|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
First of all, let me say that I think the US is a lost cause when it comes to gun control. US culture is as permeated with guns as most Western cultures are permeated with alcohol. Prohibition is not going to work. Those committing crimes are breaking numerous laws already, so what will more laws bring? It's not a question of putting out the fire; it's a question of saving as many of the victims as possble.
mram10 writes:
Guns can be useful. They are occasionally necessary for putting down injured animals, etc. and they are often used for recreational purposes such as hunting and target shooting. Vehicles can be used just like guns to kill people. Should we get rid of cars? No, because they are useful and being used wrong, just like guns. But it seems that many/most people in the US have guns for "protection". I've said it before and I'll say it again: A gun is not a defensive weapon. It will not protect you. The best you can do with a gun is shoot first (sneak attack) or hope the other guy misses. Guns used for "protection" are as likely or more likely to hurt the owner and/or his loved ones.
mram10 writes:
I think Jefferson intended that "a well-regulated militia" should protect the people from foreign tyranny, not that every yahoo should have a gun to overthrow his government.
Does anyone even know the true meaning of the 2nd??? Jefferson said it best, when he made it clear it is to defend the people from tyranny by the gov't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Diomedes writes:
Suppose I have a convenience store on a busy street and an armed robber comes in. I pull my gun and chase him way, blazing away at him like Clint Eastwood. Ultimately though, my question was: should action on my part if I choose to respond with physical intervention be illegal? Discharging a firearm in the city is a danger to innocent bystanders, which is already illegal (or should be). I think the question should be: At what point does my "right to self defense" supercede somebody else's right to safety?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Diomedes writes:
The situation is the same. You are (should be) responsible for your own bullets. If you miss the perpetrator and your bullet goes out the door and hits a kid passing by on a bicycle, you are (should be) considered guilty of mansaughter. You avoid the first salvo, grab your own firearm, and you.... return fire? Maybe you survive if you shoot back, maybe you don't. If you don't shoot back, at least you don't go to jail.
Diomedes writes:
As I keep harping, a gun is not a defensive weapon; it's an offensive weapon. People need to understand the offensive action of shooting an innocent passerby. "Self defense" isn't (shouldn't be) an excuse for endangering somebody else.
Should any and all forms of defense be abolished and people should simply take a 'no action' stance? Diomedes writes:
I would ask, rather: Is it effective? Is a shopkeeper safer hiding behind the counter or playing Gunfight at the OK Corral?
Is some action allowed in circumstances? Diomedes writes:
Personally, don't think deadly action is ever warranted. I think it's understandable if you're trying to protect your children - but it probably isn't the most effective means of protecting them either.
And when is deadly action warranted? Diomedes writes:
As I've already mentioned in this thread, if I was an armed criminal, confronting an armed populace would make me more likely to shoot first. Making it illegal for my victims to shoot at me would make me feel a little safer, which would make them safer.
And ultimately, how do these laws actual change the dynamics of various forms of crime?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Diomedes writes:
Ultimately, I'm saying that you shouldn't be armed at all. Unprovoked killing sprees are going to happen. You're not likely to improve the situation by joining in the mayhem.
So you are essentially saying that, even though you are armed, you should not, in any circumstances use your firearm to stop this individual from continuing his/her killing spree? Diomedes writes:
If you use a karate kick on somebody, that is offensive. If you trip him, that would be more defensive. If a gun could be used defensively, the same would apply, but it can't. If the scenario I described above was ended by a patron, who happened to be a black belt, round house kicking the guy in the temple, thereby killing him, does that mean martial arts are now considered 'self-offense', as opposed to 'self-defense'? Also, accidentally killing somebody with a karate kick is fundamentally different from intentionally killing him with a gun - and your karate kick is less likely to effect the kid on the bicycle.
