probably going to be different to someone who doesn't.
I don't think it's really about the explicit bill of rights. People in the US have been pretty apathetic about (or even strongly in favor of) things like the 4th and 5th amendment protections being weakened, and a lot of people eagerly celebrate weakening of the 1st amendment in situations like separation of church and state or obscenity laws. Gun control gets a lot of controversy because there are a lot of pro-gun people in the US, completely independent of what the constitution says. If attitudes in the US changed and most people were opposed to gun ownership the 2nd amendment would be changed or repealed to allow stricter gun control laws.
Also, don't confuse not having the specific method of listing rights that the US does with not having any individual rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: I think you have to start by wanting a change. No one said it would be easy, it could take a hundred years, but it needs to start somewhere. The problem is there are a lot of people that are so caught up in the idea of someone taking their guns away, that they don't even want to look at the big picture.
But "wanting a change" is a bad way to start. I don't want change for the sake of change, I want good changes. And right now it isn't clear that stricter gun control laws (outside of a few obvious areas) would be productive change instead of just a way to congratulate ourselves that Something Is Being Done.
Pacific wrote: Do you not think that the picture would look better, without those 11,068 deaths?
Of course it would, but how do you prevent them? Keep in mind that a gang member can still get an illegal gun even if guns are 100% banned, an abusive spouse can still use a different weapon, etc. It's not as easy as just saying "ban guns and those 11k people are still alive".
I think you have to start by wanting a change. No one said it would be easy, it could take a hundred years, but it needs to start somewhere. The problem is there are a lot of people that are so caught up in the idea of someone taking their guns away, that they don't even want to look at the big picture.
How are you sure that the people who don't want their guns taken away aren't looking at the big picture?
It's a way of thinking though, culture shapes perception. Focusing on laws and the consequences of breaking them is different to focusing on innate rights and the safeguards for keeping them. Especially when you apply this to young people going through school. Just saying this may be a factor in why some people are more casual about removing rights than others.
Peregrine wrote: But "wanting a change" is a bad way to start. I don't want change for the sake of change, I want good changes. And right now it isn't clear that stricter gun control laws (outside of a few obvious areas) would be productive change instead of just a way to congratulate ourselves that Something Is Being Done.
When I said "wanting change", I meant specifically: reducing gun crime, making it harder for criminals to obtain guns and ammunition, that kind of thing. I would agree that not all (perhaps few) gun control laws have been effective in bringing about that change. I would blame politics as much as anything else for the impotency of legislators. However, people saying "I don't want to be personally inconvenienced" and "this is my right" are perhaps not helping either, and might actually be compounding the problem.
Redcruisair wrote: This line here sits poorly with me. Is one school shooting not one too many?
Saying it doesn’t matter, because the number of school shootings is low in comparison to other cases of deaths, doesn’t really make these horrible incidents any less bad. I mean for Christ sake, people have had their kids murdered in those shootings.
I don’t really care for the pro vs con gun debate in America, because it’s not my business to care about it. However, it does make my stomach churn a bit when people so causally hand wave away these tragic incidents as if they didn’t even matter.
It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.
Damnit Peregrine, I really hate agreeing with you.
And that's where it's important to know where that right came from: the threat of an oppressive government. It's one of the more important rights imo because it gives individual citizens the power to protect themselves against that threat. That's part of what being a democracy is about.
Torga_DW wrote: And that's where it's important to know where that right came from: the threat of an oppressive government. It's one of the more important rights imo because it gives individual citizens the power to protect themselves against that threat. That's part of what being a democracy is about.
Being a democracy is about having the power to change your government without having to resort to violence. Any country can change its government with enough firepower.
"Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla movement will experience great difficulties, as the possibilities for civil struggle have not yet been exhausted." - Che Guevara
As long as the government were to go through the act of elections then a sizeable portion of the population would oppose an armed uprising as the government would maintain that pretense of being legitimate and the result of the wishes of the people.
So I don't think this whole "guns to protect us from the tyrannical government" will go down as many believe. If the USA were to become a dictatorship, it won't be the kind that is stupid enough to openly show it. It would hide behind elections and the veil of democracy rather than go full Stalin.
Hell, it could already be one which plays the Republicans and Democrats off against each other whilst the Illuminati run the show in the shadows whilst the population is contented that their opinion is being heard and duly ignored
Being a democracy is about individual rights, that's one of the key points of a true democracy. The opposite end of the spectrum is socialism, where the individual is considered less important than the collective. In practice a nation will fall somewhere inbetween, but there always reaches a point where a country becomes clearly democratic or clearly socialist.
Torga_DW wrote: And that's where it's important to know where that right came from: the threat of an oppressive government. It's one of the more important rights imo because it gives individual citizens the power to protect themselves against that threat. That's part of what being a democracy is about.
Being a democracy is about having the power to change your government without having to resort to violence. Any country can change its government with enough firepower.
Peregrine wrote: But "wanting a change" is a bad way to start. I don't want change for the sake of change, I want good changes. And right now it isn't clear that stricter gun control laws (outside of a few obvious areas) would be productive change instead of just a way to congratulate ourselves that Something Is Being Done.
When I said "wanting change", I meant specifically: reducing gun crime, making it harder for criminals to obtain guns and ammunition, that kind of thing. I would agree that not all (perhaps few) gun control laws have been effective in bringing about that change. I would blame politics as much as anything else for the impotency of legislators. However, people saying "I don't want to be personally inconvenienced" and "this is my right" are perhaps not helping either, and might actually be compounding the problem.
Many Americans consider the eroding or removing of their rights to be much more than a personal inconvenience. Whether you agree with it or not, it is critical that anyone approaching this subject understands that.
Whether or not you agree that an armed rebellion at any point in the future would have any chance of success, it's not that difficult to see how the government attempting to remove or limit an individual right, put in place specifically to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government, could appear very dubious to law-abiding citizens.
Torga_DW wrote: Being a democracy is about individual rights, that's one of the key points of a true democracy. The opposite end of the spectrum is socialism, where the individual is considered less important than the collective. In practice a nation will fall somewhere inbetween, but there always reaches a point where a country becomes clearly democratic or clearly socialist.
Only from a certain point of view. Many in america would call european countries very socialist, due to socialised healthcare, welfare etc.
Those countries however will typically not view themselves as socialist rather than democratic.
For example, many of the scandinavian countries have socialised healthcare, a very effective welfare system and all funded through high taxation. Does that make them socialist? Those are programs which are clearly rooted in socialistic views of the community looking after those in need.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, it does. That's the definition of socialism. Whether or not it's considered 'good' or 'bad' is largely irrelevant - it's socialism.
