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.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't think people shy away from honestly admitting that we're ok with the cost of our freedom and our "gun culture." There are aspects of freedom that are terrifying, dangerous and messy but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of guaranteeing people their right to make their own choices and accept the responsibility of firearm ownership.

You mustn't have seen any of the gun debate threads here on dakka. I've entered probably 20 of them, and each time it is to make the same simple point - having all tose guns around means more people are murdered, and more commit suicide, than if the guns weren't there. I get a very hostile response every single time.

The vast majority of gun owners take that responsibility seriously and a relative handful of bad actors isn't a good enough reason to take that freedom away.

I know what you're getting at but I don't quite agree. First up, there's this kind of strange assumption that every gun owner is either responsible, or deadly dangerous. I know you're looking to focus on how responsible most gun owners are, but it actually makes the gun seem more dangerous than it actually is. If some idiot put a loaded gun in a box in the attic... probably nothing bad would ever happen, It'd be a stupid risk by an idiot, but the gun is still an inert object that would need other foolish or unlucky events to even create the chance of a tragedy. It's like claiming we should have cars because most drivers are responsible - actually most drivers are fething idiots, speeding, texting as they drive etc. It's just that despite those things most people still manage to not kill anyone. SImilarly, even when gun owners are reckless it still doesn't lead to death very often, because that's the nature of the product.

Second and probably more importantly, it isn't about the number of responsible vs irresponsible gun owners, because that ignores the weighting of good behaviour vs bad. To return to the car comparison, consider if 99% of drivers were very responsible and obeyed every road rule and never got anyone in danger, ever. The other 1% drove like lunatics and each of them averaged 1 fatal hit and run every day. By your metric the 99:1 ratio would mean we shouldn't punish the majority, but in reality if that 1% was killing thousands every day cars would be banned immediately and everyone would be made to take the train to work.

The actual ratio is total benefit against total cost. Total cost is easy to assess, its however many extra murders and suicides we think is caused by gun proliferation. The benefit is the target shooting hobby tens of millions have, the hunting hobby enjoyed by tens of millions more, and its the benefit of liberty and an individual making his own choice. Those are the factors that must get weighed against one another.

We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.

I agree its your decision and should be based on American beliefs and values. Though I don't think we can say America right now is happy with the way you are. The issue blows up a couple of times every year precisely because so many people on both sides are not happy about where the issue is right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In my experience, it's a very fine line between extremist and idiot.

Very true. Many idiots are also extremists, and many extremists are also idiots.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain.

That's a fallacy. They can not buy gun, but they can't not have lunatic crazy old ex-cop gunning them done in a movie theater because of pop-corn. Hence why they want to change this culture. And you know all this, and are being disingenuous.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership

That's not what I am mocking. Else I would be mocking Switzerland on this too! What I am “mocking” is how the US has this huge extremely toxic debate on gun ownership. Switzerland regularly has (kinda) healthy debates on gun ownership, I respect that. The US doesn't have anything healthy. Your own post is testament to this…

What culture? The ex cop isn't indicative of any culture, he's one old man who over reacted to a confrontation over texting in a theater. That's not a reason to punish anyone other than the ex cop. Tens of millions of US citizens responsibly own hundreds of millions of firearms. That's the gun culture, generations of families growing up with guns in the house who view them as tools to use responsibly not some fearsome boogey man.

The only toxic thing in the debate I the way people want to run roughshod over other people's freedom in the name of actions done by others.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Nobody had the right to prevent the ex cop from carrying if he chose to do so.

Are you talking about ethics or law? If you are talking about laws, that was some people in the US want to change. If you are talking about ethics, I disagree. Just like I disagree that people have a right to do drunk driving, even though I am totally unaffected by drunk drivers that don't run me over.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The ex cop is now being prosecuted and a trial will determine if he did wrong.

Which is entirely different from the ex-cop having had a shouting argument and then everyone going back home angry but safe and unharmed.

If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The ex cop isn't indicative of any culture, he's one old man who over reacted to a confrontation over texting in a theater.

Meh, I wasn't the one to introduce “culture” into the discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's not a reason to punish anyone other than the ex cop.

