Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And that son who gave the quote, "dad carried around a towel when he walked because he sweat alot".... Well, how big a towel do you need?

According to the update story I posted a link to yesterday, it wasn't even a towel. And there were witnesses (drivers/passengers of stopped cars) so hopefully the real story will come out.

Maybe he was a magician with a white cloth, ready to pull a gun out from under it

But yeah there isnt that much info to go on so there be a lot of jumping to conclusion.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They've never even been to the moon, practically medieval.

You don't have a single working launch system at the moment

ew that stings!
However, incorrect. Give me some good Tex Mex, strap that payload over a toilet and I'll blow that puppy right into orbit.

I... do not doubt that

I should have known the Weinder Dog Party had its own plans for a Space Program!

Prestor Jon wrote:
The man has a right to own a towel, regardless of size and it isn't subject to anyone else's perception of need.

If it's not in the constitution it's not a real right

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They've never even been to the moon, practically medieval.

You don't have a single working launch system at the moment

ew that stings!
However, incorrect. Give me some good Tex Mex, strap that payload over a toilet and I'll blow that puppy right into orbit.

The Descendents have a song called 'Blast Off' about that.

 Desubot wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And that son who gave the quote, "dad carried around a towel when he walked because he sweat alot".... Well, how big a towel do you need?

According to the update story I posted a link to yesterday, it wasn't even a towel. And there were witnesses (drivers/passengers of stopped cars) so hopefully the real story will come out.

Maybe he was a magician with a white cloth, ready to pull a gun out from under it

But yeah there isnt that much info to go on so there be a lot of jumping to conclusion.

If true, the police must think themselves lucky he wasn't a magician who could pull some dachshunds out from under the cloth.

Perhaps it will become a shootable offence to walk about wearing a top hat.

Perhaps it will become a shootable offence to walk about wearing a top hat.

Wait, its not?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The man has a right to own a towel, regardless of size and it isn't subject to anyone else's perception of need.

If it's not in the constitution it's not a real right

Actually that's not true. Other rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are covered by the 9th Amendment. So we're good.

 Frazzled wrote:

Perhaps it will become a shootable offence to walk about wearing a top hat.

Wait, its not?

Well, it is, on the provision that you can amply prove that the person wearing the top hat was doing so ironically.

 Smacks wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Opinions are like what again? You can say it's better all day long, but I have no desire to even visit any of those countries, let alone actually want to live there.

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that other countries were better in a general sense. But if you like not being murdered, the countries I mentioned are objectively about five times better (on average). So in this case, I guess opinions are a lot like facts.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that I'm very fond of the USA, and I think American people are great... except when they do crazy stuff like claim the world is 6000 years old, and walk around with loaded guns in their handbags, and bullets mixed up with their lipsticks... Some of that stuff is really err "out there".

I'd argue that the belief that the government is capable of providing me with personal security is more "out there," and even more equitable with young earth creationism in terms of overall absurdity.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'd argue that the belief that the government is capable of providing me with personal security is more "out there," and even more equitable with young earth creationism in terms of overall absurdity.

That does depend on the country and where in it you live. The USA is a huge country, the big cities are really big and there's a lot of guns. We too have areas where it will take a long time for police or an ambulance to arrive, but anywhere in a city it's usually very fast. When working (as private security) I can usually be on location within ten minutes after an alarm, and I'm not driving something with blue emergency lights giving me the right to speed or otherwise ignore the rules for traffic. And the chance to meet a guy with a gun is minimal - it's twenty years or so ago that one of our guys was last threatened with a gun. I don't even bother with pepper spray or a nightstick for the most part. The one time I'd have needed a weapon at work the guy was on me before I knew it, and he was unarmed too.

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You claim that they are irrelevant but give absolutely no reasons why. So are the following, which are contained in the Bill of Rights, also irrelevant;

I have already explained why, but as usual, you're just being deliberately hard of understanding. You seem to be trying to argue that stuff in the constitution is above question by virtue of it being in the constitution. Which is completely circular reasoning. That does not mean the bill of rights is without value. it just isn't relevant to this conversation. EDIT: Or to be more specific, you don't need to keep reminding us what it says.

That is absolutely not the case. You have claimed that the Bill of Rights is "irrelevant", yet you offer no evidence beyond pointing out that it is over two centuries old and insist on ignoring that the provisions therein are as relevant today as they ever were.

