No reasonable pro-gun advocate expects to be able to kill someone without facing the U.S. legal system and make a case why he/she shouldn't be punished for what happened.
Trayvon Martin's killing, and George Zimmerman's acquittal, would suggest that the bar is set so low, that an ant with broken legs would look for something more challenging.
This is my point - laws like "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" prevent any genuine application of reasonableness to self defence. If your position is that it is reasonable to kill someone because you feel a bit threatened by them, then your definition of "reasonable" becomes valueless.
Oh come on, you know they understand there will be plenty of reasonableness at their trial.
We seem to differ on what is reasonable. Me, I think it is unreasonable to be shot dead for walking through the wrong neighbourhood - I even think (and boy is this radical, I know) that it is unreasonable to be shot dead for walking through the wrong neighbourhood, and looking like there's a possibility that you might be up to no good.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
Though the NRA and other pro-gun advocates might disagree with me, I wouldn't mind seeing a few states, like New York, or California, or Illinois take the lead on satisfying every anti-gun advocates desires, up to and including a complete ban of privately owned firearms. Then everyone in the entire country can watch how it works.
I'm all in favor of this experiment, but I think there's already enough evidence. If you look at this table of firearm death rates by state, it looks like the states with stronger gun control laws tend to have lower firearm death rates. New York, California and Illinois have rates of 5.1, 7.7 and 8.2 respectively, while your own state of Kentucky is 12.4. Tennessee right next door is 14.4. Alaska, Sarah Palin's home state, is 20.4. Alabama, home of the redneck, is 16.2.
Trayvon Martin's killing, and George Zimmerman's acquittal, would suggest that the bar is set so low, that an ant with broken legs would look for something more challenging.
The Trayvon Martin case was something that the news media jumped on, and did a masterful job of drawing peoples attention to their reports, by dividing people on the issue, and thereby generating profits for themselves. Only the jurors and others who were there in person had the best information on just what happened.
This is my point - laws like "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" prevent any genuine application of reasonableness to self defence. If your position is that it is reasonable to kill someone because you feel a bit threatened by them, then your definition of "reasonable" becomes valueless.
My position is that it's not reasonable to be helpless when confronted by a thug, something that happens all too often in the U.S.
marc9000 writes:
Oh come on, you know they understand there will be plenty of reasonableness at their trial.
We seem to differ on what is reasonable.
The difference seems to actually be in our trust of the U.S. justice system. I think it works pretty well - it has its flaws, but I know of nothing that works better.
Me, I think it is unreasonable to be shot dead for walking through the wrong neighbourhood - I even think (and boy is this radical, I know) that it is unreasonable to be shot dead for walking through the wrong neighbourhood, and looking like there's a possibility that you might be up to no good.
It depends on how often something like that happens, when compared to how often someone is shot, stabbed or clubbed because of the money they're carrying, or (a new thing lately) someone looks like a fun target for the "knock out" game. Have you ever been a victim of the fun little knock out game, or do you know anyone who has?
I'm all in favor of this experiment, but I think there's already enough evidence. If you look at this table of firearm death rates by state, it looks like the states with stronger gun control laws tend to have lower firearm death rates. New York, California and Illinois have rates of 5.1, 7.7 and 8.2 respectively, while your own state of Kentucky is 12.4. Tennessee right next door is 14.4. Alaska, Sarah Palin's home state, is 20.4. Alabama, home of the redneck, is 16.2.
How about the District of Columbia at 14.2, with probably the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S.?
I don't think the varying gun laws from state to state are different enough at this time to make a clear distinction. If the federal government would stay out of it, maybe someday there will be. And there are other ways to make distinctions than just shooting statistics about how desirable a certain state is to live. As one example from your link in Message 2537, how many more teenage boys will be hiding under teenage girls beds if they have nothing to fear from her dad in a gun restrictive state? I'd rather live in a moral state, with fewer abortions and welfare moms.
It's a sensible opinion. A gun is no good unless you shoot first.
A gun's mere presence (in the hands of the law abiding) is often a deterrent to crime. This is proven time and time again.
marc9000 writes:
It's been covered before I'm sure.
I have a short attention span. Feel free to cover it again.
You said this;
quote:Nobody is made "more helpless" by not having one.
and
quote:Part of self-control and part of being sensible is the understanding that you don't need a gun to be safe.
If you've never heard of anyone successfully defending themselves with a gun (often just its presence) in the past 10 or 20 years alone, there's not much I can do to overcome your short attention span.
But I entered this thread with only one intention, to get some honest answers from gun control advocates on their positions of irresponsible use of guns from government representatives, and haven't received any detailed answer yet. I'll repeat it from my Message 2543
quote:Now suppose in 2014, gun control advocates across the U.S. get most, if not all, of the gun control legislation passed that they desire. Now almost no one, (except police and other government authorities) can legally posses a firearm. My question is, would you have subsequent, new ideas about what to do about the small percentage of police and other government agents who make mistakes with firearms?