Punish is how you see it. I know a bunch of people that find the drunk driving laws very annoying. However, they usually don't complain that they are being punished. They understand that the law, which restricts their freedom to drive while drunk, is also protecting them from having accidents with other drunk drivers. They may disagree with the laws because they don't think the benefits are worth the costs (most of them do think the benefits are worth the cost actually), but they don't consider it a punishment.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The only toxic thing in the debate I the way people want to run roughshod over other people's freedom in the name of actions done by others.

That's a description fit for tons of other laws and regulations. And yet people don't get all up in arms about those like they do for guns. Because gun fetish.
I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

How do you figure? Do young people always win fights 100% of the time? Why do you assume he will literally kill him?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

So why did the old guy start the fight?

Why did the young guy take it physical? The old guy was yelling and told theatre management on him but that's all just words which can be ignored.

The younger man crossed the line when he threw his cell phone then got close enough to grab the popcorn and throw it in the old mans face. The old man was assaulted twice before he retaliated and the younger man was still within physical proximity that he could have continued punching and hitting him as it's not like he was standing a great distance away. As soon as things turned physical they had already escalated beyond a reasonable level and were getting even more heated. Both men should have backed down and just ignored the other but instead they both chose to escalate. It's unfortunate that somebody died but there was a large amount of stupidity being displayed by both of them.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great.

You're joking, right? It happens all the time that someone punches out someone else just to rob them. If you get the first punch in (sucker punch them) or have a large physical advantage, there is seldom any worry "of being too injured to flee or losing the fight". Doesn't require a knife, gun, pipe or any sort of weapon, just fists or feet.

 stanman wrote:
Why did the young guy take it physical? The old guy was yelling and told theatre management on him but that's all just words which can be ignored.

The younger man crossed the line when he threw his cell phone then got close enough to grab the popcorn and throw it in the old mans face. The old man was assaulted twice before he retaliated and the younger man was still within physical proximity that he could have continued punching and hitting him as it's not like he was standing a great distance away. As soon as things turned physical they had already escalated beyond a reasonable level and were getting even more heated. Both men should have backed down and just ignored the other but instead they both chose to escalate. It's unfortunate that somebody died but there was a large amount of stupidity being displayed by both of them.

Yeah, but one idiot is dead. We can't really punish him any more than that. The other idiot is still alive and in a good position to punish.

Based on the evidence provided I don't like Reeves' chances of getting off. You have his wife saying "that was no cause to shoot anyone." (which Reeves responded to by telling her "you shut your f------ mouth and don't say another word"). You have an off duty deputy saying Reeves said "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me" before making the shot****.

It makes it difficult to believe the old guy has a genuine claim to SYG. Especially if you consider his role in starting the disagreement over something so trivial and then helping to escalate it (which I'm not sure they do in Florida).




****(which from the video he didn't have time to say between popcorn being thrown and the shooting, so maybe Reeves thought Oulson had already thrown popcorn, and upon hearing it Oulson took it as a dare and grabbed Reeves' popcorn and threw it at him BUT either way 2nd and 3rd witnesses, the nurse and the ex-USAAF guy, claim a similar thing was said, but maybe the order of events is a bit off?)

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

How do you figure? Do young people always win fights 100% of the time? Why do you assume he will literally kill him?

Do you in fact know anyone over 20? Are you seriously asking that? Of course there are outliers, but as a rule, a young guy is going to pound an old guy, just as a young guy is going to pound a woman of his same age.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't think people shy away from honestly admitting that we're ok with the cost of our freedom and our "gun culture." There are aspects of freedom that are terrifying, dangerous and messy but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of guaranteeing people their right to make their own choices and accept the responsibility of firearm ownership.

You mustn't have seen any of the gun debate threads here on dakka. I've entered probably 20 of them, and each time it is to make the same simple point - having all tose guns around means more people are murdered, and more commit suicide, than if the guns weren't there. I get a very hostile response every single time.

The vast majority of gun owners take that responsibility seriously and a relative handful of bad actors isn't a good enough reason to take that freedom away.