Part of the problem might be that "Socialism" is often treated like a way of selecting governments instead of it being a social and economic policy.
There is nothing about socialism that determines how governments are selected or run. You can have democracies with socialist policies, you can have dictatorships with socialist policies, you can have constitutional monarchies with socialist policies.
European countries having socialist policies doesn't make them cease to be a democracy.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, it does. That's the definition of socialism. Whether or not it's considered 'good' or 'bad' is largely irrelevant - it's socialism.
Except these countries are democracies.
You said there was a line between being a democracy and being socialist.
So are the countries of scandinavia democratic or socialist?
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, it does. That's the definition of socialism. Whether or not it's considered 'good' or 'bad' is largely irrelevant - it's socialism.
Except these countries are democracies.
You said there was a line between being a democracy and being socialist.
So are the countries of scandinavia democratic or socialist?
They can be both. Socialism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. Just like you can have a country that is democratic and capitalist, or a country that is a democracy and socialist. This is a bit of an oversimplification as most countries are not 100% capitalist or socialist, but fall somewhere on the spectrum between the two.
The Scandinavian countries are quite socialist, and they are also democracies.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, it does. That's the definition of socialism. Whether or not it's considered 'good' or 'bad' is largely irrelevant - it's socialism.
Part of the problem might be that "Socialism" is often treated like a way of selecting governments instead of it being a social and economic policy.
There is nothing about socialism that determines how governments are selected or run. You can have democracies with socialist policies, you can have dictatorships with socialist policies, you can have constitutional monarchies with socialist policies.
European countries having socialist policies doesn't make them cease to be a democracy.
I agree. But a socialist policy is a socialist policy. When the majority of policies are socialist, its a good sign of a socialist country. The problem is when people attribute 'good' or 'bad' to these things - i happen to agree with socialized medicine, that doesn't mean its not a socialist policy. It is what it is, i'd rather be arguing over whether or not the individual policy/law/whatever is good or bad.
edit: the USSR had elections, but it was still considered a socialist nation (it was even in the name). Democracies require free elections, but having elections doesn't automatically create a democracy.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, it does. That's the definition of socialism. Whether or not it's considered 'good' or 'bad' is largely irrelevant - it's socialism.
Except these countries are democracies.
You said there was a line between being a democracy and being socialist.
So are the countries of scandinavia democratic or socialist?
I said most countries will fall inbetween. Its a sliding scale, not binary. But sooner or later you may end up at the one end of the scale or the other.
Hordini wrote: Many Americans consider the eroding or removing of their rights to be much more than a personal inconvenience. Whether you agree with it or not, it is critical that anyone approaching this subject understands that.
Whether or not you agree that an armed rebellion at any point in the future would have any chance of success, it's not that difficult to see how the government attempting to remove or limit an individual right, put in place specifically to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government, could appear very dubious to law-abiding citizens.
That is understandable. The problem seems to be that it is very difficult to attack "gun-crime" without inadvertently attacking gun rights. By the same measure, it is difficult to promote gun rights without inadvertently enabling gun-crime.
I don't really want to bash heads with people who enjoy target shooting or hunting as a hobby. Nor do I blame people for feeling they need a gun to defend themselves. However, if the streets really are that dangerous, then that suggests that there is a wider problem that needs addressing. Refusing to acknowledge that problem because of personal investment is unhelpful at best.
I understand the frustration gun owners must have when legislation appears to curtail rights while doing nothing to address real gun-crime. I imagine these dysfunctional laws are the proverbial microwaves designed by a committee. However, controlling the flow of weapons and ammunition seems like a good way of attacking illegal weapons. It would be nice if this could be done effectively without curtailing honest people's rights too much.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, it does. That's the definition of socialism. Whether or not it's considered 'good' or 'bad' is largely irrelevant - it's socialism.
Part of the problem might be that "Socialism" is often treated like a way of selecting governments instead of it being a social and economic policy.
There is nothing about socialism that determines how governments are selected or run. You can have democracies with socialist policies, you can have dictatorships with socialist policies, you can have constitutional monarchies with socialist policies.
European countries having socialist policies doesn't make them cease to be a democracy.
I agree. But a socialist policy is a socialist policy. When the majority of policies are socialist, its a good sign of a socialist country. The problem is when people attribute 'good' or 'bad' to these things - i happen to agree with socialized medicine, that doesn't mean its not a socialist policy. It is what it is, i'd rather be arguing over whether or not the individual policy/law/whatever is good or bad.
edit: the USSR had elections, but it was still considered a socialist nation (it was even in the name). Democracies require free elections, but having elections doesn't automatically create a democracy.
USSR was a socialist nation because they had socialist policies. Their form of government had nothing to do with that.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, it does. That's the definition of socialism. Whether or not it's considered 'good' or 'bad' is largely irrelevant - it's socialism.
Except these countries are democracies.
You said there was a line between being a democracy and being socialist.
So are the countries of scandinavia democratic or socialist?
I said most countries will fall inbetween. Its a sliding scale, not binary. But sooner or later you may end up at the one end of the scale or the other.
At this point I truly think that you don't realize that one is a system of selecting a government and one is a system of social and economic policies.
It's like saying that something can either be female or a horse, but you can't be both.
The two are not related, and you can be a democracy without socialist policies, you can be a dictatorship without socialist policies, you can be a democracy with socialist policies, and you can be a dictatorship with socialist policies.
Democracies don't prevent socialism and socialism doesn't prevent democracy.
Smacks wrote: Nor do I blame people for feeling they need a gun to defend themselves. However, if the streets really are that dangerous, then that suggests that there is a wider problem that needs addressing.
There's been plenty of times I've been walking through Camden or Ilford and would have felt MUCH safer if I was allowed to be armed and defend myself. There's bad spots in any country. It's only in the US that I've been able to proactively take steps to ensure I can properly protect myself and my family if some junkie/thief comes at us with a knife or a pistol.
Elections aren't the same as democracy. The ussr had elections, iran has elections, they are not democracies. Democracy is the focus on individual rights - as part of the democratic process you can give those rights away. When enough rights have been given away, you'll stop being a democracy.
Peregrine wrote: But "wanting a change" is a bad way to start. I don't want change for the sake of change, I want good changes. And right now it isn't clear that stricter gun control laws (outside of a few obvious areas) would be productive change instead of just a way to congratulate ourselves that Something Is Being Done.
