Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

If you're breaking into a house to steal stuff, you don't need to confront anyone...in fact, most burglars would try to time their break-in to minimize this very thing, whether the owner has a gun or not.But, let's assume that guns are illegal, and the would-be robber knows that if he is caught carrying a gun, whether by getting arrested during the burglary, or even while walking/driving to and from the place to be burgled, he's facing a harsh sentence, while at the same time knowing that if anyone happens to be home, they won't have a guin either, the rationalization to carry a gun is lost.All a robber has to do to intimidate most people is break in, people will be confused, flustered, and scared just from that. Sure, some people may get angry very quickly and try to storm you, but again, they won't have a gun, so all you need is a knife, pipe, or even the table lamp by the window you just crawled through.If guns are outlawed, a criminal has much less need for a gun themselves, and even if that doesn't change the ratio of burgled people who get hurt/killed by intruders, it will significantly reduce the chances of bystanders getting hit by errant shots, kids finding a gun and hurting themselves accidentally, or someone shooting an intruder who turns out to be their own child sneaking back in after curfew. So, in other words, you're all for more strict gun control laws, as those of us on the pro-gun control side have been arguing? Cool, welcome to "the dark side."

Outlawing shit does NO good. People will find a way to get firearms. Heckler and Koch will doubtfully just stop making MP5's.War on drugs? fucking brilliant! no one does drugs anymore!
Prohibition? Great! everyone quit drinking!oh wait, those didn't work? Oh well, maybe THIS ban on guns will work THIS time...... To be quite honest, I can't own a firearm anyways. hell, i can't own any weapons. I am pro constitution. I want every natural born citizen to have ALL of their rights. The constitution is not just some piece of paper that can be re-written. but as far as people owning guns? Yes, they should be controlled. Guns don't kill people, the stupid asshole pulling the trigger kills people.I'd like to see the face of all the anti-gun people when Big Brother comes knocking on their door to herd them off. You gonna stop them with your cue balls? your pipes? your axe? sorry, they have army's that have real guns, tanks, aircraft and the like. You gave your rights away, remember?They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jew, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trace unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Felon?

I'm sorry, but rereading this post just smacks me that...you have never commited a crime in your life. Really? You think that's how it works, huh. Sorry, it doesn't. If you have gotten the gumption to rob someone, you are going to do what-the-fuck-ever to get what you need to get paid. If someone stands in your way, they are as good as dead. you won't be thinking about "well, if I don't carry a gun, I won't get arrested for carrying a gun. If I carry a gun, I might get arrested."If you get caught by the homeowner, are you just going to say "aw geez mister, you got me. Shucks" while he phones the police?

Does it matter?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I'm not advocating a ban on guns, I was merely positing a hypothetical to counteract your assertion that knowing a house had no guns would still make a robber want a gun.Besides, alcohol and drugs are a very bad comparison to guns. Alcohol and drugs are used on a personal level to make yourself feel differently, and thus are addicitive, and highly sought out, especially in situations where other avenues of making one feel better are not available. Guns, with the possible exception of a rush of adrenaline after firing it, have no such physiochemial response and are thus much more amenable to bans...not that I want one. Actually, as the Bill of Rights themselves prove, the Constitution not only can be re-written, it was specifically designed that way because the framers realized that what was necessary in the 1790s would not necessarily be eternal needs. Yeah, I'd like to see the pro-gun people's faces when the US Army rolls up Main Street with an Abrams tank and does bombing runs with their planes...oh, and targets Chicago with a nuclear bomb...maybe they'll even target Washington DC...wait, they live there, never mind...I'm not a paranoid who is afraid of the big bad government, and I also recognize that a hand gun a few rifles and a shotgun are going to be little deterence if the government decides it wants to take us out...for some reason that never seems to be articulated by those advancing this scenario. I relish my freedoms and rights, and will fight any attempt to take away rights I feel are necessary and actual rights (rather than priveleges). Being able to kill something from a distance isn't something I consider a right...it is a privelege, and one I feel should be regulated and handed out with discretion. This is a great quote, and if anyone was coming after a group of people based on religion, ethnicity, or heritage, I'd speak up. If they came after me and stopped me from using Mercury as I saw fit, or to stop me from spraying DDT all over my yard and polluting the drinking water, I'd let them, because it's a public safety consideration and there are better ways to attain my goals that don't involve those banned means.I guess the question comes down to...what's so damned special about a gun that gets people so riled up? I know why I'm not a big fan...they kill people with little no upside beside that...which to me is a downside. So, why are you so in love with them?