 Smacks wrote:
No, you're getting ahead of yourself. At that point I had made no argument as to whether guns were good bad or indifferent to society.

I never claimed that any argument was made. But you clearly think that there is an issue with the current status quo if you believe that we need to have a discussion on whether "gun ownership is good for society". If not then there would be no need to challenge the current zeitgeist.

 Smacks wrote:
I just pointed out that you continually trying to brow beat people with what the 2nd amendment says, is firstly unnecessary (we're all aware of what it says), and secondly has no bearing on guns being beneficial or problematic (whichever they may be), so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. Perhaps you could try reading and thinking instead of just parroting the stock arguments you lifted from gunfacts, which we're all nauseatingly familiar with.

You keep saying that you want to discuss whether guns are a benefit or a detriment, but you offer no arguments or evidence of either position.

 Smacks wrote:
In fact, why even waste each others time? All I'd really like to talk about are ways that gun people can be happy, and maybe some of the negative stuff like school children being shot and police being terrified, could be reduced.

I wasn't aware that anyone had prevented you from making these points

 Smacks wrote:
That might possibly involve changes to legislation, but we never get to talk about that because you seem to be incapable of discussing the matter in a non-hostile way. You just go full-on insisting that guns are your right, and there is nothing more to say. I think there is a lot to say. There is always room for improvement in every system. You're clearly very knowledgeable on the issue, maybe you could think of ways to improve the system yourself that everyone would welcome. If you could just stop being so defensive.

There is absolutely no defensiveness here. As someone who is not from the US, and who may not be familiar with the laws here (I wasn't until I moved here) I was trying to help you understand where the right to bear arms comes from, and attempted to clarify your misgivings (specifically that the Second Amendment is not clear). At no point did I ever say "Muh right!".

Again, you keep trying to challenge the status quo but you don't offer anything by way of example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The passing of a background check by the Chareston shooter is due to the inherent problems with the NICs system. The FBI got NICS up and running in 1998 and while it's easy enough for FFLs to run a NICS check the system itself is dependent on the databases it uses being up to date. First a person has to commit a felony, then they have to be convicted, then the record of that conviction has to be uploaded to at least 1 of the 3 databases used by NICS. How quickly state and federal bureacracies get that done determines how quickly somebody could from being able to pass a NICS check to failing one. Not everything that would disqualify somebody from firearms ownership is required to be submitted to a NICS database. There's still an ongoing debate about how mental health/illness should be handled and reported, for instance.

The Charlestown Shooter getting a firearm is not a failing by the NICS system. What failed was that the DA did not charge him with a felony drug charge (which would have prevented him passing the background check), but instead charged him with a misdemeanor.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You claim that they are irrelevant but give absolutely no reasons why. So are the following, which are contained in the Bill of Rights, also irrelevant;

I have already explained why, but as usual, you're just being deliberately hard of understanding. You seem to be trying to argue that stuff in the constitution is above question by virtue of it being in the constitution. Which is completely circular reasoning. That does not mean the bill of rights is without value. it just isn't relevant to this conversation. EDIT: Or to be more specific, you don't need to keep reminding us what it says.

That is absolutely not the case. You have claimed that the Bill of Rights is "irrelevant", yet you offer no evidence beyond pointing out that it is over two centuries old and insist on ignoring that the provisions therein are as relevant today as they ever were.

It feels like you're just trolling now, or trying some kind of appeal to emotion to stir up outrage: "he's attacking the bill of rights!!!".

I'm not saying the bill of rights is irrelevant to society. I'm saying it's irrelevant to a conversation about the impact of guns. Just like it would be irrelevant to a conversation about the impact of saturated fat on heart disease. What the bill of rights says doesn't make any fething difference to the answer.

I'm not attacking the bill or rights, I'm not claiming it's outmoded. I'm not even expressing an opinion on guns. I'm attacking you! Shut up about the fething bill of rights. We all know what it says, and even if we didn't, it doesn't make guns any safer, or any more dangerous. Not to people in the UK, not to people in Australia, not to people anywhere, not even in the USA. It doesn't make any difference, its irrelevant to the conversation. YOU are being irrelevant. That's the only point I want to make. It's not about guns, it's not about the bill of rights, it's about you and the people like you trying to browbeat everyone with the 2nd amendment, when people discuss if guns are damaging society. It's not contributing anything, it's not necessary and it's not relevant.