When I said "wanting change", I meant specifically: reducing gun crime, making it harder for criminals to obtain guns and ammunition, that kind of thing. I would agree that not all (perhaps few) gun control laws have been effective in bringing about that change. I would blame politics as much as anything else for the impotency of legislators. However, people saying "I don't want to be personally inconvenienced" and "this is my right" are perhaps not helping either, and might actually be compounding the problem.
The best way to stop Gun crime is to stop focusing on the "gun" and start focusing on "crime".
Crime is crime is crime. Doesn't matter if its committed with a gun, knife, baseball bat, weaponized weasels, etc... It has root causes in poverty and gang culture. Attack those if you are actually sincere about stopping crime. Otherwise, you're just attacking my civil liberties.
Torga_DW wrote: Elections aren't the same as democracy. The ussr had elections, iran has elections, they are not democracies. Democracy is the focus on individual rights - as part of the democratic process you can give those rights away. When enough rights have been given away, you'll stop being a democracy.
Democracy definition:
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
You won't stop being a democracy once some arbitrary amount of rights have been given away. You would only stop once the right to vote on those issues was taken away.
For example, if the people of fictitious Democritoria voted to have no free speech, make sex illegal and ban eating they would still be a democracy if they could vote to bring those rights back.
Torga_DW wrote: Elections aren't the same as democracy. The ussr had elections, iran has elections, they are not democracies. Democracy is the focus on individual rights - as part of the democratic process you can give those rights away. When enough rights have been given away, you'll stop being a democracy.
Democracy = people voting. That's really it. Nothing more and nothing less. Then you can have a Direct Democracy where people vote directly on laws. Or you can have a Representative Democracy where people vote for people that vote on laws. Then you can have a Liberal Democracy where you have democracy in a system where the individual rights are protected by laws. The US is a Liberal Democracy and Constitutional Republic where rights are granted and protected by our Constitution and laws are passed on the state and federal level via Representative Democracy as well as Direct Democracy at the state and local level. We don't vote for our President though, we vote for people that then vote for President!
You can have a form of democracy without rights, you can also have rights without democracy.
Then you can have Capitalism or Socialism, which have nothing to do with any of the above since neither are political systems.
You are mixing up a great many things that really don't have much to do with one another.
Smacks wrote: Nor do I blame people for feeling they need a gun to defend themselves. However, if the streets really are that dangerous, then that suggests that there is a wider problem that needs addressing.
There's been plenty of times I've been walking through Camden or Ilford and would have felt MUCH safer if I was allowed to be armed and defend myself. There's bad spots in any country. It's only in the US that I've been able to proactively take steps to ensure I can properly protect myself and my family if some junkie/thief comes at us with a knife or a pistol.
I admit I have felt the same way. But the price of you being armed is that you are more likely to run into armed criminals. Unfortunately, having a gun doesn't ensure your safety. Someone could easily shoot you in the back and take your wallet, and even if you are threatened face to face, you would still be drawing against one or more people who have the drop on you. If a mugger is anticipating a weapon then they might just start shooting first (kind of like the police do).
Yes, yes it is. If you can vote and have your vote count, then you are a democracy.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, i've read the wiki. I say again: USSR was not a democracy, Iran is not a democracy.
The USSR was a democracy because everybody was able to vote either for or against the candidate. They didn't have free elections because the candidates were pre-selected by the communist party, but they were still a democracy.
Iran is a democracy, one with the lowest voting age around actually. People get to cast their vote for whatever candidate they support. They don't have free elections though because candidates are pre-selected by the Guardian Council.
Which doesn't really have much to do with Democracy.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures
And when the will of the people is that once a decade on the 2376th day of the decade at noon every male that is exactly 5'8 shall be executed then you sill have a democracy.
None of which of course has anything to do with your initial argument that socialist policies =/= not being a democracy.
Smacks wrote: Nor do I blame people for feeling they need a gun to defend themselves. However, if the streets really are that dangerous, then that suggests that there is a wider problem that needs addressing.
There's been plenty of times I've been walking through Camden or Ilford and would have felt MUCH safer if I was allowed to be armed and defend myself. There's bad spots in any country. It's only in the US that I've been able to proactively take steps to ensure I can properly protect myself and my family if some junkie/thief comes at us with a knife or a pistol.
I admit I have felt the same way. But the price of you being armed is that you are more likely to run into armed criminals. Unfortunately, having a gun doesn't ensure your safety. Someone could easily shoot you in the back and take your wallet, and even if you are threatened face to face, you would still be drawing against one or more people who have the drop on you. If a mugger is anticipating a weapon then they might just start shooting first (kind of like the police do).
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
The thing about improvised firearms is that they're much less likely to carry multiple rounds due to the fact that making a reliable system to load the next round is complicated compared to just hitting the primer of the cartridge with a pin. So yeah, they'll be able to shoot one person but then they have to be reloaded (of course that's not the case for all, but a lot).
And having to pay top dollar to a smuggler will have outpriced many criminals from firearms. For example, here in the UK it is possible to buy a handgun on the black market. However it will be expensive and risky, so most common criminals (burglars, muggers etc.) won't do it.
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
The thing about improvised firearms is that they're much less likely to carry multiple rounds due to the fact that making a reliable system to load the next round is complicated compared to just hitting the primer of the cartridge with a pin. So yeah, they'll be able to shoot one person but then they have to be reloaded (of course that's not the case for all, but a lot).
And having to pay top dollar to a smuggler will have outpriced many criminals from firearms. For example, here in the UK it is possible to buy a handgun on the black market. However it will be expensive and risky, so most common criminals (burglars, muggers etc.) won't do it.
You live on an island.
We have thousands of miles of border with other nations that is incredibly easy to cross... Drastically different situations for those smugglers to work with.
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
I think it's hard enough to make a gun that most people don't bother. Even in the UK it is virtually unheard of. Criminals are lazy (almost by definition). Here a mugger is more likely to threaten you with a beating than a weapon.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The thing about improvised firearms is that they're much less likely to carry multiple rounds due to the fact that making a reliable system to load the next round is complicated compared to just hitting the primer of the cartridge with a pin. So yeah, they'll be able to shoot one person but then they have to be reloaded (of course that's not the case for all, but a lot).
This is not true at all. Google "how to build a machine gun" and you'll find step-by-step instructions for building one out of nothing more than parts and tools from your local hardware store. Guns are really simple objects as long as you don't need flawless precision (and you don't for the vast majority of criminal uses). And of course if you have access to a full machine shop (for example, if you're part of a gang) then you can make any gun you want.
Grey Templar wrote: It certainly won't be a reliable gun, it probably won't last very long if used much, but it will put bullets down range and that's all that matters.
True...
People are pretty damned creative.
