209 posts
Hookbender — Feb 16, 2010[quote author=chase link=1265411987/75#94 date=1266343317]does that person have a weapon threatening my life? too many people have been killed while cooperating with robbers/muggers/etc. i will prefer to take my chances with defending myself instead of waiting to see if i will get shot or stabbbed so I can't identify the person. if you would like i can post multiple examples of this happening nationally.
as far as guaranteeing safety, that's impossible with anything. driving a car is considered a right even though using a car wrongly does often affect others. even with 50,000 people a year dying on the roads, cars are still considered an acceptable risk and used often by the majority of people. guns are no different. there is roughly 1 firearm per person in the US right now. there are over one hundred million US citizens who own at least one gun. that is not likely to change, if ever. even president Obama who is widely acknowledged to be the most liberal president ever elected has no intentions of passing any new gun control regardless of how he truly feels. he is smart enough to remember what happened in 1994 when the original "assault weapons" ban was passed.
No, driving a car is considered a privilage which can be taken away if necessary. Completely different than gun ownership. No one has a right to drive a car, they are given the privilage to drive a car. So, you have the shoot first ask questions later attitude? If that's the case, you made a case for your right to be taken from you.
the right to own a firearm can be taken away too... not sure where you are going with that. as for the shoot first attitude, there are only a very few scenarios when that weapon would be pulled out and used. none of those scenarios require me asking any questions.
chase — Feb 16, 2010
there is a lot of legal precedent that holds people accountable for brandishing a firearm. even firing a "warning shot" is frowned upon legally. in all the instruction i have taken it has been made clear that if you draw your weapon you need to use it.
That is crazy and I can't believe that there is such a rule - I think you have been misinformed or have misunderstood.
OK - I can understand warning shots being "frowned" upon - you need to discourage people pulling a gun and firing intentionally at anything other than a specific target.
firing a "warning shot" is a random shot and a risk of harming a random innocent bystander, in most urban situations there aren't many safe directions to shoot, even shooting in the air can kill people when the bullet lands.
But there cannot be a rule that says once you draw your gun you have to use it - that sounds more like the homey code of the western gun fighter.
How about a scenario where "target acquisition" is compromised do you still have to shoot?
or a scenario where the the threat is unarmed - just physically overwhelming and producing a gun causes an immediate back down.
It just sounds insane
chase — Feb 16, 2010
as for the shoot first attitude, there are only a very few scenarios when that weapon would be pulled out and used. none of those scenarios require me asking any questions.
List them - if they are that few then reality is very unlikely to cooperate with them.
Which goes with the statistics - the use of guns for successful personal self defence is pretty rare event - it is news making - even amongst police.
Police are trained to control the situation and not rely on their gun to stop them being shot.
The quick draw situation is statistically fatal once you have a situation where a gun is already pointed at you at close range.
And if it is a remote sniper - then your gun is useless.
It works in Hollywood though remarkably regularly. The other guy misses or blinks but the hero is accurate and very very lucky.
The going postal situation - where you use your gun as a good citizen to take out the insane killer.
This sounds seductive - but in reality it causes chaos as well for real security forces.
Civilians firing guns all over the place confuses the target - it makes "target acquisition" very complex.
There have been recent situations where "good citizens" have been in a fire fight with each other confusing the security forces while the real maniac is murdering a few hundred yards away.
It would be comic if it wasn't so tragic.
fingers — Feb 16, 2010[quote author=chase link=1265411987/75#95 date=1266343539]
there is a lot of legal precedent that holds people accountable for brandishing a firearm. even firing a "warning shot" is frowned upon legally. in all the instruction i have taken it has been made clear that if you draw your weapon you need to use it.
That is crazy and I can't believe that there is such a rule - I think you have been misinformed or have misunderstood.
OK - I can understand warning shots being "frowned" upon - you need to discourage people pulling a gun and firing intentionally at anything other than a specific target.
firing a "warning shot" is a random shot and a risk of harming a random innocent bystander, in most urban situations there aren't many safe directions to shoot, even shooting in the air can kill people when the bullet lands.
But there cannot be a rule that says once you draw your gun you have to use it - that sounds more like the homey code of the western gun fighter.