Ok, I see your point Smacks.
However.
The bill of rights was included in the constitution because some of the founders belived they needed to be specificly addressed. These rights are part of human heritage. Basic tenants of natural law that predate any man made law. These rights are what create safe equitable societies. When it comes to the debate over that serves society best if you look at only crime statistics for whether or not firearms should be embraced by a modern society you ignore 1,000s of years of history where well armed people subjugated, murdered or controlled their neibors ( or in the case of internal political conflict, subjects) because they had a better pointy stick.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Ok, I see your point Smacks.
However.
The bill of rights was included in the constitution because some of the founders belived they needed to be specificly addressed. These rights are part of human heritage. Basic tenants of natural law that predate any man made law. These rights are what create safe equitable societies. When it comes to the debate over that serves society best if you look at only crime statistics for whether or not firearms should be embraced by a modern society you ignore 1,000s of years of history where well armed people subjugated, murdered or controlled their neibors ( or in the case of internal political conflict, subjects) because they had a better pointy stick.

And that's a fair point. I agree that looking only at crime statistics would be an incomplete picture. I acknowledge that bearing arms is currently a "right" in the US. I acknowledge that many people don't want that right taken away. I also acknowledge that removing rights is a very big deal, and should be approached cautiously. So I don't see why that needs to be repeated.

But If I may offer an analogy: if I were to go to the doctor with mild water intoxication, and the doctor says to me: "I think you need to stop drinking so much water". I don't turn around and say to him: "Hey! F U doc! Drinking water is my right! Protected under international human rights law, stop trying to take away my right!". And maybe quote him a few dozen pages of all the various international treaties that give me the right to water. I suppose if I did, eventually he might say: "okay I acknowledge it's your right, but if you continue, your right or not, your brain is going to swell and you'll die".

That's very close to how I see many pro gun people in the US. They are so obsessed my this notion of "it's my right" and "they can't take away my right" that they are blinded, or simply refuse to even look at the damage guns (or rather gun overload) might be doing to society.

 Smacks wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Ok, I see your point Smacks.
However.
The bill of rights was included in the constitution because some of the founders belived they needed to be specificly addressed. These rights are part of human heritage. Basic tenants of natural law that predate any man made law. These rights are what create safe equitable societies. When it comes to the debate over that serves society best if you look at only crime statistics for whether or not firearms should be embraced by a modern society you ignore 1,000s of years of history where well armed people subjugated, murdered or controlled their neibors ( or in the case of internal political conflict, subjects) because they had a better pointy stick.

And that's a fair point. I agree that looking only at crime statistics would be an incomplete picture. I acknowledge that bearing arms is currently a "right" in the US. I acknowledge that many people don't want that right taken away. I also acknowledge that removing rights is a very big deal, and should be approached cautiously. So I don't see why that needs to be repeated.

But If I may offer an analogy: if I were to go to the doctor with mild water intoxication, and the doctor says to me: "I think you need to stop drinking so much water". I don't turn around and say to him: "Hey! F U doc! Drinking water is my right! Protected under international human rights law, stop trying to take away my right!". And maybe quote him a few dozen pages of all the various international treaties that give me the right to water. I suppose if I did eventually he might say, okay I acknowledge it's your right, but if you continue, your right or not, your brain is going to swell and you'll die.

That's very close to how I see many pro gun people in the US. They are so obsessed my this notion of "it's my right" and "they can't take away my right" that they are blinded, or simply refuse to even look at the damage guns might be doing to society (their own society).

The difference would be: The doctor could show you data on why drinking so much water was indeed hurting you. Of course, the doctor would also never force you to stop drinking water, nor would he propose forcing water limits on folks who are not suffering from the condition. As previously stated, go back through this thread and look at the actual data and studies presented. Almost all of it comes from the pro-gun side. The anti-gun side tend so use pleas to emotion generally based on specific incidents that are rare as hens teeth in actual occurrence. You just mentioned 'the damage guns MIGHT be doing to society, but again, the data trends show that gun violence, accidental deaths and other measures of 'damage to society' are on a downslope. And referenced studies show that anti-gun legislation and policies (such as the Australian NFA) probably had little to no practical effect.

It isn't that pro-gun rights folks are blinded, it is that they are sick of pleas to accept a limitation of their rights based on emotion rather than data/analysis.