I know what you're getting at but I don't quite agree. First up, there's this kind of strange assumption that every gun owner is either responsible, or deadly dangerous. I know you're looking to focus on how responsible most gun owners are, but it actually makes the gun seem more dangerous than it actually is. If some idiot put a loaded gun in a box in the attic... probably nothing bad would ever happen, It'd be a stupid risk by an idiot, but the gun is still an inert object that would need other foolish or unlucky events to even create the chance of a tragedy. It's like claiming we should have cars because most drivers are responsible - actually most drivers are fething idiots, speeding, texting as they drive etc. It's just that despite those things most people still manage to not kill anyone. SImilarly, even when gun owners are reckless it still doesn't lead to death very often, because that's the nature of the product.

Second and probably more importantly, it isn't about the number of responsible vs irresponsible gun owners, because that ignores the weighting of good behaviour vs bad. To return to the car comparison, consider if 99% of drivers were very responsible and obeyed every road rule and never got anyone in danger, ever. The other 1% drove like lunatics and each of them averaged 1 fatal hit and run every day. By your metric the 99:1 ratio would mean we shouldn't punish the majority, but in reality if that 1% was killing thousands every day cars would be banned immediately and everyone would be made to take the train to work.

The actual ratio is total benefit against total cost. Total cost is easy to assess, its however many extra murders and suicides we think is caused by gun proliferation. The benefit is the target shooting hobby tens of millions have, the hunting hobby enjoyed by tens of millions more, and its the benefit of liberty and an individual making his own choice. Those are the factors that must get weighed against one another.

We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.

I agree its your decision and should be based on American beliefs and values. Though I don't think we can say America right now is happy with the way you are. The issue blows up a couple of times every year precisely because so many people on both sides are not happy about where the issue is right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In my experience, it's a very fine line between extremist and idiot.

Very true. Many idiots are also extremists, and many extremists are also idiots.

You post here more frequently than I do so I'll take you word for how hostile the threads get. That's a shame because the debate really boils down to people who are content with the status quo and people who want to change it. In my experience the content people tend to remain steadfast and the people advocating more restrictions tend to become more emotional and heated as their frustration increases.

I agree with your calculus on the pros and cons of gun ownership and I think the benefits outweigh the costs.

I think you overstate the desire for change in the US. It's true that every time there's a mass shooting there is national news coverage of it and the debate over gun control becomes a national story as well but that only lasts for a few weeks. There has yet to be any long lasting impetus to make any real change to the status quo. After the Newtown shooting the state of Connecticut passed a law requiring "assault rifles" to be registered but few people are complying with it and the authorities in CT aren't enforcing it. In NY you had the SAFE Act get passed but some of it has been overturned in court already and it primarily dealt with magazine capacity which really doesn't affect gun ownership or proliferation. While differences remain between states, California and Massachusetts have more restrictive gun laws than Montana and Florida, on a national level we're trending to a more permissive than restrictive society. More states are shall issue states for concealed carry permits than ever before, there are less restrictions on where you can carry concealed weapons, there are more concealed carried permits being issued and more guns being purchased. Permissive states are becoming more permissive and restrictive states are facing more court challenges. Obtaining a concealed carry permit is a very simple process in 35 states and we're not seeing any concerted effort to push back against that. Gun control can be a hot topic in the news cycle but it hasn't been a big issue at the ballot box in my lifetime. It never shows up as being a priority in polling.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

So why did the old guy start the fight?

He didn't. AND HERE IS THE REAL CRUX OF THE CASE FOR THE YOUNGINS.

He didn't "start the fight."

The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.

At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."

Where the case comes into being is the point after that when the Defendant then draws and shoots. I don't have video so I don't well have video of that, but the issue would be whether the Deceased then performed actions that could reasonably be believed to be a physical attack upon the Defendant. You are also correct here in that his actions prior come into play. Someone posted: "You have an off duty deputy saying Reeves said "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me" before making the shot****. " yea anythying like that will go harshly against his affirmative claim of self defense.

Had the old guy left before the shooting part and called the PoPo, the Deceased would have gone to jail.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Why did the young guy take it physical? The old guy was yelling and told theatre management on him but that's all just words which can be ignored.