How about a scenario where "target acquisition" is compromised do you still have to shoot?
or a scenario where the the threat is unarmed - just physically overwhelming and producing a gun causes an immediate back down.
It just sounds insane
it isn't a law; just advice given by mostly everyone involved in self defense instruction. by the law if you are justified in drawing your weapon you are justified in using it. many states carry heavy fines and or jailtime for "brandishing" a weapon whether it be a concealed carry piece or not. the advice to use it is unfortunately due to the litigious society we live in. many times people have been justified in a self defense shooting criminally only to turn around and be slapped with a civil lawsuit by the person you shot.
according to US law if you are justified in using your weapon in self defense you are supposed to shoot to "stop the threat". if in the course of stopping the threat you kill the person than so be it. deadly force is authorized to defend your property (house and car in US law) and your life. the law gets very tricky when you use your weapon to defend other people.
to make it simple, if i use my weapon to defend myself and i misunderstand the circumstances (i.e. if i walk into a prank robbery perpetrated by someones friends and feel threatened even though the robbery isn't real) i can still use force to defend myself legally. however if i walk into the same scenario and only see that someone else is threatened (i.e. no threat to myself) than i can be held criminally liable for using the weapon. having a weapon on you isn't the same as being a police officer. going around defending others isn't a very good idea.
fingers — Feb 17, 2010[quote author=chase link=1265411987/100#100 date=1266356644]
as for the shoot first attitude, there are only a very few scenarios when that weapon would be pulled out and used. none of those scenarios require me asking any questions.
List them - if they are that few then reality is very unlikely to cooperate with them.
Which goes with the statistics - the use of guns for successful personal self defence is pretty rare event - it is news making - even amongst police.
Police are trained to control the situation and not rely on their gun to stop them being shot.
The quick draw situation is statistically fatal once you have a situation where a gun is already pointed at you at close range.
And if it is a remote sniper - then your gun is useless.
It works in Hollywood though remarkably regularly. The other guy misses or blinks but the hero is accurate and very very lucky.
The going postal situation - where you use your gun as a good citizen to take out the insane killer.
This sounds seductive - but in reality it causes chaos as well for real security forces.
Civilians firing guns all over the place confuses the target - it makes "target acquisition" very complex.
There have been recent situations where "good citizens" have been in a fire fight with each other confusing the security forces while the real maniac is murdering a few hundred yards away.
It would be comic if it wasn't so tragic.
now your reaching. if a sniper has me in his crosshairs than i have bigger things to worry about than self defense law.
the scenarios i am legally allowed to defend myself involve any situation in which i feel my life and or property is threatened. the likelihood of those scenarios coming true aren't very good, but they aren't a long shot by any means.
home invasion/late night robbery
mugging
wrong place at wrong time (inside a gas station getting robbed, etc.)
those are the most likely scenarios i could forsee having to use the weapon. by no means is it a definite list though. basically any time i feel that my life is threatened directly by another person, i am allowed to draw and use the weapon. as i said earlier, if it comes out into plain view i have every intention of using it, usually in the next 2 seconds.
if you want to see a list of RECENT examples of people using a gun in self defense i would be happy to oblidge. happens regularly here in the US but rarely makes it past the local news. its probably rarer in your neighborhood due to the restrictive nature of your gun laws
fingers — Feb 16, 2010[quote author=chase link=1265411987/75#95 date=1266343539]
there is a lot of legal precedent that holds people accountable for brandishing a firearm. even firing a "warning shot" is frowned upon legally. in all the instruction i have taken it has been made clear that if you draw your weapon you need to use it.
That is crazy and I can't believe that there is such a rule - I think you have been misinformed or have misunderstood.
no, i have spent a lot of money being instructed and trained properly on both the actual usage of the gun and the legal justification and repercussions of using it.
please take the time to read the first few pages of this PDF. it is a great resource for people getting started understanding self defense law in the US
http://www.kentucky-concealed.com/Information/Kentucky%20Concealed%20Carry%20Justifiable%20Homicide.pdf
Post the examples as the stats I have seen suggest it is rare even amongst cops.
I am talking about outdrawing and shooting an assailant with a gun.
The sniper was an extreme example to show the rediculousness.
Your first sign of a sniper would be a ricochet of bullet or the crack of the shot.