The laws proposed after the shooting at Sandy Hook are a great example. When asked "How would your proposed legislation have stopped this from happening?" the answer was almost universally, "It would not have". So laws which would have limited freedom would not have solved the problem. We constantly see a plea for "Common sense legislation" or "Common sense gun control measures" but there is a distinct lack of showing those measures would address the issues folks want to believe they would solve.

 CptJake wrote:
The difference would be: The doctor could show you data on why drinking so much water was indeed hurting you. Of course, the doctor would also never force you to stop drinking water, nor would he propose forcing water limits on folks who are not suffering from the condition. As previously stated, go back through this thread and look at the actual data and studies presented. Almost all of it comes from the pro-gun side. The anti-gun side tend so use pleas to emotion generally based on specific incidents that are rare as hens teeth in actual occurrence. You just mentioned 'the damage guns MIGHT be doing to society, but again, the data trends show that gun violence, accidental deaths and other measures of 'damage to society' are on a downslope. And referenced studies show that anti-gun legislation and policies (such as the Australian NFA) probably had little to no practical effect.

It isn't that pro-gun rights folks are blinded, it is that they are sick of pleas to accept a limitation of their rights based on emotion rather than data/analysis.

The laws proposed after the shooting at Sandy Hook are a great example. When asked "How would your proposed legislation have stopped this from happening?" the answer was almost universally, "It would not have". So laws which would have limited freedom would not have solved the problem. We constantly see a plea for "Common sense legislation" or "Common sense gun control measures" but there is a distinct lack of showing those measures would address the issues folks want to believe they would solve.

I think you're absolutely right. I have seen a lot of the proposed gun legislation and it's pretty stupid. Even some legislation that has been passed I think was badly conceived. Things like banning certain types of rifles or ammunition that have never actually killed anyone etc... But just because some arguments against guns are bad, that doesn't mean all arguments against guns are automatically bad by association.

I think there is emotion on both sides, and there is data that "might" support both sides. The pro-gun side certainly has supplied a lot of data, but pro gun lobby groups also spend a lot more money, and the data is not always "good" (on either side). For example comparing rates of violent crime when different states/countries have different standards of what constitutes "violent", sometimes violet crime rates go up and down because standards change, and of course correlation is easy to suggest but very difficult to prove. There are things like the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, that suggest falling crime rates are connected to the legalization of abortion decades before. Most of the data when scrutinized is fairly inconclusive. While we all like to bolster our arguments with figures, a lot of data when scrutinized closely is at best inconclusive. As the saying goes "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

So perhaps the question is one of philosophy more than anything else. I hope we can all agree that rape should be illegal. It doesn't really matter what the data is on rape, or if anyone actually got raped. It should still be illegal because philosophically it is not something we want in our society. If we are talking about long term goals for society, I don't think "needing a weapon at all times" should be in there. That would imply that something went very badly wrong. So I suppose it's a question of what kind of world do you want to build. If weapons really make people feel safer, then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they routinely open fire on unarmed people?

 Smacks wrote:
then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they have to open fire on unarmed people?

How would the police know he was unarmed if his hands where obscured.

Our police dont and or shouldn't be firing on actually unarmed people.
at the same time people REALLY shouldn't be "challenging" police officers (on the streets). that's what the legal system is for.

 Smacks wrote:

So perhaps the question is one of philosophy more than anything else. I hope we can all agree that rape should be illegal. It doesn't really matter what the data is on rape, or if anyone actually got raped. It should still be illegal because philosophically it is not something we want in our society. If we are talking about long term goals for society, I don't think "needing a weapon at all times" should be in there. That would imply that something went very badly wrong. So I suppose it's a question of what kind of world do you want to build. If weapons really make people feel safer, then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they have to open fire on unarmed people?

You know, crimes by def are illegal, and use of a weapon (gun or not) tends to be a factor in level of charge and sentencing guidelines if convicted. So, just like rape, murdering someone is illegal, and I don't think I've seen anyone advocate that should change. In fact, there are crimes like 'brandishing' that make it illegal in many places to show a firearm, even accidentally. So, our society has already determined hurting people is a Bad Thin in most cases (self defense being an obvious exception which still imparts a legal requirement to prove the conditions for self defense were met), and we've put laws into place to show our disapproval of hurting people. Unlike rape or any other form of assault, my ownership or lack thereof of any weapon hurts no one. If I do not use those weapons illegally, no one suffers. I really don't care if they make someone 'feel uncomfortable'. That again is emotion. I also don't care if someone 'feels uncomfortable' when folks dressed a certain way walk near them. As long as those folks don't act in an illegal manner, feth someone's feelings about it.