Would you advocate only better training, more stringent requirements for their positions only, or would you in any way advocate gun control for government?
Do you think their mistakes (or overzealous use) of firearms would go down if public ownership of guns was illegal? Would guns and associated problems disappear to a great extent, or would the problems decline only slightly, comparable to the current problems associated with marijuana use, an illegal product?
When a policeman shoots and kills an unarmed 19 year old girl, there is never a mention of government gun control. Should there be?
As one example from your link in Message 2537, how many more teenage boys will be hiding under teenage girls beds if they have nothing to fear from her dad in a gun restrictive state? I'd rather live in a moral state, with fewer abortions and welfare moms.
Do you know how many teenage boys you'd need to shoot to stop teenage boys from being interested in teenage girls?
Do you know how many teenage boys you'd need to shoot to stop teenage boys from being interested in teenage girls?
All of them.
It's not a case of interest, it's a case of acting on that interest. All things being equal, teenage boys in states without gun control are going to be more respectful of dads with a gun than they are in states where dad can't have a gun, especially if the dad is a little wimpy guy and the teenage boy is big and strong.
In the same way, (regarding my link about the policeman shooting the 19 year old girl because she refused to stop), I'd bet thousands of teenagers all across northern Kentucky will now think twice before they'll thumb their nose at a policeman who tells them to stop. Gun control advocates are always quick to point to the U.K. concerning their lack of guns and gun violence, but the issue goes way deeper than that when we consider, as only one example, how often teenagers run from the police there and get by with it. A lot of people want to live in a society where there's law and order.
So guns are for threatening teenage boys for doing what teenage boys do? Threatening teenage boys? You want GUNS for threatening TEENAGE BOYS? Here is an idea: do a better job raising your daughter so she isn't hiding boys in her room against your permission. Better yet, don't try and enforce YOUR morals on the rest of society. Even better: come join us in the 21st century where sex isn't evil and kids know the consequences and are prepared, not scared.
Are guns toys to you? Are they not dangerous weapons that should be respected? No, you want to wave them around at kids so they stay away from your daughter.
I just want to be clear: do you advocate shooting a teenage boy just for sleeping with your daughter? That "crime" is punishable by death?
Score one for the anti gun crowd if that is your reasoning.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
Where are guns most prevalent in the developed world - The US.
Where is the teenage pregnancy rate highest in the developed world? from Wiki on teenage pregnancy:
quote:The teenage birth rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world, and the teenage abortion rate is also high.
So much for dads armed with guns fending off interest in their daughters.....
Maybe you should consider joining the rest of us in the 21st century.
marc writes:
Gun control advocates are always quick to point to the U.K. concerning their lack of guns and gun violence, but the issue goes way deeper than that when we consider, as only one example, how often teenagers run from the police there and get by with it. A lot of people want to live in a society where there's law and order.
As I sit here in London I can't see any indications of being surrounded by lawlessness. But you apparently know better?
I get that since a gun makes it really convenient, that some people are going to be persuaded by that convenience, but I don't care to stop people who don't want to live anymore. You should have a right to die if you want to.
The problem with this is that many suiciders do so when suffering from Depression or some other mental disorder (that can be treated) so that they can see that a bullet in the brain is not the only way out.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
A gun's mere presence (in the hands of the law abiding) is often a deterrent to crime. This is proven time and time again.
I've never seen any evidence of that. Feel free to offer some.
marc9000 writes:
If you've never heard of anyone successfully defending themselves with a gun (often just its presence) in the past 10 or 20 years alone, there's not much I can do to overcome your short attention span.
As I said, you have to shoot first. That isn't self-defense; it's only one step above a sneak attack. And the other guy is less likely to shoot first if you don't have a gun - i.e. if he doesn't have to defend himself from you.
As for my short attention span, this is a debate forum; "Read the news," is not an acceptable argument. If somebody asks, answer. If you've already answered, repeat yourself or give a link. Don't just say, "You ought to know."
marc9000 writes:
When a policeman shoots and kills an unarmed 19 year old girl, there is never a mention of government gun control. Should there be?
I can't speak for the US but in Canada police guns are highly controlled. A police officer who even fires his weapon on duty is highly scrutinized. If civilian gun control was even a fraction of police gun control I would be happy.
marc9000 writes:
As a gun control advocate, do YOU know why the dept of homeland security needs 450 million hollow point bullets?
Because American civilians have 500 million? And you don't want DHS to know who has them, so they could all be in the hands of terrorists.
"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith
™ Version 4.2