Ie... the "cornstarch flamethrower":
Only reason I'd build one is if I start seeing lots of spiders.
I don't think you can actually build a machine gun out of stuff from the hardware store.
A shotgun, surely, a zip gun, no doubt, but a machine gun? I've only ever seen conversion guides for semiautos. While it's pretty clearly against dakka rules to post anything like that (so don't) , I'll just ask - has anyone actually been able to find a guide for how to build a machine gun* on google from parts commonly available at a hardware store? I'll take you on faith if someone says yes, they were able to google such a guide. I'm just wondering if this is a commonly repeated truism, or something someone here was able to actually find and read with their own eyes.
*defined as "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" per the ATF. Nevermind, I found one.
Also, flamethrowers generally aren't illegal in the US, awesomely enough. I guess the figure that the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to make a flamethrower at home is a problem that fixes itself.
With a CNC router, it's possible for you to "cut" the lower receiver. That bypasses the need to register the lower receiver with the ATF.
Then, you can build the rest with readily available parts online.
As long as it's semi-auto, it's totally legal.
You can make it fully auto, but that's definitely illegal no matter what.
EDIT: I know one person who has done this and he says it was a pain for him because of all the trial & error he had to go through (and numerous range time for testing).
I'm familiar with an 80% build - but it's cheating for the above defined parameters. Also, you can technically just buy parts kits and a receiver flat for an AK, no background check or registration needed, totally legal.
Also, I did find one a hardware store full auto plan - starting from nothing, parts from the hardware store. So, nevermind, it took 2 minutes instead of one, turned out.
Ouze wrote: I'm familiar with an 80% build - but it's cheating for the above defined parameters. Also, you can technically just buy parts kits and a receiver flat for an AK, no background check or registration needed, totally legal.
Sure it's cheating... but we all like to "stick it to the man" sometimes don't we?
Also, I did find one a hardware store full auto plan - starting from nothing, parts from the hardware store. So, nevermind, it took 2 minutes instead of one, turned out.
I found two of 'em... but, they seems dubious to me.
:shrug:
None of this is "easy" though... I'd be more interested in the 3D printers. That's when things get... hairy.
whembly wrote: I found two of 'em... but, they seems dubious to me.
I don't see what's so unbelievable about it, just look at the sten gun and similar WWII-era weapons. A machine gun is very simple as long as you're using pistol-caliber rounds (low pressure) and your accuracy standards are "hit a man-sized target at close range with automatic fire". And that was a design concept that was good enough to win wars.
I'd be more interested in the 3D printers. That's when things get... hairy.
Not in the foreseeable future. 3d printed stuff just doesn't have the strength to make a useful gun, you'll still need to make at least some of the components by traditional methods.
Ouze wrote: I'm familiar with an 80% build - but it's cheating for the above defined parameters. Also, you can technically just buy parts kits and a receiver flat for an AK, no background check or registration needed, totally legal.
Also, I did find one a hardware store full auto plan - starting from nothing, parts from the hardware store. So, nevermind, it took 2 minutes instead of one, turned out.
Without giving too much away, could you give us a rough idea of cost, tools and skills. Or rather, how easy/difficult a project would this be?
It seems to me that explosives tend to be the improvised weapon of choice for mass murderers. Other criminals tend to go with whatever is available. I just don't see the improvised firearm being very popular. I think criminals choose guns because they are readily available, if they weren't then I think we would see not only a shift in the types of weapons but also in the types of crimes. For example knocking over a liquor store seems to be a fairly bog standard criminal pursuit in the US, but in the UK it's quite uncommon. Armed robbers seem to favour more profitable targets such as banks and post offices here.
Ouze wrote: I don't think you can actually build a machine gun out of stuff from the hardware store.
A shotgun, surely, a zip gun, no doubt, but a machine gun? I've only ever seen conversion guides for semiautos. While it's pretty clearly against dakka rules to post anything like that (so don't) , I'll just ask - has anyone actually been able to find a guide for how to build a machine gun* on google from parts commonly available at a hardware store? I'll take you on faith if someone says yes, they were able to google such a guide. I'm just wondering if this is a commonly repeated truism, or something someone here was able to actually find and read with their own eyes.
*defined as "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" per the ATF. Nevermind, I found one.
Also, flamethrowers generally aren't illegal in the US, awesomely enough. I guess the figure that the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to make a flamethrower at home is a problem that fixes itself.
They are not illegal because they et rid of bee hives really easily.
Smacks wrote: Without giving too much away, could you give us a rough idea of cost, tools and skills. Or rather, how easy/difficult a project would this be?.
If you're referring to building an semi-auto AK from a flat, it's totally legal in the US so I can just show you a tutorial.
US law allows for manufacturing firearms for personal use, so long as you don't intend to sell the final results professionally and you're not otherwise precluded from owning a gun (i.e. a felon). You're recommended but not required to etch a serial number up on there, and in a rather amusing quirk for the AK and other foreign produced rifles, you can't have more than 10 foreign manufactured parts (which has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with trade protectionism).
I priced it out once, and it was around $400 or so. I wouldn't recommend it, you can buy a professionally manufactured AK for about $500 and you'll get a much better end result without needing a drill press or a special jig (which are the special parts and skills, just bending the flat and drilling the holes).
US law allows for manufacturing firearms for personal use, so long as you don't intend to sell the final results professionally and you're not otherwise precluded from owning a gun (i.e. a felon). You're recommended but not required to etch a serial number up on there, and in a rather amusing quirk for the AK and other foreign produced rifles, you can't have more than 10 foreign manufactured parts (which has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with trade protectionism).
I priced it out once, and it was around $400 or so. I wouldn't recommend it, you can buy a professionally manufactured AK for about $500 and you'll get a much better end result without needing a drill press or a special jig (which are the special parts and skills, just bending the flat and drilling the holes).
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it). The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist. The gun makes it so the 70 year old man can protect his property and life when the knife armed meth head breaks in. It is (and I believe should be) an individual choice as to whether or not you want to accept responsibility for the protection of your family, self and your property, and if you choose to do so, a gun is a fantastic tool. If by threat of force you take that choice and corresponding ability away, you are violating my right. It is that simple. In many countries folks have collectively decided to abandon that right and or have allowed their governments to take the exercising of that right away from them. Fortunately, I don't live in one of those countries.
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it).
A law abiding citizen's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A law abiding citizen with a bat, tire iron, inife, 50 pounds of muslce and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, whatever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to protect himself and his loved ones.
Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we don't have a profusion of firearms, and do you know what? It makes no appreciable difference to our quality of life whatsoever.
Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you live in a society that makes you feel compelled to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you, hope you never have to use it. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well without them.