The younger man crossed the line when he threw his cell phone then got close enough to grab the popcorn and throw it in the old mans face. The old man was assaulted twice before he retaliated and the younger man was still within physical proximity that he could have continued punching and hitting him as it's not like he was standing a great distance away. As soon as things turned physical they had already escalated beyond a reasonable level and were getting even more heated. Both men should have backed down and just ignored the other but instead they both chose to escalate. It's unfortunate that somebody died but there was a large amount of stupidity being displayed by both of them.

Wow, ninja'd by the man with the angry face!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

Two people in a room together are going to behave how they want to behave regardless of the presence of firearms. If the two of us were ever in a room together there's a good chance I'll be armed but that doesn't instill any desire in my to do you harm. Likewise if for some reason we were in the same room and for some reason I desired to try to harm you I could successfully attempt to do so even if I wasn't armed. Carrying a gun didn't change the ex cop's temperament or his willingness to commit violence against another person, it just increased the lethality of the violence. That's the point.

 Frazzled wrote:
Do you in fact know anyone over 20?

You can actually remain a good fighter until health issues start to weigh you down. My Dad taught me not to get in to fights with old guys because they often can still beat you up pretty good Boxers often keep boxing in to their 40's. George Foreman made a comeback at the age of 38 and kept fighting until 48.

Of course this dude was 70, but I was just responding to the "Do you in fact know anyone over 20?" part

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The ex cop isn't indicative of any culture, he's one old man who over reacted to a confrontation over texting in a theater.

Meh, I wasn't the one to introduce “culture” into the discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's not a reason to punish anyone other than the ex cop.

Punish is how you see it. I know a bunch of people that find the drunk driving laws very annoying. However, they usually don't complain that they are being punished. They understand that the law, which restricts their freedom to drive while drunk, is also protecting them from having accidents with other drunk drivers. They may disagree with the laws because they don't think the benefits are worth the costs (most of them do think the benefits are worth the cost actually), but they don't consider it a punishment.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The only toxic thing in the debate I the way people want to run roughshod over other people's freedom in the name of actions done by others.

That's a description fit for tons of other laws and regulations. And yet people don't get all up in arms about those like they do for guns. Because gun fetish.
I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.

If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment. If you do that because of something somebody else did that I had no part in then that would be an unjust punishment. Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously. I'm not allowed to consume alcohol while carrying a firearm either but that doesn't infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. I can own and drive a car, I can own and carry a gun I just can't do either while intoxicated. There's a whole host of things I can't legally do while intoxicated but I'm still free to do all of them when I'm sober.

You should be allowed to build your own car.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.

No? You cannot buy a stock car (or even a wrecked one), change the motor, change the transmission, change the suspension, change nearly any feature of it you want, all in your own backyard? Or do you think you have to be able to start from scratch for it to be considered 'building your own car"?

 don_mondo wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.

No? You cannot buy a stock car (or even a wrecked one), change the motor, change the transmission, change the suspension, change nearly any feature of it you want, all in your own backyard? Or do you think you have to be able to start from scratch for it to be considered 'building your own car"?

Don't tell the my neighbors...

My dad tweaked every car he owned. Genghis Connie's little Nissan that was his last car can royally run with the bulls.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

So why did the old guy start the fight?

He didn't. AND HERE IS THE REAL CRUX OF THE CASE FOR THE YOUNGINS.

He didn't "start the fight."

The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.

He started the verbal altercation, and continued to act hostile even when he had the option to move or wait for management. Let's not forget he went apeshit over someone texting before the movie had even started, which means he was not even responding to a reasonable provocation. The young man threw popcorn, which isn't legal and didn't help the situation, but from the video the old man shot him so quickly afterwards thst he must have already been reaching for his gun, not in response to "battery". The old man had a history of starting arguments at theaters and escalating them according to Ouze's article; if he had been a reasonable person, there wouldn't have even been a verbal tussle.

And while throwing popcorn might technically be assault, it is a ridiculous justification to shoot. Anyone who has such an itchy trigger and low threshold should not be allowed to own a gun. Besides, throwing popcorn at troublemakers in movie theaters is an established response that should have been expected, at least more so than a gun.

At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."

