|
Rhymenoserous posted:Really we'd need a whole new set of firearms classifications. There are sporting handguns specifically designed to act as a backup in the bush. Every handgun is designed to kill, but not every handgun is designed to kill people. Pretty much any magnum round above .357 is semi useless for going on a homicide spree despite what Dirty Harry would have you believe. I'd love to see a breakdown of violent crime by calibur, something tells me that .38, 380 and 9mm would be leading the pack with .45 moping slightly behind. .22LR and .25 and .32 ACP are also way up there.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:Well, it's part of the right to life. If it comes down to you or the other guy, I'd say you have the perfect right, beyond reproach, to pick yourself living and you killing the other guy, instead of him killing you. The right to self defence isn't really a right in an of itself, because it is entirely contingent on all your other rights. You can't 'defend' yourself against the tax man, for example, because you don't have a right not to pay tax, but you can defend yourself against a mugger because you do have the right not to have to give random people your money because they threatened you. Defence is simply an unfortunate current necessity of guaranteeing one's other rights, sometimes you might have to defend yourself because society and its institutions can't do it for you all the time. But this should be regarded as a failure of society, not an enshrined right in and of itself. You don't have an inherent right to defend yourself because that's meaningless without other rights. The other rights themselves imply your right to self defence, such as the right to bodily autonomy (not to die, not to be raped, not to be injured) etc. Same with killing, you don't have an enshrined moral right to kill people as long as you can legally justify it as self defence, it's just that we aren't very good at ensuring everyone has the exact amount of ability to defend themselves as they need. Not being prosecuted for shooting an attacker is a recognition of the unfortunate fact that you probably can't carry the exact tool required to prevent them from attacking you without running the risk of killing them. You don't have a right to kill people, it's simply that a good justice system should understand that you might do so unintentionally and unwillingly in order to preserve your other rights. You shouldn't have a right to intentionally kill people in self defence because there is never a good justification for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:And yes you've hit upon my point, which is that the second amendment is the provision for citizen organized militias, to keep the federal government from having a monopoly on force. Which they will continue to have no matter how many firearms the citizenry does or does not have. Because they have tanks and air craft carriers and loving nukes. Nevvy Z posted:Which weapons? Where is the line? Do you have the right to landmine your property? Are you arguing that you should have this right? Generally speaking, victims don't have the right to kill an aggressor because because they aren't meting out some due punishment. Victims have the right to use deadly force in order stop an assault, which is a significant difference because the purpose of lawful force is to stop the assault irrespective of whether it kills the attacker. I would agree that access to the means to defend yourself is part and parcel of that right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The second amendment is pretty clear about a right to "arms," which generally refers to small arms suitable for use by an individual, rather than artillery, mines, or ordinance. By a 'well-regulated militia'...presumably for the purpose of suppressing slave revolts. Not by Jim Bob Cooter who is terrified of his black mailman. E: misquote LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Really we'd need a whole new set of firearms classifications. There are sporting handguns specifically designed to act as a backup in the bush. Every handgun is designed to kill, but not every handgun is designed to kill people. Unfortunately, guns are simply a configuration of various technologies, and tend to defy simple classification. Also, I object to the idea that the government should get to define what is and isn't suitable for "sporting." LeeMajors posted:By a 'well-organized militia'...presumably for the purpose of suppressing slave revolts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:But that isn't the same thing as "people who died in 2013 in the U.S. ... from firearms" Oh poo poo, my mistake. I assumed that you would be capable of clicking a links and reading a document. My bad.  Dead Reckoning posted:Unfortunately, guns are simply a configuration of various technologies, and tend to defy simple classification. Also, I object to the idea that the government should get to define what is and isn't suitable for "sporting." Yeah, any weapon that can take the game animals found in this country is one that could, like so many things, be used to kill a human.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Well regulated". Which isn't the same thing as well policed or well organized. It's as if your understanding is based on a sloppy and shallow reading. Also, the militia in the context of the second amendment refers to the population of able-bodied men of military age, which is why we have to register for selective service. I don't know where you got the slave thing from. I corrected prior to your spittle-flecked rant. I would counter that the loosest reading of "well-regulated militia" is "all men between the ages of 18 and 45." Maybe I'll be more inclined to your reading if gunowners are forced to be part of the national guard, march in formation and wear uniforms. Otherwise, making the assumption that every Tom/Dick/Harry in a rural trailer fits the definition of "well-regulated militia" pretty much celebrates a "sloppy and shallow reading." The red coats aren't coming. Get over it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