I would pull my gun in that situation after I ran to cover (if I had a gun)
I wouldn't feel obliged to shoot though
Ok - I will read that tomorrow when I have time,
just the last 30 days...
http://www.winknews.com/news/local/84165287.html
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/22533639/detail.html
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/1040249.html
http://www.thenew995fm.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=135361&article=6748678
http://www.theledger.com/article/20100201/NEWS/2015048?Title=70-Year-Old-Shoots-Would-be-Thieves&tc=ar
http://www.ajc.com/news/henry/intruder-killed-by-homeowner-291908.html
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11918427
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_handy_shotgun.html
http://www.wftv.com/news/22395063/detail.html
http://www.wrno.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=135361&article=6723590
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/north/story/Police-ID-robbery-suspect-shot-killed-by-Phoenix/A2g1ATjeS0C2uJugf1ZZ_w.cspx
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/83022802.html
(happened less than a mile from my house at a place i regularly eat....)
http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Elderly-Man-Shoots-Intruder/fyT8VlMUGEG8HNXz8vdBRg.cspx
http://www2.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/spartanburg_deputies_investigate_home_invasion_shooting/32375/
http://www.wesh.com/crime/22326781/detail.html
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/01/23/story-columbus-harris-avenue-robber-shot.html?sid=102
http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2010/01/22/news/doc4b58db740e329992974668.txt
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/liquor.store.robber.2.1442650.html
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jan/21/man-shot-liquor-store-robbery-arrested-police-say/
http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/930442.html
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jan/22/suspected-intruder-fatally-shot-greene-county/
http://www.wpbf.com/mostpopular/22315929/detail.html
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1696802.html
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20100113/NEWS01/1130302/1002/rss
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/01/mother_grand_rapids_teen_who_s.html
i must admit i cheated though, there is a blog dedicated to self defense rights...
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
if any of the links are dead you can still read the original story on the website
I only read the first article. Now my question is this. Why the fuck did the guy bring a gun to talk to a neighbor about a dog running loose? The guy was obviously looking for trouble, and he found it. If the conversation were to get heated, he could have simply walked away at fist sign. I thought it was kinda funny, really. He probably got what he deserved. Sorry it was such a serious injury though.
chase — Feb 16, 2010i've taken professional instruction dealing with concealed carry issues. working on things like the draw, target recognition, malfunction clearing drills, etc. no doubt their is a huge responsibility. i would like to see more people do the same
as to not knowing what i would do, that is where the training kicks in. hopefully it will be muscle memory and reflex
Muscle memory and reflex, hopefully. Again, you don't need to have a gun.
What if you over-react? What if your in a situation and other people are near? You gonna take a chance on your reflexes and shoot, even if others are near by? Will you even notice the other people?
What if your training doesn't make the date with reality? The possibilities are endless.
Why not simply get a security system for your home? If you feel the threat is there, that would be the first intellegent move, not buying guns for defense.
Hookbender — Feb 17, 2010[quote author=chase link=1265411987/75#99 date=1266356570]i've taken professional instruction dealing with concealed carry issues. working on things like the draw, target recognition, malfunction clearing drills, etc. no doubt their is a huge responsibility. i would like to see more people do the same
as to not knowing what i would do, that is where the training kicks in. hopefully it will be muscle memory and reflex
Muscle memory and reflex, hopefully. Again, you don't need to have a gun.
What if you over-react? What if your in a situation and other people are near? You gonna take a chance on your reflexes and shoot, even if others are near by? Will you even notice the other people?
What if your training doesn't make the date with reality? The possibilities are endless.
Why not simply get a security system for your home? If you feel the threat is there, that would be the first intellegent move, not buying guns for defense.
i could go all day worrying about what if's. instead i do what i can and go on about my day. the reality of the situation is when a concealed weapon is used for defense 90% of the time the incident is over in 3 seconds with 2 shots fired. the overwhelming majority of the people who defend themselves survive and are found to have been justified in using force to stop the threat.
in the typical self defense scenario there is no time to think, no time to plan, only to react. thats what i prepare for. if you don't like that than do what you feel is necessary to defend yourself and family.
Obviously, i don't like that.
I don't like the attitude towards guns you have either.