Again, 'needing a weapon at all times' starts to be an emotive argument. Need frankly has nothing to do with it. Want is a perfectly acceptable reason as long as the laws permit, and currently that right to act on that want exists. So again, if you want to limit that right, the burden correctly should be on you to show a good reason, and to show that the costs are worth paying and the benefits are tangible and not pie in the sky ideas. And again, history seems to prove that much of the proposed legislation does nothing to solve the issues it is stated to address.

If our cops feel the need to 'open fire on unarmed people', they are wrong. The laws generally do NOT permit that. What they DO permit is the cops to determine a threat and in some cases use deadly force to counter that threat. The threat often can be perceived and not actual. Investigations are supposed to happen each time a cop pulls a trigger (inflicting death, injury, or missing) in the line of duty. If the investigations are bogus, or cops are dishonest, that is a separate though related issue and it should be (and in some cases is being) addressed. Limiting rights of lawful gun owners is very likely NOT part of the solution set to cops acting outside of their authority. For example, the prolific use of No Knock warrants served by SWAT teams at early morning hours is generally indicative of lazy and sloppy police work and warrant granting by judges rather than based on actual threat conditions in the property the warrant is being executed (assuming the thugs are executing it at the correct address...). Tying police actions to legal gun ownership without some data/fact based analysis is just silly. For example, there is no indication the cops coming down like a hammer the first couple of nights in Ferguson had anything to do with legal gun ownership in the area.

 Desubot wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they have to open fire on unarmed people?

How would the police know he was unarmed if his hands where obscured.

Well how do police in the UK know that people aren't carrying guns? They must be reasonably confident since they don't actually carry guns themselves. "I don't need a gun" versus "I need to shoot anyone who's hands I can't see"... Which one sounds like they feel safer to you?

 Smacks wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they have to open fire on unarmed people?

How would the police know he was unarmed if his hands where obscured.

Well how do police in the UK know that people aren't carrying guns? They must be reasonably confident since they don't actually carry guns themselves. "I don't need a gun" versus "I need to shoot anyone who's hands I can't see"... Which one sounds like they feel safer to you?

Il take the i will NEED to shoot some one whos hands i cant see and is acting in a threatening way.

Be it a knife, a gun, a screw driver, a hand grenade. if they are coming towards me and not listening.

That being said The police should of probably picked some better words. like "let me see your hands" or get on the ground, instead of drop the gun. which is dumb.

 Smacks wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they have to open fire on unarmed people?

How would the police know he was unarmed if his hands where obscured.

Well how do police in the UK know that people aren't carrying guns? They must be reasonably confident since they don't actually carry guns themselves. "I don't need a gun" versus "I need to shoot anyone who's hands I can't see"... Which one sounds like they feel safer to you?

While guns are mostly off the streets in the UK. Real firearms. The number of armed UK police is still going up. Granted it looks like UK law enforcement is split on the issue, and teasers are more in favor. (And tazers will kill some subjects that the police only are attempting to subdue)
Why the need for more arms in a disarmed society?

OgreChubbs wrote:
lol you guys get so upset so quickly., over nothing, as usual. Which is probably why you have such problems in the first place very overly aggressive people who cause a lot of their own problems. Moving on to a more gentle and reasonable crowd. chow.

Poster posts garbled explanation of originally trolling post, claims to be on tablet set to French, poster then misspells "Ciao", poster is warmly welcomed as a citizen of ignorlandia.

I'm really interested in hearing the whole story and seeing a picture of the victim from when he was 12. Whichever comes first.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Ok, I see your point Smacks.
However.
The bill of rights was included in the constitution because some of the founders belived they needed to be specificly addressed. These rights are part of human heritage. Basic tenants of natural law that predate any man made law. These rights are what create safe equitable societies. ... ...

I am sure you would not claim that Japan, the UK, Italy, Canada, Norway, etc. are not safe equitable societies? They all have much tighter gun laws than the USA.