In the UK we simply do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, and I imagine that we have favourably comparable incidences of violent assaults and rapes when compared with many other nations.
CptJake wrote: The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist.
My petite 5'4" mother was able to deter a male intruder much larger than herself with nothing but a leather belt and her fists.
And in my opinion it sucks she had to do so. If it was my mom or my wife I prefer they have the ability to end the intruder's life from a safe distance, and that the intruder is very clear of that capability. And, as I very clearly stated, it is an individual choice. You and your mom may be 100% happy with leather belts and fists to protect you. Hooah. I respect that. I ask you respect my choice (and that of my wife and mom to be honest) to not rely on fists and belts.
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it).
A law abiding citizen's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A law abiding citizen with a bat, tire iron, inife, 50 pounds of muslce and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, whatever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to protect himself and his loved ones.
Guns just make it easier for both sides.
And that is where you are wrong, it does NOT work both ways. My law abiding wife won't have 50 pounds and 6 inches of reach. She cannot carry a bat or tire iron around, and does not think a knife is a good defense (a bigger/stronger attacker has to be WAY too close for a knife to work). She is however very comfortable with her ability to use the 9mm.
r_squared wrote: Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we don't have a profusion of firearms, and do you know what? It makes no appreciable difference to our quality of life whatsoever.
Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you live in a society that makes you feel compelled to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you, hope you never have to use it. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well without them.
In the UK we simply do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, and I imagine that we have favourably comparable incidences of violent assaults and rapes when compared with many other nations.
Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we have access to firearms, and do you know what? Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you don't live in a society whereby you have the right to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well with them.
In the US we do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, but they are available for those of us who choose to own them.
r_squared wrote: Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we don't have a profusion of firearms, and do you know what? It makes no appreciable difference to our quality of life whatsoever.
Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you live in a society that makes you feel compelled to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you, hope you never have to use it. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well without them.
In the UK we simply do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, and I imagine that we have favourably comparable incidences of violent assaults and rapes when compared with many other nations.
Fair enough. And I assume you will not sneer or look down on societies where we feel as individuals we want to be able to protect ourselves from violent assault and rape, and at times choose a gun as the tool to do so.
CptJake wrote: The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist.
My petite 5'4" mother was able to deter a male intruder much larger than herself with nothing but a leather belt and her fists.
And in my opinion it sucks she had to do so. If it was my mom or my wife I prefer they have the ability to end the intruder's life from a safe distance, and that the intruder is very clear of that capability. And, as I very clearly stated, it is an individual choice. You and your mom may be 100% happy with leather belts and fists to protect you. Hooah. I respect that. I ask you respect my choice (and that of my wife and mom to be honest) to not rely on fists and belts.
She had a gun and chose not to use it.
Also, my mother doesn't protect me, considering I am an adult and was not protecting me when this incident occurred, as I was also an adult at the time and she was home alone so you can drop your condescending attitude. Furthermore, I own guns so you can keep your "respect" and nor did I say anything about you not having the choice to use a gun to defend yourself.
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it).
A law abiding citizen's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A law abiding citizen with a bat, tire iron, inife, 50 pounds of muslce and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, whatever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to protect himself and his loved ones.
Guns just make it easier for both sides.
And that is where you are wrong, it does NOT work both ways. My law abiding wife won't have 50 pounds and 6 inches of reach. She cannot carry a bat or tire iron around, and does not think a knife is a good defense (a bigger/stronger attacker has to be WAY too close for a knife to work). She is however very comfortable with her ability to use the 9mm.
It is interesting thing is that in the span of two posts you argue that it doesn't matter if you have a gun because if you want to use violence to threaten people you will find a way and then argue that without a gun it's not easy to threaten people.
We seem to be treading the path that resulted in the earlier moderator warning. Perhaps we should try to get back to discussing the topic at hand again.
I just always think it's pretty dishonest to pretent that guns don't make it easier to kill people when that is one of the main arguments in favor of us having the right to bear arms. To defend ourselves, via being able to kill people if needed, from others. That's why I carry a gun, to make it easier for me to protect myself and mine.
If guns don't make it that much easier then we can stand up to a tyranical government with bats and crowbars and by making sure that we recruit people that have 50 pounds and 6 inches on the government oppressors.
Trivalizing the additional power gained, both by criminals and law abiding citizens, by being armed is just silly IMO. There are plenty of arguments that can be made by both sides, but guns = more threat is a fact that should be acknowledged by both.
Please, for the love of cute kittens and puppies, can we stop pretending that there's some inherent right to anything? Rights exist because we as a society have agreed they do, a country that has stricter gun laws than the US hasn't "taken away" anything, the right never existed there in the first place. As an example, if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, why are convicted felons not allowed to carry weapons (I seem to remember this being the case, if it's not I'm wrong)? Don't they have the same "inalienable" right as everyone else?
Moving on, why is it that the Government can't be trusted, but average Joe can? Judging from the massive amount of stupid people in the world (100% of the population, depending on context), relying on random people to have firearm discipline without any sort of oversight is rather optimistical.
These two points aside, I still don't think the issue is with guns, but rather socio-economic factors and an individualism sometimes bordering on disrespect for democratic institutions. The whole deal with Intelligent Design seems to me to be another symptom of this; when authorities are to be distrusted, anti-intellectualism grows stronger.
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it).
A law abiding citizen's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A law abiding citizen with a bat, tire iron, inife, 50 pounds of muslce and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, whatever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to protect himself and his loved ones.
Guns just make it easier for both sides.
And that is where you are wrong, it does NOT work both ways. My law abiding wife won't have 50 pounds and 6 inches of reach. She cannot carry a bat or tire iron around, and does not think a knife is a good defense (a bigger/stronger attacker has to be WAY too close for a knife to work). She is however very comfortable with her ability to use the 9mm.
It is interesting thing is that in the span of two posts you argue that it doesn't matter if you have a gun because if you want to use violence to threaten people you will find a way and then argue that without a gun it's not easy to threaten people.
Which of course is my point.
And you are missing my point (probably because it was not well made). My point is yes, a gun makes it a ton easier, which is exactly why law abiding folks should be allowed to own them. The gun makes it easier for law abiding folks to defend against those who threaten them. Law abiding folks don't go around threatening people for gaks and giggles (or to score enough of someone else's property to get a fix). Taking away the (often) best option for self defense is wrong. Folks can and should decide if it is a good tool for their situation. I don't want someone else making that decision for me or my family. I should not have to worry about whether or not I am stronger or bigger than a guy who wants my wallet or wants to break into my house.