This was settled in the Heller case. The "Well regulated Milita" part of the second has nothing to do with "the right of the people to bear arms" part. Event the dissenting justices acknowledged this but differed on other issues. The Constitution affirms that I, you or that idiot who thinks the government is run by alien reptiles and hates blacks can own arms whether they are in some sort of organization or not. Get Over it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I corrected prior to your spittle-flecked rant. You're still reading it backwards. The phrasing is an archaic form of english, I realize, but it's well documented. Doccers posted:"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.' Doccers fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
The I like is "A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." Who has the right to food? I understand that people are going to selectively praise or dam SCOTUS depending on their political leanings but anti-rights extremists pretending that Heller never even happened makes me chuckle every time. That well is dry...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Oh poo poo, my mistake. I assumed that you would be capable of clicking a links and reading a document. My bad. What does clicking and reading the document have to do with turning this: quote:Out of 2,596,993 people who died in 2013 in the U.S. only 11,208 of them were from firearms. into a true statement? Alternatively, you could read back through the thread and quote me where I asked for homicide statistics which would justify your misplaced hostility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:I've had a relative call the police when a nut tried to smash her door down. It took about 15 minutes for them to arrive. A lot can happen in 15 minutes. 15 minutes? Does she live in WhiteTown McRich Land? Try 2 hours for the one time I ever had to call 911 due to my neighbor being attacked in her bedroom. Thankfully she got away and got my house but drat. Edit: I'm sure this had been stated before in the thread but it bears repeating. Decriminalize all drugs, legalize pot. Watch violent crime rates plummet even more than they already have. You people are drinking a load of liquidized bullshit and thinking it's koolaid. This gun poo poo is just a distraction from the real issues (which are hard to solve) plaguing america like poverty and racism. Numlock fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:What does clicking and reading the document have to do with turning this: Well, the document lists a variety of deaths related to firearms, conceivably there could be other firearm related deaths not listed but it would be odd if a significant cause of deaths wasn't listed in the death statistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, the document lists a variety of deaths related to firearms, conceivably there could be other firearm related deaths not listed but it would be odd if a significant cause of deaths wasn't listed in the death statistics. And that number comes out to 33k+, not: quote:Out of 2,596,993 people who died in 2013 in the U.S. only 11,208 of them were from firearms. Edit: Which is fine if it is an honest mistake, I just did a double take at the original number because I remembered suicides alone being higher than that. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Really we'd need a whole new set of firearms classifications. There are sporting handguns specifically designed to act as a backup in the bush. Every handgun is designed to kill, but not every handgun is designed to kill people. Pretty much any magnum round above .357 is semi useless for going on a homicide spree despite what Dirty Harry would have you believe. I'd love to see a breakdown of violent crime by calibur, something tells me that .38, 380 and 9mm would be leading the pack with .45 moping slightly behind. Open carriers are by and large retarded. Their reasoning is "A right unused is a right lost", I would phrase it "A right ABUSED is a right lost". There are valid reasons and places to open carry, starbucks ain't one of them. As for CCW holding: Personally? One of the reasons I got mine was after getting caught in a shootout at a grocery store. Crime doesn't happen only in bad parts of town, or places you expect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Doccers posted:As for CCW holding:
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, the document lists a variety of deaths related to firearms, conceivably there could be other firearm related deaths not listed but it would be odd if a significant cause of deaths wasn't listed in the death statistics. Don't expect this guy to read source material. I have a feeling that is beyond him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Did you feel left out? I assume the purpose of the gun would be to participate - since you didn't have one at the time (apparently) I assume it was a shootout between unrelated parties. Do you even listen to yourself before you post this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Don't expect this guy to read source material. I have a feeling that is beyond him. quote:And that number comes out to 33k+, not: What the gently caress is your problem? Are you always this hostile to people when you fail at following a basic conversation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Numlock posted:15 minutes? Does she live in WhiteTown McRich Land? Try 2 hours for the one time I ever had to call 911 due to my neighbor being attacked in her bedroom. Thankfully she got away and got my house but drat. Just finished reading through the thread and this is the best summary of the issue I've seen posted so far. I'm a pretty doctrinaire progressive on most things but excessive gun control (and yes, I will say that some parts of the country have 'excessive' laws even if my native Texas is maybe a little too far in the other direction) is tilting at windmills, as far as truly productive legislation goes. That being said - I think harsh laws on the use of guns for claimed self defense is a good thing. Castle doctrine is complete horseshit motivated by racism. Firearms can potentially save lives from a violent attacker, but every gun owner needs to have it drilled into them that it is an absolute last resort to protect their own or someone else's life. Not for you to swagger out brandishing at some teenager trying to swipe your flatscreen TV. Retreating into a locked room and calling the police is always the most appropriate response to a home invasion. If your fears turn out to be justified and the criminal has a gun and the will to use it, the most likely outcome is that BOTH of you will get shot repeatedly and die. Every gun safety class ought to drill that into the attendees. And thus, I often end up rolling my eyes at arguments for how necessary guns are for home defense even if they can be used in such a way, because they aren't really very good for it and using them "successfully" can (and should) get you in a shitload of trouble. If you're the type who would confront a potentially armed criminal in ANY situation aside from them directly assaulting you or someone else, you probably shouldn't own a gun. Anyone who insists on stupidly risking their life to defend valuables should stick to a baseball bat or genuine-official-forged-in-Japan ornamental sword, which at least won't go through walls and kill your neighbors if used frivolously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Do you even listen to yourself before you post this poo poo? It's a somewhat fair point, who would you have shot if you'd had a gun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's a somewhat fair point, who would you have shot if you'd had a gun? If I had needed to shoot someone at the time, I literally would not be here now. He went left instead of right. I got a CCW because if that ever happened again, I didn't want to rest my life on the flip of a coin of a guy choosing to go one way instead of another. There were other incidents that led me to making the choice to obtain a license as well (Robbery, attempted carjacking, home invasion), the shootout was just one of them. Writing it off as 'YOU FELT LEFT OUT HURR HURR" makes you read like a loving sociopath. [edit] cut a snarky response, had you confused with the guy who said 'YOU FELT LEFT OUT HURR' Started out as a robbery, once the police got there he decided he wasn't going to go down alone. I was behind a car but he was moving and shooting people. He went one way, I was the other. If he had gone my way, I was next in line. I would have had plenty of time to prepare, aim and fire, like 15+ seconds. I realize your goal in this is to write me of as insane and paranoid and that literally nothing I'm going to say is going to change that opinion, because man it's already hard-set in stone. [edit] Maybe if I didn't wear that dress it wouldn't have led him on... Doccers fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
By "shootout" do you mean "serial execution" or "people shooting at each other and I was in the vicininty". Because I'm not entirely sure how a gun would help in the latter situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Just finished reading through the thread and this is the best summary of the issue I've seen posted so far. I'm a pretty doctrinaire progressive on most things but excessive gun control (and yes, I will say that some parts of the country have 'excessive' laws even if my native Texas is maybe a little too far in the other direction) is tilting at windmills, as far as truly productive legislation goes. Should the same 'harsh laws' apply to the use of knives in self defense? Baseball bats? Ropes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Just finished reading through the thread and this is the best summary of the issue I've seen posted so far. I'm a pretty doctrinaire progressive on most things but excessive gun control (and yes, I will say that some parts of the country have 'excessive' laws even if my native Texas is maybe a little too far in the other direction) is tilting at windmills, as far as truly productive legislation goes. It is. In my CCW class, they drilled it into your head that if you ever draw your gun, expect to go to jail. Right or wrong. If you ever SHOOT it, expect to spend your entire life's savings defending yourself in court. But I'd like to have your opinion on something: http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605 how long should she go to jail?