[Damn you tiny phone screen!]
IGNORE MEEEEE!
-THE GALACTIC INQUISITOR

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

So perhaps the question is one of philosophy more than anything else. I hope we can all agree that rape should be illegal. It doesn't really matter what the data is on rape, or if anyone actually got raped. It should still be illegal because philosophically it is not something we want in our society. If we are talking about long term goals for society, I don't think "needing a weapon at all times" should be in there. That would imply that something went very badly wrong. So I suppose it's a question of what kind of world do you want to build. If weapons really make people feel safer, then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they have to open fire on unarmed people?

You know, crimes by def are illegal, and use of a weapon (gun or not) tends to be a factor in level of charge and sentencing guidelines if convicted. So, just like rape, murdering someone is illegal, and I don't think I've seen anyone advocate that should change. In fact, there are crimes like 'brandishing' that make it illegal in many places to show a firearm, even accidentally. So, our society has already determined hurting people is a Bad Thin in most cases (self defense being an obvious exception which still imparts a legal requirement to prove the conditions for self defense were met), and we've put laws into place to show our disapproval of hurting people. Unlike rape or any other form of assault, my ownership or lack thereof of any weapon hurts no one. If I do not use those weapons illegally, no one suffers. I really don't care if they make someone 'feel uncomfortable'. That again is emotion. I also don't care if someone 'feels uncomfortable' when folks dressed a certain way walk near them. As long as those folks don't act in an illegal manner, feth someone's feelings about it.

Again, 'needing a weapon at all times' starts to be an emotive argument. Need frankly has nothing to do with it. Want is a perfectly acceptable reason as long as the laws permit, and currently that right to act on that want exists. So again, if you want to limit that right, the burden correctly should be on you to show a good reason, and to show that the costs are worth paying and the benefits are tangible and not pie in the sky ideas. And again, history seems to prove that much of the proposed legislation does nothing to solve the issues it is stated to address.

Well I don't know if that is fair. For example if I "wanted" a nuclear bomb, and hypothetically I was able to get one. Is the onus really on you to prove I shouldn't have one? I'm sure you would at least be curious about what I was planning to do with it? Even if you were happy to trust me with it, how can you be sure it won't fall into the wrong hands? It's not fair for me to say it's none of your business "I'm not hurting anyone", because it is your business, your life and the lives of others might depend on that weapon being used safely. The more people who are allowed weapons the greater the chance that someone will use one. That isn't emotional, it's fairly logical.

If you agree that hurting people is wrong, then it follows that the tools for hurting people are also wrong. Be it a nuke or a pair of knuckle dusters, if it doesn't have a purpose beyond hurting people then why could you possibly want it, except to hurt someone? Which we agree is wrong. Self defence might be an exception, it might not. In the UK "self defence" is not a legitimate reason for keeping any kind of weapon. The thought process being that violence should always be the very last resort. There are lots of ways to protect yourself and your belongings that don't involve weapons. Door locks, alarms and security systems, good habits, retreating, of course a dedicated police force etc... If people are given carte blanche to defend themselves with weapons then the worry is that they will not use them as a last resort but as a first resort, and that more weapons will also be available to be misused or even used against the owners themselves.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
[Damn you tiny phone screen!]
IGNORE MEEEEE!
-THE GALACTIC INQUISITOR

Nice Venture Bros reference

 Smacks wrote:

If you agree that hurting people is wrong, then it follows that the tools for hurting people are also wrong. Be it a nuke or a pair of knuckle dusters, if it doesn't have a purpose beyond hurting people then why could you possibly want it, except to hurt someone? Which we agree is wrong. Self defence might be an exception, it might not.

And here is where we massively disagree. The ACTION of hurting people is wrong (and generally already illegal). Owning a tool which CAN hurt people generally is not and should not be wrong. Using the tool to threaten or actually harm folks IS already illegal (and in Florida for example, use of a gun adds 10 years to your sentence). I can think of many reasons to own items expressly designed to hurt maim or kill others. Some folks collect swords. Some guns. Most folks who collect these items (the very vast majority in fact) never use those items to hurt others. Some want the weapons for sport purposes, and again, the vast majority never hurt anyone. And I very truly believe having access to the tools of self defense IS a fantastic reason to own weapons. And to use them. There are many many cases where the presentation of a gun or other weapon has turned away a would be violent criminal.

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

If you agree that hurting people is wrong, then it follows that the tools for hurting people are also wrong. Be it a nuke or a pair of knuckle dusters, if it doesn't have a purpose beyond hurting people then why could you possibly want it, except to hurt someone? Which we agree is wrong. Self defence might be an exception, it might not.