CptJake wrote: And you are missing my point (probably because it was not well made). My point is yes, a gun makes it a ton easier, which is exactly why law abiding folks should be allowed to own them. The gun makes it easier for law abiding folks to defend against those who threaten them. Law abiding folks don't go around threatening people for gaks and giggles (or to score enough of someone else's property to get a fix). Taking away the (often) best option for self defense is wrong. Folks can and should decide if it is a good tool for their situation. I don't want someone else making that decision for me or my family. I should not have to worry about whether or not I am stronger or bigger than a guy who wants my wallet or wants to break into my house.
We are on the same page there.
It's the whole "there will be no difference if criminals have guns or not, they will be just as violent and active" thing that I often hear thrown around that is one of my pet peeves because I feel that it trivalizes the impact that guns have and which can hurt our own argument in favor of gun ownership.
I think there is a bit of a fallacy though, in the "law abiding folks" part of the argument.
Every criminal was once a Law Abiding Citizen. And tragic accidents like this, though preventable yadda yadda, happen due to law abiding folks being stupid or irresponsible.
Criminals are not an entire separate species, you know what I mean? (Though I understand that the laws you guys have make it harder for criminals to own guns, and I can see the argument from that side, but there are so many guns in the US I can't imagine it's that difficult for a criminal to get a firearm if he really wants to)
This debate has been a bit better than some of the other gun debates I've seen in the past though- good job OT.
I think the law abiding citizen is not a fallacy. The typical criminal thug (one committing violent crimes) doesn't just snap once and commit one crime then return to law abiding. Between drugs like meth and gang activity we see repeat offenders way more than the One Time Criminal. The One Time Criminal is typically committing a crime of passion, no less a crime, often brutal and deadly, but not likely to be repeated.
And then there is the 'Criminal' most of us are referencing, who lives as a predator and sees the law abiding and weaker criminals as his prey. They often start quite young and at least our system seems very very poor at rehabilitation and the recidivism rates show this. They are not a separate species, and no one here has made that claim, but they are not covered by the Law Abiding label we are applying to others (who strangely enough are law abiding).
They may be a 'tiny' proportion of the population, but they account for a lot of the violent crime, and in some areas (urban centers of some cities for example) are a very major factor.
And I don't really care about gun relate deaths in this context, violent crime is violent crime, and good folks deserve the choice to defend against it.
Da Boss wrote: But don't those career criminals really only make up a tiny proportion of the population and a fairly small proportion of gun related deaths?
Doesn't mean they don't make up a significant portion of crimes that guns are used in defense for.
I want to make it clear again that I am not saying at all that I think people shouldn't be allowed to have guns in the US. My stance is, if you guys are happy with it, keep it. I know the context is pretty different over there.
There are plenty of advantages to having a gun for home defense, and in rural Ireland I know that plenty of vulnerable old people have guns for "hunting" that they really keep close to hand for defense against predatory thieves and the like. (We've a real problem with deserted areas in the West that have very few young people and a spread out, vulnerable elderly population. My parents know one old woman who keeps a shotgun in easy reach because she has been robbed more than once due to her isolated location).
My arguments are pretty much only around what I see as a sort of dismissive attitude to the problems that loose gun control brings, almost as if people are afraid to admit there could be any problems. Accidental gun deaths, a greater availability of guns to criminals, and a need for an armed police force are all real problems. It's absolutely cool that you guys consider the benefits worth the problems put forward, but I think saying the problems are irrelevant or don't exist is intellectually dishonest.
Ireland's police force is not normally armed. We have armed response units (we used to have just the one, but they're putting in regional ones now because the one team in Dublin can't get out to the back arse of Donegal very quickly.I think there'll be about 6 teams when they're done?)
Detectives and the Special Crimes unit that normally would have to deal with the IRA and so on are also armed. This is again a very small number of officers.
But the standard police man on the street who deals with 90% + of all crimes is unarmed and would only be armed if it was considered likely that he would be exposed to an attack by paramilitaries (my dad was armed with a revolver while guarding explosives, for example).
Not in any way saying that this is how things should be done in the US, but in Ireland at least most people are dead against arming the police. Every time they shoot someone (which happens basically once per 5 years or so) there's a massive inquiry and usually protests too. Even if it is COMPLETELY justified!
Edit to Add: The Irish police force might be a poor example though as they were formed during a civil war and were unarmed so that they would not be a target for either side. They were (and still should be) "peace keepers" which is what the name Garda Síochána translates as. So we have a different attitude to our police I guess. Though that is changing with the times, too.
CptJake wrote: The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist.
My petite 5'4" mother was able to deter a male intruder much larger than herself with nothing but a leather belt and her fists.
Yep, I'm sure that would stop your average rapist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we don't have a profusion of firearms, and do you know what? It makes no appreciable difference to our quality of life whatsoever.
Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you live in a society that makes you feel compelled to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you, hope you never have to use it. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well without them.
In the UK we simply do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, and I imagine that we have favourably comparable incidences of violent assaults and rapes when compared with many other nations.
And I llive next to a country where 50,000 people have been executed by drug cartels. I don't give a gak how things are in your country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Please, for the love of cute kittens and puppies, can we stop pretending that there's some inherent right to anything? Rights exist because we as a society have agreed they do, a country that has stricter gun laws than the US hasn't "taken away" anything, the right never existed there in the first place. As an example, if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, why are convicted felons not allowed to carry weapons (I seem to remember this being the case, if it's not I'm wrong)? Don't they have the same "inalienable" right as everyone else?
Moving on, why is it that the Government can't be trusted, but average Joe can? Judging from the massive amount of stupid people in the world (100% of the population, depending on context), relying on random people to have firearm discipline without any sort of oversight is rather optimistical.
These two points aside, I still don't think the issue is with guns, but rather socio-economic factors and an individualism sometimes bordering on disrespect for democratic institutions. The whole deal with Intelligent Design seems to me to be another symptom of this; when authorities are to be distrusted, anti-intellectualism grows stronger.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
Peregrine wrote: It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.
The point of my comment seems to have gone completely over your head Peregrine.
I previously stated in this thread how the gun debate had zero value to me. I didn’t mention school shootings as a way to further support for tighter gun control. I mentioned them for the sole reasons that it made me physically uncomfortable how some people here on Dakka sounded overly dismissive about these tragic events.
Someone brought up how deaths at school shootings were number wise trivial compared to smoking related deaths and because of that, school shootings were a minor subject hardly worth even thinking about. Such comments made me very unconfutable and I decided to post my misgivings about it. I did it mostly so I could hear from others if they felt the same way about it as I did.