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:And thus, I often end up rolling my eyes at arguments for how necessary guns are for home defense even if they can be used in such a way, because they aren't really very good for it and using them "successfully" can (and should) get you in a shitload of trouble. If you're the type who would confront a potentially armed criminal in ANY situation aside from them directly assaulting you or someone else, you probably shouldn't own a gun. Anyone who insists on stupidly risking their life to defend valuables should stick to a baseball bat or genuine-official-forged-in-Japan ornamental sword, which at least won't go through walls and kill your neighbors if used frivolously. Unlike you, I'd rather not rely on the good will of the crackhead climbing in my window in the middle of the night. Likewise, not everyone is physically capable enough to fight off an intruder-- that's what makes handguns so great for self-defence. A 9mm round doesn't care how buff you are. A baseball bat or a replica sword sure does, though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Do you even listen to yourself before you post this poo poo? I'm not trying to cast you as dumb or paranoid. IMO, at worst, you're making a consumer purchase for no good reason. I just don't understand the thinking, because it seems like a concealed weapon wouldn't deter the guy, and in a situation where you're shooting back, you are also likely to hit someone else. If anything, open carry would make more sense - while it seems like it would also make you a target for theft (of your expensive consumer item, i.e. your gun) it would at least probably deter casual muggers. You're saying the CCW people are drilling into you "if you ever use this gun, prepare to go to jail or lose all your money, at minimum" so I suppose I don't see the appeal here. It seems like it's addressing some psychological zone I'm not in, and even if I'm not necessarily going to get into that perspective, I would like to understand it better. -Troika- posted:Unlike you, I'd rather not rely on the good will of the crackhead climbing in my window in the middle of the night. Likewise, not everyone is physically capable enough to fight off an intruder-- that's what makes handguns so great for self-defence. A 9mm round doesn't care how buff you are. A baseball bat or a replica sword sure does, though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Won't somebody please think of the poor home invaders?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Going to jail or losing most of your money is still better than being dead or permanently disabled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
personally i carry a firearm just so i can shoot at clouds incase they look like they might strike me with lightning. can't be too careful this days, poo poo's wild on the streets yo
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Going to jail or losing most of your money is still better than being dead or permanently disabled. Open carry makes marginally more sense, honestly, because it means at least the guy might see your gun and make the calculation to not come after you, or to wait til you leave the Kroger before he commences his crime spree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Going to jail or losing most of your money is still better than being dead or permanently disabled. You can win an appeal. You can make back more money. I've yet to see someone rise out of the grave. I will give modern science that being disabled is becoming less and less of an issue - Cyborgs are now, baby!. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Perhaps we can require mandatory firearms installations into the cyberlimbs of the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How does the gun necessarily prevent the latter case? Sure, in theory you can now shoot the guy - or at least make him go the other way. But he's presumably still armed, he can still shoot you... you might miss your shot, hit nothing or a bystander... you might shoot your dick off pulling it out of the holster. Hell, by the time you pull your gun he might've run past you with his ill-gotten gains, and then what do you do? Shoot him in the back? On the EXCEEDINGLY UNLIKELY chance you're not being deliberately obtuse or trolling, - You might miss your shot. You might hit nothing. You're not likely to hit a bystander - In 20+ years of reading about self defense shootings I can remember only one case where that happened, and it was a riccochet off the pavement, and a non-lethal hit - You might shoot your dick off. But you also have a pretty decent chance of shooting him center-mass like you've trained, and incapacitating him. And if sitting there and waiting to die is the alternative, I'd quite frankly rather have the option, thank you very much. If the guy runs past me with ill-gotten gains, gently caress it, let him go, it's just stuff. Open carry in an urban environment is literally the