Until we get a database that is inclusive to all states and they can do proper checks on people buying guns, until we beef up police forces, until it's required to take some type of training course for gun safety and how to handle situations etc, I won't ever like people in general walking around waiting to have a John Wayne moment. Period. It's irresponsible for government to allow this to go on. Any wackjob brainfucked person who has serious mental problems can buy guns at this point. How can we say it's illegal to drink and drive, and seriously put people in jail for it, but at the same time let a mental case ride the streets with any weapon of his choice? It's crazy. Guns should be off the street until some preventative measures are fully put in place.
A large number of murders are committed by people's spouses, friends or family. Kids are accidentally killed finding Mom or Dads gun. You can purchase a gun at every corner store almost including walmart. I'm surprised Sears doesn't sell guns, their so into "tools" ya know. Its crazy man.
You have training you say, so your somewhat an exception....but most people don't know shit about guns or there guns at least. And most people have no business carrying a gun anywhere. Hell I was shot and quit carrying guns. I'm still alive. I carried a gun everywhere I went for years and never once felt the need to have one, so I quit. I think it's partly some mental cramp hangup thing that makes people so crazy about gun control. They see so much bad shit on the news, because that's all they show, and holy shit.....lets go get a gun for protection. Ever consider maze? Or how about martial arts, you could even get in good shape with that. There are alternatives. but the easy fix is to run down to the store in a state of panic, or a macho high of some kind, and buy a gun.
Enjoy your guns bonehead. ;D
I enjoy the fact that the government I live under agrees with me and supports my right to defend myself. I guess you are just frustrated with the reality of the situation.
I'll continue to "cling to my guns" for the forseeable future
By the way, mental insanity prevents you from buying guns at an FFL. Your DUI example is flat out wrong
This was a discussion about the tea party and the Republican Party. Not surprisingly, it's now about guns.
Abortion anyone?
Chase, I have to say, I too read that first article and just could not figure out what the fuck it had to do with anything at all. The main point of it seemed to be "backwards-ass southerners have guns". In fact, look at the places where a lot of these things occur. This is some backwards-ass shit. Now it could be that where I live determines my attitude. But... shooting someone for a golf cart battery? It seems to me that things are way the fuck out of whack when we start to believe that $100 is about the worth of a human life...
Anyway, it also seems to me that perhaps it's better that all those backwards-ass hicks stock up on guns. I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to be able to mount an offensive against the coasts... our government still has the biggest stick and I am pretty sure I can rely on them for defense. So ultimately it's just going to be a bunch of wack backwards folks eliminating each other. That can't be bad for the country...
chase — Feb 17, 2010By the way, mental insanity prevents you from buying guns at an FFL. Your DUI example is flat out wrong
What is an FFL?
Maybe you should read up on the Virginia Tech murders by the fucked up mental case who killed many innocent people. The fucker had major mental problems and purchased the gun or guns like the day before or something like that. The bitch in the example in Huntsville killed her brother 20 years before she killed the people at the college. Would YOU like many other examples of a failed system of checks? Now, after she kills 3 and hurts 3 or more others, they decide to check her out and can't find any info on the case. The paper work dissappeared. But yeah....lets not take your right to own guns, lets just continue letting completely innocent people be killed by any person who gets pissed about any damn thing. Lets also not consider any alternatives to gun ownership for defense. Lets just ignore the fact that people die needlessly everyday.
Why not get a security system for your home? Why not stay away from bad parts of town, especially at night. Those two things right there would cut down your chances of conflict tremendously. Why not consider other alternatives?
The majority of those stories are about shooting suspected burglars.
or ridiculous rows getting out of control
suspected burglars - they found broken glass at the scene that is good enough evidence.
FFS - you want to live in a society where you could get shot dead for knocking on a door - and all the perpetrator has to do is bust a window and the police turn up - dead body check - broken window - check.
Self Defence - check
Exactly the sort of shit that wouldn't happen if it wasn't for guns.
All it makes me think is that the murder rate in the US is vastly understated.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. I know it is an old study - but what has changed ?
that is the 3 x level of road deaths in the UK.