Peregrine wrote: It's not that school shootings don't matter, it's that you can't make policy decisions based on such rare events. When something happens so rarely you don't have enough information about what caused it and what you can do to prevent it, so any decisions you try to make as a result are blind guesses and/or emotional reactions. Gun control laws need to be based on common situations/events, not isolated tragedies that get the biggest headlines.
The point of my comment seems to have gone completely over your head Peregrine.
I previously stated in this thread how the gun debate had zero value to me. I didn’t mention school shootings as a way to further support for tighter gun control. I mentioned them for the sole reasons that it made me physically uncomfortable how some people here on Dakka sounded overly dismissive about these tragic events.
Someone brought up how deaths at school shootings were number wise trivial compared to smoking related deaths and because of that, school shootings were a minor subject hardly worth even thinking about. Such comments made me very unconfutable and I decided to post my misgivings about it. I did it mostly so I could hear from others if they felt the same way about it as I did.
We are talking in the context of the gun debate.
Thus school shootings are irrelevant and not worth discussing, except to counter them inevitably being used as an emotional appeal, exactly because very few deaths are caused by school shootings. And numbers are what is important in this sort of debate.
We are not saying school shootings are not tragic events, we are not dismissing them as being important. They're just not important in this discussion, in the same way that the latest Football match isn't important in this discussion.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
Well, in the US there is not an inalienable right to life. Death Penalty, Abortion, etc...
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
Maybe I shouldn't spend more time on this thread, but if someone did something to 'earn' the death penalty, they don't deserve to live.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.
CptJake wrote: A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes... The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist. The gun makes it so the 70 year old man can protect his property and life when the knife armed meth head breaks in.
But it works both ways. I feel I'd have a chance of fighting off an assailant with a bat or a roll of pennies, and, more importantly, I could run away. There is nothing you can do against an assailant with a gun, you can't even flee. It made me so angry reading about the two British tourists that were murdered in America a while ago. What were they supposed to do? Rent a gun, or an armed chaperone for their holiday? What does the the 70 year old man who can't move/draw quickly because of arthritis do? What does a blind woman do? Or someone with Parkinson that can't point a gun? There will always be vulnerable people who must depend on the government to protect them. The proliferation of deadly weapons just makes that job harder.
Thus school shootings are irrelevant and not worth discussing, except to counter them inevitably being used as an emotional appeal, exactly because very few deaths are caused by school shootings. And numbers are what is important in this sort of debate.
We are not saying school shootings are not tragic events, we are not dismissing them as being important. They're just not important in this discussion, in the same way that the latest Football match isn't important in this discussion.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.
CptJake wrote: The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist.
My petite 5'4" mother was able to deter a male intruder much larger than herself with nothing but a leather belt and her fists.
Yep, I'm sure that would stop your average rapist.
This assumes that the incident in question was not an attempted rape. And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
Basically, a handgun is not a magical anti-rape wand.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.
So it's not inalienable then?
By that logic, if society did something horrible enough, could the right of the people to bear arms then be infringed?
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
Well, in the US there is not an inalienable right to life. Death Penalty, Abortion, etc...
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.
So it's not inalienable then?
By that logic, if society did something horrible enough, could the right of the people to bear arms then be infringed?
If a change was made to the Second Amendment in a matter consistent with the process for changing the constitution, the "inherent" right to bear arms would no longer exist, because the only reason it exists in the first place is because it's been decided it does.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.
So it's not inalienable then?
By that logic, if society did something horrible enough, could the right of the people to bear arms then be infringed?
If a change was made to the Second Amendment in a matter consistent with the process for changing the constitution, the "inherent" right to bear arms would no longer exist, because the only reason it exists in the first place is because it's been decided it does.
No, that's incorrect, because the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it protects them.
I have a question though: Why do you hate freedom so much?
The right to life is hardly inalienable anyhow. What a ridiculous point to raise in a thread about the right to guns, which are tools primarily designed to end lives.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.
So it's not inalienable then?
By that logic, if society did something horrible enough, could the right of the people to bear arms then be infringed?
If a change was made to the Second Amendment in a matter consistent with the process for changing the constitution, the "inherent" right to bear arms would no longer exist, because the only reason it exists in the first place is because it's been decided it does.
No, that's incorrect, because the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it protects them.
I have a question though: Why do you hate freedom so much?
Because blind belief without reasoning behind is the biggest threat to humanity that has ever existed. And because I delight in crushing others under my evil boots while I twirl my mustache.
Albatross wrote: And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.
What is "horrible enough" to justify removing the right to life from someone? Bear in mind that such a decision should never be based on emotion but concrete facts.
So is one death enough? Is that killing premeditated? What if someone kills 30 people but are mentally ill and believed they were killing demons in a game of Doom? Should they be executed, considering they were not physically capable of the thought process required to know that what they were doing was wrong at the time?
Bwahahahahaaha, man. I hope that was a troll question!
Awesome stuff.
Edit: A Town Called Malus: If there was an inalienable right to life, nobody would ever go to war with lethal weapons. The whole thing would be like an episode of Gladiators, complete with padded whomping sticks.
This conversation is rapidly trending into the ridiculous. Especially with Grey Templar's insistence that school shootings have "nothing" to do with any debate around gun laws. Come on dude. That's sheer hyperbole!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Because blind belief without reasoning behind is the biggest threat to humanity that has ever existed. And because I delight in crushing others under my evil boots while I twirl my mustache.
Bwahahahahaaha, man. I hope that was a troll question!
Awesome stuff.
I'm glad someone appreciated it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: This conversation is rapidly trending into the ridiculous. Especially with Grey Templar's insistence that school shootings have "nothing" to do with any debate around gun laws. Come on dude. That's sheer hyperbole!
Well, I think they have something to do with a debate, because they often spur it on. I think his point was more that we need to look at them closely and consider how rare they actually are if we're going to seriously consider using them as a reason to infringe upon the rights of millions of people.
Albatross wrote: And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.
Is that right? That's quite an interesting point too! Really makes you wonder what this debate is really about...
See, that's a much more reasoned way to put it. I should stop nitpicking and poking Grey Templar with my pedantry stick. I'm only procrastinating on marking more damn biology tests.
Albatross wrote: And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.
Is that right? That's quite an interesting point too! Really makes you wonder what this debate is really about...
It probably has something to do with media scare tactics and convincing women that they are victims and that fighting back will only make things worse, combined with men being traditionally seen as responsible for protection in a relationship or family.
But anyway, there are still women who chose to keep and carry firearms, and I don't see women being less likely to own a carry a gun to be a reason to deny all of them that right.
Albatross wrote: And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.