Where the case comes into being is the point after that when the Defendant then draws and shoots. I don't have video so I don't well have video of that, but the issue would be whether the Deceased then performed actions that could reasonably be believed to be a physical attack upon the Defendant. You are also correct here in that his actions prior come into play. Someone posted: "You have an off duty deputy saying Reeves said "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me" before making the shot****. " yea anythying like that will go harshly against his affirmative claim of self defense.

Had the old guy left before the shooting part and called the PoPo, the Deceased would have gone to jail.

No he wouldn't have. The police would have balked that they were called because someone threw popcorn, and they most likely would have given both sides a terse talking to.

Oh wait, the old one was once a police officer? Yeah, you're right. Popcorn thrower definitely would have gone to jail. Might even have resisted.

To be clear we are in agreement on everything except where it is alleged the Deceased threw a phone at the Defendant. To restate I do not have the video but the CNN article alleges that:


He started the verbal altercation, and continued to act hostile even when he had the option to move or wait for management. Let's not forget he went apeshit over someone texting before the movie had even started, which means he was not even responding to a reasonable provocation.
***yep hence my “dickbag” comment. He has not however assaulted the Deceased.

The young man threw popcorn, which isn't legal and didn't help the situation,
***Agreed, its minor. Throwing the phone is not minor.

but from the video the old man shot him so quickly afterwards thst he must have already been reaching for his gun, not in response to "battery".
***As stated I don’t have the video, but again all that is evidence that he did not have a reasonable fear. Blowing someone’s ass to hell because you are angry is not self defense.

The old man had a history of starting arguments at theaters and escalating them according to Ouze's article; if he had been a reasonable person, there wouldn't have even been a verbal tussle.
***Agreed on both counts and that should come in (again this Florida, I think only evidence introduced by alligators is permitted).

And while throwing popcorn might technically be assault, it is a ridiculous justification to shoot.
***Its no justification at all.

Anyone who has such an itchy trigger and low threshold should not be allowed to own a gun.
***Whats scary is this was a decades long PoPo and PoPo Captain right?

Besides, throwing popcorn at troublemakers in movie theaters is an established response that should have been expected, at least more so than a gun.
***No disagreement. My daughter would seriously beat your ass for it though. 



No he wouldn't have. The police would have balked that they were called because someone threw popcorn, and they most likely would have given both sides a terse talking to.
***Popcorn yes, throwing a phone? He’s going to jail.
Oh wait, the old one was once a police officer? Yeah, you're right. Popcorn thrower definitely would have gone to jail. Might even have resisted.
***Now you understand…

Do we know that he threw the phone? The object in the video would be anything small and vaguely rectangular, and it isn't even visible in the unaltered version of the video. Throwing a phone at someone is like throwing your wallet at someone, if in addition to your CC numbers your wallet also had your phone numbers, nude pictures of your spouse, access to your email and social media, an easily shattered screen, and a cost far in excess of any wallet a normal person would buy. Personally, I'm going to need to see some extraordinary evidence before I believe that extraordinary claim.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment.

Are you a radical anarchist? Do you want total freedom with no regulation, no rules? Or do you believe that agreeing on rules and laws and a social contract to function as a society is not “punishment” but something very useful and necessary?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.

So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).

Prestor Jon wrote:
You should be allowed to build your own car.

Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)

Prestor Jon wrote:


Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.

What? I'm not sure where you live, by any where I've lived, if you break a drunk driving law they most certainly take away your freedom to drive by either suspending/revoking your license, impounding your car or both.

Unless you count driving illegally/without a license "freedom"

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.

What? I'm not sure where you live, by any where I've lived, if you break a drunk driving law they most certainly take away your freedom to drive by either suspending/revoking your license, impounding your car or both.

Unless you count driving illegally/without a license "freedom"

If you break those laws yes you are punished but the existence of those laws don't prohibit you from owning and using a car. Most of the commonly suggested gun control measures would result in me being unable to purchase the guns that I already own and would make many of the current guns and magazines I own illegal. Drunk driving laws don't interfere with my ability to own whatever car I want and the cars I currently own aren't categorized as illegal assault cars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment.