most retarded thing I can possibly think of. "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A BIG WALKING TARGET, KILL ME FIRST AND GET A FREE GUN!" In terms of Deterrent, Concealed Carry is more like a Herd Immunity, is the best way I can put it: Do you want to chance that that guy there has a pistol before you pull your knife/gun/baseball bat/katana/giant purple phallus on him? Doccers fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Doccers posted:On the EXCEEDINGLY UNLIKELY chance you're not being deliberately obtuse or trolling, In my own immediate neighborhood, the one time someone whipped out a gun to shoot at robbers, he missed and hit his wife instead, but this is obviously anecdotal. However, that particular jewelry store robbery is what I think of whenever these scenarios come up. I can see the point of what you're saying although it still seems like an extreme hypothetical, given that you're going to have to ready the gun and then shoot it at the guy. I have no idea how likely these events actually are - but obviously, you had the near occasion, just as my own immediate area had only the one tragic mishap. I don't understand, by the logics here, what's bad about open carry, though. It seems the idea is that the presence of the firearm deters crime, and this is at least as important if not more so than any hypothetical actual usage. "It's enough that they know I have it," in the words of Sam the detective dog. While this seems like it might not necessarily be the case, I can see the logic - and concealed carry seems like it removes that effect, and any "well, maybe that guy might be armed" would be balanced by "he'd have to get it out, and maybe if I jump him I can get his wallet AND his gun."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How does the gun necessarily prevent the latter case? Sure, in theory you can now shoot the guy - or at least make him go the other way. But he's presumably still armed, he can still shoot you... you might miss your shot, hit nothing or a bystander... you might shoot your dick off pulling it out of the holster. Hell, by the time you pull your gun he might've run past you with his ill-gotten gains, and then what do you do? Shoot him in the back? Being shot in the vitals works wonders for making you lose interest in anything other than lying down and taking a nap. It doesn't always stop an attack, some folks can keep going for a while, but when you're in a situation where someone else is attacking you it beats every other available option by miles. Yes, there's a possibility for lots of things to happen. There's a possibility if you go out grocery shopping today you will walk in the path of a speeding truck and be killed. The solution to life's unpredictability is not to just be helpless and hope all the bad things go away, although if you are the type of person who is likely to turn being murdered into a slapstick routine it'd be good if you had the self-awareness to perceive that and find a solution that fit your personal comic lifestyle better than carrying a gun. poo poo happens, poo poo like violent assaults don't or shouldn't happen often but they happen enough and when they do it's extremely, life-savingly valuable to have a game plan for dealing with them in your back pocket. This is the same reason people take karate classes, learn CPR, do wilderness survival courses, whatever. Your plane isn't going to crash and strand you in the Canadian wilderness, but sometimes one does, and some people get out of that alive because they know how to keep warm and find food without a minimart. It's pretty loving heartless to tell the person who's been assaulted or raped "Well STATISTICALLY you are abnormal and outside my scope of interest, please give up and resign yourself to doom  "; it's an inherent moral good to allow people to gird themselves against disaster even if some chairbound wierdo finds their personal life choices numerically suboptimal. Unless their life choices are utterly catastrophic for everyone around them, which 'owning a gun' is not by any sane-person metric, you don't get to dictate their life based on your assumptions of their needs, and they don't get to dictate yours.
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Being shot in the vitals works wonders for making you lose interest in anything other than lying down and taking a nap. It doesn't always stop an attack, some folks can keep going for a while, but when you're in a situation where someone else is attacking you it beats every other available option by miles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Doccers it sounds like you survived a very traumatic experience. You should talk to someone about it if you haven't already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't understand, by the logics here, what's bad about open carry, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Open carriers are the gun culture equivalent of furries who wear tails in public. They are almost universally weirdos who are more interested in freaking out strangers than anything else. I'm not saying it's necessarily good (or bad), it just would seem like it would have more actual impact. Concealed carry seems, if anything, to create a greater potential for you being attacked and then using the gun against them - which seems like it might have its own appeal, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 21:57
|
|