And here is where we massively disagree. The ACTION of hurting people is wrong (and generally already illegal). Owning a tool which CAN hurt people generally is not and should not be wrong. Using the tool to threaten or actually harm folks IS already illegal (and in Florida for example, use of a gun adds 10 years to your sentence). I can think of many reasons to own items expressly designed to hurt maim or kill others. Some folks collect swords. Some guns. Most folks who collect these items (the very vast majority in fact) never use those items to hurt others. Some want the weapons for sport purposes, and again, the vast majority never hurt anyone. And I very truly believe having access to the tools of self defense IS a fantastic reason to own weapons. And to use them. There are many many cases where the presentation of a gun or other weapon has turned away a would be violent criminal.

IMO, hurting someone all comes down to circumstances and intent.... And we have laws that cover basically all of them.

Which is why many places in the US have such strong self-defense laws. Self-defense is ALWAYS the exception to harming/hurting other people.

 Smacks wrote:
It feels like you're just trolling now, or trying some kind of appeal to emotion to stir up outrage: "he's attacking the bill of rights!!!".

I'm unclear as to how you came to the conclusion that I am attempting to make an appeal to emotion when I have used no emotional arguments. I've cited facts and asked questions directly related to your points.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not saying the bill of rights is irrelevant to society.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not attacking the bill or rights, I'm not claiming it's outmoded.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/653412.page#7930110
"I did not say the constitution is irrelevant because it is old, it is irrelevant because it's irrelevant."

 Smacks wrote:
I'm saying it's irrelevant to a conversation about the impact of guns. Just like it would be irrelevant to a conversation about the impact of saturated fat on heart disease. What the bill of rights says doesn't make any fething difference to the answer.

Which Amendment covers the right to saturated fat? Where is the legal protection, or law which establishes the right to saturated fat?

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not even expressing an opinion on guns. I'm attacking you! Shut up about the fething bill of rights. We all know what it says, and even if we didn't, it doesn't make guns any safer, or any more dangerous. Not to people in the UK, not to people in Australia, not to people anywhere, not even in the USA. It doesn't make any difference, its irrelevant to the conversation. YOU are being irrelevant. That's the only point I want to make. It's not about guns, it's not about the bill of rights, it's about you and the people like you trying to browbeat everyone with the 2nd amendment, when people discuss if guns are damaging society. It's not contributing anything, it's not necessary and it's not relevant.

Given that the Second Amendment is only law in the United States I think it's obvious that it does not apply to the UK or Australia.

I have not attempted to "browbeat" you with the Second Amendment. I have mentioned it as Amendment which codified this right. I have invited you time and time again to make your point as to why you think that the laws relating to firearms in the US should change and why you feel that there is an issue with the status quo. I have given you facts and information about firearms in the United States and you seem unwilling to have this discussion on firearms that you porport to want


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
But If I may offer an analogy: if I were to go to the doctor with mild water intoxication, and the doctor says to me: "I think you need to stop drinking so much water". I don't turn around and say to him: "Hey! F U doc! Drinking water is my right! Protected under international human rights law, stop trying to take away my right!". And maybe quote him a few dozen pages of all the various international treaties that give me the right to water. I suppose if I did, eventually he might say: "okay I acknowledge it's your right, but if you continue, your right or not, your brain is going to swell and you'll die".

That's very close to how I see many pro gun people in the US. They are so obsessed my this notion of "it's my right" and "they can't take away my right" that they are blinded, or simply refuse to even look at the damage guns (or rather gun overload) might be doing to society.

You are making an analogy of owning firearms with a deliberate course of action that is going to cause serious medical issues. Your comparison is not apt.

Again you mention "the damage guns (or rather gun overload) might be doing to society", but you don't offer any evidence to show that the ownership of firearms is harmful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
I think you're absolutely right. I have seen a lot of the proposed gun legislation and it's pretty stupid. Even some legislation that has been passed I think was badly conceived. Things like banning certain types of rifles or ammunition that have never actually killed anyone etc... But just because some arguments against guns are bad, that doesn't mean all arguments against guns are automatically bad by association.