Even taking into account suicide and removing it - the US is running at a gun death rate close to road death rate in the UK.
weird shit - your welcome to it.
vehicles are necessary tools for transport
Guns are clearly tools for tools.
Ok, let's try a new direction. As Hook's last post so clearly points out, we have some gun control checks already in place, but they obviously weren't enforced (or, at least, not well enough).
Why should we expect that any additional controls will be effectively enforced? It seems like whenever the Government is behind these types of things they always trip over their dicks and bad things happen anyway...
You can't blame the "government" -
you vote them in and set the agenda of what is possible.
you also man the government agencies that enforce it.
truth is that you don't enforce anything as the NRA lobby has made sure it is lip service enforcement.
paper work ffs - every legal gun owner should be on a database with the same effort put in as with driving licenses and vehicle registration.
Fully funded by the arms industry - they want to sell - then they and their customers pay the costs to regulate it.
Gun regulations are unenforced for the same reason that financial system regulations are unenforced. Because the lobbies behind guns and the financial services sector own Washington.
I guess the first thing you'd have to regulate, or eliminate, is all the gun shops on every corner.
Hookbender — Feb 18, 2010I guess the first thing you'd have to regulate, or eliminate, is all the gun shops on every corner.
yeah, lets do it for the children! why don't we ban alcohol while we are at it. with more deaths than gun by an amazing margin shouldn't that be our focus? it really has no redeeming value for right? or can alcohol be enjoyed responsibly while guns can't be? alcohol has the same effect of endangering innocent bystanders if the user has no self control. using your logic alcohol should be banned due to its dangerous possiblities to be abused. we should probably ban spray paint too, don't forget ephedra alkaloids for meth, and paint thinner, and, and and.
it's a very slippery slope you are going down. where will you plant your flag and say "enough"? i would like to see a society that takes responsiblity for itself instead of playing "pass the blame". suddenly its the baseball bat manufacturers fault when a line drive kills a kid in baseball (http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=11404075#at) becuase they didn't know it was dangerous. it's mcdonalds fault when the hot fucking coffee burns your dumb ass. and it's the gun manufacturers fault when a person goes batshit crazy and uses the product to kill innocents.
while i am straying from the subject there is something very wrong with our society and while i can't put my finger on it exactly it runs right through the middle of this thread.
Weird, I always thought it was the ammo that did most of the damage... ;)
Pretty good Chase, except the fact that a car is rarely used as a weapon. Even a drunk doesn't get into a car with the intention of killing another human being. Not saying it doesn't happen, but get real man.
Murder is the act we are trying to avoid here. The act of killing another human. The weapon, not necessity, is the firearm or gun. I've never heard of a car being considered a weapon. Our laws have become enforced pretty well agaist drunk drivers. However, again, the drunk doesn't have the intention to kill anyone.
You don't need a gun, we all need vehicles. And vehicles aren't considered a weapon that people commonly use to kill another person intentially. Huge, huge, difference.
Also....there are counties that simply don't sell alcohol, so it's sorta banned in different areas even today. I was trying to buy beer in several counties in Kentucky a few weeks ago and was shocked that the counties were dry. No alcohol. No reason we can't ban guns the same way on a state by state basis or county by county basis depending on the kill ratio, right? ;)
Drugs and alcohol are commonly involved in shootings and murders also, so I guess I wouldn't care if they both were banned, or laws were enforced on the drug side. While we're at it, we should sell lots of pot as it has a chillin effect rather than sending people into a wild rage of some kind. I've never seen a guy on weed ready to pop a cap in someone's ass. He'd probably prefer not to even get off the couch. You know, laugh a little, eat something, tear him off a slab, and go to sleep.
Are you seriously enticing me to defend a mode of transportation to divert the conversation of a true murder weapon? Come on man.
For some reason, when I was shot sitting in a car, the thought never crossed my mind to simply attempt to run over 20 or so guys that potentially had guns as well as the shooter. Wonder why? Oh, I know why, I didn't have enough beer in me at the time. Or drugs, maybe. :D
We've banned smoking around others in some places because it has the potential to harm others, why not guns?
Hookbender — Feb 18, 2010 We've banned smoking around others in some places because it has the potential to harm others, why not guns?