A pretty simple google search would have yielded this information:
This conversation is rapidly trending into the ridiculous. Especially with Grey Templar's insistence that school shootings have "nothing" to do with any debate around gun laws. Come on dude. That's sheer hyperbole!
It really isn't. Their frequency and death toll is inconsequential when looking at the larger picture. They're a wonderful tool for emotional appeals, however.
On the subject I also came across this article, which I found amusing. In it the guy suggests that women and only women should be allowed to carry guns. While I suspect it is just humour, it's funny because it's true...
Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.
Were I to board the subway late at night, around Lincoln Center perhaps, and find it filled with women openly carrying Metropolitan Opera programs and Glock automatics, I’d feel snug and secure. A train packed with armed men would not produce the same comforting sensation. Maybe that’s because men have a disconcerting tendency to shoot people, while women display admirable restraint. Department of Justice figures show that between 1976 and 2005, 91.3 percent of gun homicides were committed by men, 8.7 percent by women.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think women should be allowed to carry bigger, more powerful guns with more ammunition, to compensate for their smaller, weaker bodies.
It should just be based on penis size, then everyone would be happy. Black men wouldn't be allowed guns at all, unless they admit to having a small penis. Women should have huge guns to make up for them having no penis at all, and always getting themselves raped. And white guys should be allowed something just big enough so they don't have to feel intimidated by black men in the showers.
On the subject I also came across this article, which I found amusing. In it the guy suggests that women and only women should be allowed to carry guns. While I suspect it is just humour, it's funny because it's true...
Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.
Were I to board the subway late at night, around Lincoln Center perhaps, and find it filled with women openly carrying Metropolitan Opera programs and Glock automatics, I’d feel snug and secure. A train packed with armed men would not produce the same comforting sensation. Maybe that’s because men have a disconcerting tendency to shoot people, while women display admirable restraint. Department of Justice figures show that between 1976 and 2005, 91.3 percent of gun homicides were committed by men, 8.7 percent by women.
So wait, I'm confused a bit. Are you saying that women should have to have guns because they make you feel safer, or that they shouldn't be allowed to because some of them don't want to? I mean obviously you should be the one to make the decision for them, I think you've made that clear. I'm just not sure anymore which decision you're pushing for.
You mean like the Gallup poll linked in the article that shows that female ownership is up 10% in the US? Like that?
I couldn't care less " who wants tougher laws" because that doesn't quantifiably mean anything. A sizable increase in gun ownership for females does.
On the subject I also came across this article, which I found amusing. In it the guy suggests that women and only women should be allowed to carry guns. While I suspect it is just humour, it's funny because it's true...
Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.
Were I to board the subway late at night, around Lincoln Center perhaps, and find it filled with women openly carrying Metropolitan Opera programs and Glock automatics, I’d feel snug and secure. A train packed with armed men would not produce the same comforting sensation. Maybe that’s because men have a disconcerting tendency to shoot people, while women display admirable restraint. Department of Justice figures show that between 1976 and 2005, 91.3 percent of gun homicides were committed by men, 8.7 percent by women.
Well it's comforting to know that criminals would obey that law more than they do our present gun ownership and "don't kill people" laws.
Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.
Matthew wrote: Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.
We really are unconcerned with your opinion because it's been coming from a place of complete ignorance. We've tried to educate you, and we've encouraged you to do some reading on your own. You seem to have not read any of the information posted in this thread, or done any research on your own, so it might be in your best interest to just leave this thread alone until you can participate in it like an informed poster.
Matthew wrote: Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.
Did you read the multiple posts earlier in this thread where we responded to your question about gun laws? My reply and several of the others are on page 13 of this thread.
Also, unless it's a bus or train full of police officers, there's probably no where in the US where everyone on the bus or train would be carrying. Depending on the number of people on the bus, it's probably less than 5%. On a lot of buses and trains the number is going to be zero.
Matthew wrote: Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.
We really are unconcerned with your opinion because it's been coming from a place of complete ignorance. We've tried to educate you, and we've encouraged you to do some reading on your own. You seem to have not read any of the information posted in this thread, or done any research on your own, so it might be in your best interest to just leave this thread alone until you can participate in it like an informed poster.
Well, he might just not have read the replies yet. This thread has been moving pretty fast.
Matthew, go to page 13 of this thread. A lot of your questions have been answered there.
Thus school shootings are irrelevant and not worth discussing, except to counter them inevitably being used as an emotional appeal, exactly because very few deaths are caused by school shootings. And numbers are what is important in this sort of debate.
We are not saying school shootings are not tragic events, we are not dismissing them as being important. They're just not important in this discussion, in the same way that the latest Football match isn't important in this discussion.
You didn't read anything I just wrote, did you?
I would say the same to you.
You're claiming I'm being callous and saying school shootings are not horrible events just because I said they are irrelevant to a discussion on guns. That is a serious jump in logic.
Just because a gun was used in the commission of an extremely rare, albeit horrible, event doesn't mean that event has any bearing on the overall gun debate.
Hordini wrote: So wait, I'm confused a bit. Are you saying that women should have to have guns because they make you feel safer, or that they shouldn't be allowed to because some of them don't want to? I mean obviously you should be the one to make the decision for them, I think you've made that clear. I'm just not sure anymore which decision you're pushing for.
As I said, the article was humour (I didn't write the article, it is not my article). And the NBC/wall street journal poll, showed that women were majority in favour of stronger gun control, and far less likely to carry a gun (again this is not my poll). So while women and the rape of women is often pushed forward by pro-gun people, it seems that women themselves are less concerned about this than men, which I thought pertained to albatross' "macho" discussion.
However, this was the discussion I was really pushing for:
CptJake wrote: A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes... The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist. The gun makes it so the 70 year old man can protect his property and life when the knife armed meth head breaks in.
But it works both ways. I feel I'd have a chance of fighting off an assailant with a bat or a roll of pennies, and, more importantly, I could run away. There is nothing you can do against an assailant with a gun, you can't even flee. It made me so angry reading about the two British tourists that were murdered in America a while ago. What were they supposed to do? Rent a gun, or an armed chaperone for their holiday? What does the the 70 year old man who can't move/draw quickly because of arthritis do? What does a blind woman do? Or someone with Parkinson that can't point a gun? There will always be vulnerable people who must depend on the government to protect them. The proliferation of deadly weapons just makes that job harder.
So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.
I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?
Well, in the US there is not an inalienable right to life. Death Penalty, Abortion, etc...
There is, however, an inalienable right to boogie.
. But there is zero mention of an Air Force or any other flying planes in that document!
.png)
web.jpg)