Some of the legislation attempting to regulate so called assault rifles (even those looking to restrict these firearms cannot come up with a convincing definition other than 'scary black rifle') has been based on cosmetic features which do not affect the function of the rifle



Or Washington State which passed a law to say that a firearm cannot be transferred without a background check. It was intended that it would cover sales only. What it meant instead was that if I am hunting and hand my rifle to someone to hold as I cross a fence then I have illegally transferred my firearm and have committed a felony. If it is passed back to me then another felony has been committed.

 Smacks wrote:
I think there is emotion on both sides, and there is data that "might" support both sides. The pro-gun side certainly has supplied a lot of data, but pro gun lobby groups also spend a lot more money, and the data is not always "good" (on either side). For example comparing rates of violent crime when different states/countries have different standards of what constitutes "violent", sometimes violet crime rates go up and down because standards change, and of course correlation is easy to suggest but very difficult to prove. There are things like the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, that suggest falling crime rates are connected to the legalization of abortion decades before. Most of the data when scrutinized is fairly inconclusive. While we all like to bolster our arguments with figures, a lot of data when scrutinized closely is at best inconclusive. As the saying goes "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

The anti-gun side also spends a serious amount of money; especially Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who bankrolled Mayors Against Illegal Guns (they went after all guns), and the astroturf group Moms Demand Action. This is in addition to giving significant funding to anti gun candidates

 Smacks wrote:
So perhaps the question is one of philosophy more than anything else. I hope we can all agree that rape should be illegal. It doesn't really matter what the data is on rape, or if anyone actually got raped. It should still be illegal because philosophically it is not something we want in our society. If we are talking about long term goals for society, I don't think "needing a weapon at all times" should be in there. That would imply that something went very badly wrong. So I suppose it's a question of what kind of world do you want to build. If weapons really make people feel safer, then why do your armed police feel so unsafe that they routinely open fire on unarmed people?

Is there a legal, or legitimate use for rape? No there is not. The rape analogy would work better as follows; all sex should be outlawed because a small minority of the population are rapists.

 CptJake wrote:
Some folks collect swords. Some guns. Most folks who collect these items (the very vast majority in fact) never use those items to hurt others. Some want the weapons for sport purposes, and again, the vast majority never hurt anyone.

We don't disagree on that, it's a given that "weapons" used for sports, hunting and display/education purposes, do have a purpose other than to hurt people, and there should be allowances for them. We also have guns in the UK which are legally owned for sport etc...

And I very truly believe having access to the tools of self defense IS a fantastic reason to own weapons. And to use them.

We might agree if guns were used only for that purpose (outside sports etc mentioned above), and only as a last resort, but that isn't what happens. I think the benefits need to be weighed against the costs. This is where the data comes in. And I don't agree that the data supports guns. I even went to check about accidents on gunfacts to see what the pro-gun lobby had to say on it, here is the page: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/

Interestingly this is an entire page of "appeal to bigger problems" which is just diversion, I find that quite telling. Apparently gun accidents are a "non-issue". But other data says that you are 4 times more likely to have an accident with a gun (in the home) than to use one in self defence. Which (if true) would make accidents quite a significant issue by comparison.

There are many many cases where the presentation of a gun or other weapon has turned away a would be violent criminal.

Guns can also cause situations to escalate. Most robbers and burglars aren't hell-bent on murder, producing a gun might needlessly escalate the situation to a shoot out, if the assailant is also armed then it seems as likely to get you killed as to save your life.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not saying the bill of rights is irrelevant to society.

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not attacking the bill or rights, I'm not claiming it's outmoded.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/653412.page#7930110
"I did not say the constitution is irrelevant because it is old, it is irrelevant because it's irrelevant."

 Smacks wrote:
I'm saying it's irrelevant to a conversation about the impact of guns. <--- look here it is explained, right in your own quote, you even quoted it in the next line* -- comment by Smacks

Yes, irrelevant... TO THE CONVERSATION. Read the very next line, I explained it so clearly*. I know the mods frown on comments about reading comprehension, but seriously man, how many times do I need to say it? My last comment was so clear on this point. In all seriousness, and I'm not asking this to be rude or to insult you, but do you have some kind of disability?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I'm saying it's irrelevant to a conversation about the impact of guns. Just like it would be irrelevant to a conversation about the impact of saturated fat on heart disease. What the bill of rights says doesn't make any fething difference to the answer.

Which Amendment covers the right to saturated fat? Where is the legal protection, or law which establishes the right to saturated fat?

Show me the amendment that contains accurate statistics on firearm related accidents and deaths, that would be pertinent to this conversation?