Maybe we should ban smoking guns? ;D
Hookbender — Feb 18, 2010Pretty good Chase, except the fact that a car is rarely used as a weapon. Even a drunk doesn't get into a car with the intention of killing another human being. Not saying it doesn't happen, but get real man.
Murder is the act we are trying to avoid here. The act of killing another human. The weapon, not necessity, is the firearm or gun. I've never heard of a car being considered a weapon. Our laws have become enforced pretty well agaist drunk drivers. However, again, the drunk doesn't have the intention to kill anyone.
You don't need a gun, we all need vehicles. And vehicles aren't considered a weapon that people commonly use to kill another person intentially. Huge, huge, difference.
Also....there are counties that simply don't sell alcohol, so it's sorta banned in different areas even today. I was trying to buy beer in several counties in Kentucky a few weeks ago and was shocked that the counties were dry. No alcohol. No reason we can't ban guns the same way on a state by state basis or county by county basis depending on the kill ratio, right? ;)
Drugs and alcohol are commonly involved in shootings and murders also, so I guess I wouldn't care if they both were banned, or laws were enforced on the drug side. While we're at it, we should sell lots of pot as it has a chillin effect rather than sending people into a wild rage of some kind. I've never seen a guy on weed ready to pop a cap in someone's ass. He'd probably prefer not to even get off the couch. You know, laugh a little, eat something, tear him off a slab, and go to sleep.
Are you seriously enticing me to defend a mode of transportation to divert the conversation of a true murder weapon? Come on man.
For some reason, when I was shot sitting in a car, the thought never crossed my mind to simply attempt to run over 20 or so guys that potentially had guns as well as the shooter. Wonder why? Oh, I know why, I didn't have enough beer in me at the time. Or drugs, maybe. :D
We've banned smoking around others in some places because it has the potential to harm others, why not guns?
http://volokh.com/2010/02/18/washington-supreme-court-holds-second-amendment-is-incorporated/
From the ruling:
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
The analogies to banning Cars and Alcohol (and drugs) are spurious.
tactical arguments to have something to respond with - a straw man.
The argument is not that guns should be controlled because the can hurt people,
the argument is that guns should be controlled is based on the unavoidable fact they are designed for
no other purposes than to kill and project force.
So unless you are hunting for your dinner, a warden in a game park, a soldier/police etc. there is no claim as a tool of everyday life.
Sport shooting - for fun - ok I think this is valid - but it is where the line is drawn.
Hunting rifles make sense.
Hard to explain away an Uzi as a hunting weapon in da hood.
Anyway back to your (tired) analogies with banning things.
I ask you why are most weapons banned period in the US - why can't you get a bazooka and pick up some shells at the mall.
Isn't it a gross violation of the constitution that you can't buy rocket launchers legally.
Shit they won't even allow you to keep hand grenades.
A mine field would have great use in defending your home - throw in digital arming and you could spread them around the grounds of your house and turn them on when under attack with a button on the concealed gun you carry.
It would be really cool. 8-) ;)
Ok - you will probably say Guns are a different thing - you have a smaller definition of gun in mind, kind that is no threat to the state. (2nd amendment)
The kind of gun that is intended for use against your fellow citizens.
for defence.
oops
and for sport and fun - but hunting rifles aren't convenient to carry in a bar, nor are baseball bats or cars.
knives are - but they are impossible to ban.
fingers — Feb 18, 2010The analogies to banning Cars and Alcohol (and drugs) are spurious.
tactical arguments to have something to respond with - a straw man.
The argument is not that guns should be controlled because the can hurt people,
the argument is that guns should be controlled is based on the unavoidable fact they are designed for
no other purposes than to kill and project force.
So unless you are hunting for your dinner, a warden in a game park, a soldier/police etc. there is no claim as a tool of everyday life.
Sport shooting - for fun - ok I think this is valid - but it is where the line is drawn.
Hunting rifles make sense.
Hard to explain away an Uzi as a hunting weapon in da hood.
Anyway back to your (tired) analogies with banning things.
I ask you why are most weapons banned period in the US - why can't you get a bazooka and pick up some shells at the mall.
Isn't it a gross violation of the constitution that you can't buy rocket launchers legally.
Shit they won't even allow you to keep hand grenades.