Are you a radical anarchist? Do you want total freedom with no regulation, no rules? Or do you believe that agreeing on rules and laws and a social contract to function as a society is not “punishment” but something very useful and necessary?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.

So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).

Prestor Jon wrote:
You should be allowed to build your own car.

Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)

I believe in the existence of a social contract. We currently have one here in the US that allows for citizens to own firearms. We like it enough that we've continually exercised it and protected it throughout our national history.

Numerous measures of gun control that are frequently advocated would indeed deprive me of the right to own several of the guns I already do and would preclude me from making further purchases of guns I would like to own.

I have a few friends that have had a lot of fun (an spent a lot of time and money) rebuilding cars. It's a shame if that's too cost prohibitive where you live.

 Vash108 wrote:


If someone wanted to get a gun today within a short span of time they could. Even if you live in one of the so-called tighter restrictions states. What is to stop you from getting one from a "friend" the next state over, which is usually sometimes an hour or less drive. The accountability is low. For all the people who seem to say they give a rats gak about human life you seem to just hand wave that accountability with it comes to firearms.

As has been pointed out, what you're talking about in bold is illegal. People can, and do, go to real "Pound you in the Ass" prison (Thanks for that phrase, Office Space!) for doing exactly that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment.

Are you a radical anarchist? Do you want total freedom with no regulation, no rules? Or do you believe that agreeing on rules and laws and a social contract to function as a society is not “punishment” but something very useful and necessary?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.

So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).

Prestor Jon wrote:
You should be allowed to build your own car.

Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)

You do know you effectively can build your own car right?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).

There is a right to not only keep, but to *bear* arms as well. Likewise, much gun control legislation in the US tends more on the side of banning types of stuff you can own, which is why any whisper of "gun control" often gets vociferous opposition.

Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)

Here in the US you have every right to build your own car however you like. What you do not have is the unrestricted freedom to drive it on public roads paid for with public funds and maintained by public agencies. But you can build anything you want, the government can't come to your house and arrest your or confiscate your unsafe car, all it can do is say you can't drive it on public roads.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
[spoiler]

Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people? Why does it matter if they are gun owners or not? Some of my neighbors are gun owners too, some of my neighbors are very anti gun and most of my neighbors I don't know if they own guns or not. It's not an issue to me. I cherish my freedom to own firearms so I wouldn't want to take that freedom away from other law abiding citizens. If I didn't want to own a gun I wouldn't feel any peer pressure to get one, it's a personal choice. Owning or not owning a gun doesn't change a person's personality.

If we're both in a room and I'm smoking but you're not you still breath in the smoke from my cigarette so we're both negatively impacted. If we're both in a room together and I'm armed and you're not, neither one of us is harmed by me being armed. If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.

Thanks for responding. I don;t have super strong feelings on the topic so don't want to get crazy in here.

Why does it matter if my neighbors have guns, or people around me are carrying and I am not and choose not to? Two main reasons:

1. The presence of a gun means the chance of an incident involving a gun goes up, regardless of the intent or skill of the wielder. It went from 0 chance to more than 0.

2. Most fatalities are due to either suicide (self-inflicted) or an accident (Typically not the gun owner). Therefore, choosing to not own or carry a gun does nto necessarily limit me fromt eh impacts of an armed society around me.

That is why I care a bit about an armed society around me, when i make a personal choice to not be part of it.

For example, Capitalism is a consensual system that one has to choose to be a part of, in theory. However, if everyone around me is engaging in Capitalism, I can not simply abstain and choose to do something else if I wish to continue surviving. I have to be part of the system and society around me. It is the same with guns. My personal choice to avoid firearms does not protect me from the societal choice around me to be an armed one. So, where do my rights end and begin and do I actually have any rights by simply choosing to not arm?

Again, I'm really not that bent out of shape over it or anything i was just wondering about the nature of choice and if it was just an illusion in this case. Like i said, getting way out of my depth of thought.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We like it enough that we've continually exercised it and protected it throughout our national history.

Come on, don't pretend like the huge debates and controversy around it don't exist. And stop acting like a change to this social contract is a punishment for you. It's a change in the social contract that you don't agree with. And maybe you are right in disagreeing with it. But don't make this into a bigger issue than it is.