You're right, but I know a lot of people who have...and not a single one of them used a gun to do it. No, but that's my whole point. He doesn't have a gun, so you know, you can...run. A gun only raises the stakes. Robbers aren't all dumb people who "like make big noise wif my hands." They know the charges of a breaking and entering are far less severe than homicide or even accidental manslaughter.

I dunno. Its none of my business, I was just curious.But I'll take your evasion as a yes

quote:

---

I'm not a paranoid who is afraid of the big bad government, and I also recognize that a hand gun a few rifles and a shotgun are going to be little deterence if the government decides it wants to take us out...for some reason that never seems to be articulated by those advancing this scenario.

---

You're not understanding the scenario....Its not that those of us that advance it think that we'd be able to win an all out war against the government, its that us having guns is a deterrant for the government to go in the first place.Plus it acts as a deterrent to invasion in general:

Ours is a government for the people, by the people. They are beginning to think they can do as they please and not have our interests in mind. Why? Because sheeple are turning the other cheek to things like the Patriot Act.Guess what sheeple: YOU are a terrorist now.The U.S.A. was founded on equality, freedom, the ability to stand up to a tyrannical government. If you think otherwise, you have been brainwashed.The more we show the gov't that we are hip to their sinking ship, the more likely they are to turn tide. WE have the constitution on our side.

And I'm arguing that it's not. If you think the government would care one whit about whether or not you had a gun if it wanted to go to war against its own citizens, you're living in a dream land.I, however, realize that the government going to war against its own citizens is an all but ludicrous scenario. While the government may do things that many think are against the best interests of the government, quite a few things I can think of off the top of ym head would fit this, I don't see them ever entering a scenario where they'd "invade" their own country. The only instances I can think of from history are the National Guard being called into the south to protect minorities during the Civil Rights era, and try to stop looting during natural disasters.In neither of these situations do I think the government was in the wrong and that the populace should have "stood up to" them, and the people who do/did think so, I would rather them not be armed.If it ever came down to the population against the government, we have means to get rid of them through elections. If they decide to ignore their own government and documents, then arguing about whether the constitution gives us the right to guns is moot anyway...so I don't see any situation where this comes to a practical head. I think the argument is paranoid.

And if you think they wouldn't consider it at all then you are living in a dream land. That the citizens do have guns is one more reason to not go to war against them. Can't argue with incredulity! I think the counter argument is naive.

Ok, say everyone in my tosn of 70,000 is packing guns. The government decides my town is not worthy of existence anymore and wants the citizens dead. They send a couple planes over, drop a number of strategically aimed bombs, and viola, city decimated, population all but eradicated...all the guns we had? Cooling lumps of metal...or at least a bit useless in the defense of the city.So...just why would the government care if we had guns again? You're the one making the positive claim...there exists a likely/logical scenario in which the government would decide to invade it's own country/citizenry and for which the possibility of shotguns and handguns are a significant deterrent to that outcome. Let's hear it.{AbE} I'd add that the government would have to unjustified in doing so in tis scenario, but since we'd likely disagree on when the government is justified in going in to an area to keep peace, we can leave this as a side consideration.Edited by Perdition, : AbE above

That would just destroy all the infrastructure and resources... they're not that dumb. Plus, the government has a vested interest in living people so they wouldn't want everyone to be dead. The only way to really do it would be with infantry. Because it'd be a huge thorn in their side if we did. Where did I say or imply that? An armed citizenry is a significant deterrent to invasion: Why wouldn't it be?

What? You are going off into left field here, come on back.No one ever insinuated a full scale "invasion" of home soil. I read an article where massachusets Sheriffs were to take extra caution of people who had Ron Paul bumper stickers, likening them to terrorists. I will have to find the article so i don't sound like I'm making shit up, though.When the governemt starts wiretapping YOUR phone calls for no good reason, when they start calling YOU a terrorist because the Patriot Act says you are, when they start telling you when to go to bed, when toturn your lights off etc.; will you still stand idly by and let them? It is THEN that they will bring down the tyranny and you will have given them all but the shirt off your back (they'll take that too, and give you a nice jump suit).Tin foil hat? maybe. But I like my rights. You don't like yours? fine, I'll use yours too. Better me than the war machine.