Diomedes writes:
You only answered half of the question. Is it safer? Do you actually have a chance to get to your gun and shoot him before he shoots you? Are you really helping the other victims by becoming another victim yourself? And what are the chances that you'll shoot one of the customers instead of the shooter?
ringo writes:
Considering the scenario I described above, whereby the antagonist is using their firearm to kill innocent civilians, then yes, I would say a gun shot that ends their life is quite effective. Is it effective? Is a shopkeeper safer hiding behind the counter or playing Gunfight at the OK Corral? Diomedes writes:
There again, the intention of slashing at him is not necessarily to kill him but to stop him or disable him. I'm not necessarily against people defending themselves, only using deadly force to do it. I have little problem with killing somebody by accident while defending yourself. If a women who is being sexually assaulted in her home by an intruder or estranged boyfriend grabs a kitchen knife and stabs the guy in his carotid artery, thereby killing him, my suspicion is most are not going to chastise her for being 'excessive'. But guns are far more likely to be deadly and, again, more likely to produce collateral damage.
Diomedes writes:
I'm more worried about a frightened criminal than a bold one. After all, he's armed in the first place to defend himself and he knows he has to shoot first to do it.
But does this not embolden the criminal? Diomedes writes:
If the population was unarmed, why would the criminals need to be? Quite frankly, my nightmare scenario is a bunch of armed criminals and a completely disarmed population. (By the way, some of my ancestors left the old country because they were wanted for armed robbery. Their weapon? A block of wood. I expect there were few fatalities.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm not intolerant of victim action. I'm intolerant of stupid action.
I just don't get this tolerance for criminal action and intolerance victim action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
It's the people who have guns. Some of them shouldn't.
IT IS NOT THE GUNS. IT IS THE PEOPLE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, the criminals who don't get killed will get bigger and better weapons and they will be more inclined to use them.
If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, they will start to question their illegal and wicked ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
petrophysics1 writes:
How the world "should be" is pretty much what laws are for. And nobody's telling you not to think about guns.
Don't pass laws for everyone based on your ethnocentric viewpoint of how the world should be and how everyone should think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
You can control your own bullets; you are responsible for your own bullets. You can't control the criminal's bullets.
Ringo's response to a guy shooting up a store was to worry about the defending clerk's bullets hitting an unintended target, but there's no consideration of the criminal's bullets hitting an unintended target nor the fact that the criminal is actually intending to kill people. Catholic Scientist writes:
But it isn't black-and-white. There's a whole spectrum of gray in between "law-abiding' and "criminal".
Since only the law abiders are going to comply, that leaves the guns solely in the hands of criminals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
Felons aren't the only problem. The guy who has never committed a felony until he shoots his wife in a jealous rage is also a problem. Maybe we should make laws stating felons shouldn't have them. The real root problem is that Americans tend to think they can "protect themselves" with guns.
mram10 writes:
I'd be happy to discuss the death penalty in a topic about the death penalty. Feel free to start one.
Let me guess, you are against the death penalty. Is that true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
The point is that preventing felons from having guns doen't prevent non-felons from shooting their wives. To prevent gun deaths, you have to keep guns out of the hands of (potential) murderers, not just (people who are already) felons.
How many "jealous rage" murders have we had?? I didn't know it was legal. mram10 writes:
We do that with cars, don't we?
Maybe we should start by taking the guns of those that choose to use alcohol, drugs (illegal and legal), etc mram10 writes:
Indeed it is. It can be used to shoot first (a sneak attack like Pearl Harbor or 9/11) but it doesn't make you bullet-proof.
Weird that "Americans" think that a gun can increase your self defense ability
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
Why not Google the thing you want to know - "shootings in the home" in the past 24 hours?
A handful of examples of people shooting a family member is FAR from the majority. Google "home invasions" in the past 24 hours. mram10 writes:
So are guns.
Thus, those "dark thoughts" are for weak minded individuals looking for an excuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram10 writes:
I don't think anybody is "blaming the gun" any more than they're blaming a hole in the ground that somebody falls into. They're blaming the idiot who dug the hole and left it uncovered. They're blaming the idiots who own guns.
Those that continue to blame the gun, for the act of the sick individual are illogical. mram10 writes:
Logic doesn't trump evidence.
Guns make people more safe by pure logic....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
quote:I know I'm a terrible person but it's hard to drum up much sympathy for that "instructor".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
You have it backwards. In a desperate situation we think of all kinds of silly solutions. It's only when we're calm and rational that we are likely to come up with sensible policies.
I was calling Percy out on his silliness. I don't own any guns and have no desire to. But I will admit that, if I were ever in a situation like the hypothetical one Percy described, I'd be real desperate to get my hands on one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024