A mine field would have great use in defending your home - throw in digital arming and you could spread them around the grounds of your house and turn them on when under attack with a button on the concealed gun you carry.
It would be really cool. 8-) ;)
Ok - you will probably say Guns are a different thing - you have a smaller definition of gun in mind, kind that is no threat to the state. (2nd amendment)
The kind of gun that is intended for use against your fellow citizens.
for defence.
oops
and for sport and fun - but hunting rifles aren't convenient to carry in a bar, nor are baseball bats or cars.
knives are - but they are impossible to ban.
the article i posted above is very important for the guns rights movement in America. it shows a supreme court ruled in favor of something called "incorporation" of the second amendment. in laymans terms it says that various state governments cant restrict a right laid out in the first 8 amendments to the US constitution.
here in the US the state laws are often much more restrictive than the federal laws are. some communities have outright bans placed on handguns, larger caliber rifles, etc. this case sets precedent as it is the first ruling of its kind. it should pave the way for equal gun rights in each state.
I'm not sure how I feel about this ruling. even though it does the 2nd amendment argument, it sets a dangerous example of the courts backing federal law over state law. I am a strong supporter of states rights over federal rights. it's only a matter of time before this comes back to bite us on the ass
I don't think, at least me, ever questioned what the constitution says. I'm simply stating an opinion on gun control. The constitution is old as hell and times have changed.
I, personally, don't thing anything thats harmful to society, or the possession of any item designed to kill, has any place in society. It;s the good having to suffer for the bad kinda thing, the American way.
And this rights argument is simply crazy no matter what a court says.
Maybe I am questioning the constitution. ;D
People that argue for guns seem like they would rather avoid modern tech., like a security system for example, so they can eventually have the opportunity to shoot a potential robber. ;D They'd rather chance harm to their family or themselves in hopes of a John Wayne shoot out rather than having a security system. Not to mention the potential risk to their children finding a gun. I read where trigger locks and keeping ammo seperate from the gun cuts down on accidents, they didn't mention the fact that it also renders the gun useless in a emergency situation. ;D Gues that's where the securituy system would come in handy. The security system goes off making the robber run and that gives the home owner time to load their riffle and take a quick shot at around 150 yards. Good target practice I guess. ;D
I'm still amazed at how gun folk refuse alternaties no matter what they are and cling to the rights thing over and over again. I'd hate to live thinking I needed a gun in case someone tried something all my life. It's a shame we let gun s get this far out of control in the first place.
People who want guns just seem to be brainwashed or have a mental block of some kind that can't be fixed. Amazing how strongly they oppose gun control. Kinda says alot about our society today. Very violent frame of mind.
At least you seem responsible about owning weapons Chase. I think your thinking is very strange and disturbing. But you have had some training, and that's good. But the reason I'm opposed to gun ownership has nothing to do with responsible gun owners like yourself.
no need to bracket criticism with smiley faces ;)
i'm glad the forefathers had the insight to include the second amendment in the bill or rights. and yes i actually do think they intended it as a check against the government; not as a neutered clause to allow weapons for "sporting purposes". the logistics of a rebellion are something i don't care to argue; and something i never hope to see, so don't take it that way. i simply believe they realized the importance of an armed society regardless of what century the calendar says.
They understood the importance of an armed society ?
They were in the 18th century -
the navy was made of wood and sailed by canvas
The framers wore powdered wigs
Where are your well armed militia today
Bloods and crips maybe
Or the hicks in those stories you posted
I disagree about the article you posted, chase. It's the Washington state supreme court. Just because one state supreme court rules one way, it really has no effect on what other state supreme courts will rule, or how other states will decide their laws. We see this in all sorts of decisions across the country, there's no reason this one would be different.
Here's a hypothetical. Do you think people who are attempting to become pilots should be screened to determine whether they are likely to try to fly that plane into a building? Or should anyone who can fly a plane, and isn't mentally ill, be allowed to fly a plane?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Even if this constitutional issue was settled legally and binding in the federal courts once and for all and putting beyond state control to interpret, it would still leave the question of interpretation open.
What would be the guiding principle to frame the application of the inalienable right.
They only mention the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
They don't state any caveats.
So 200+ years later.
What does this mean?
The "well regulated state militia" exist in many states and have access to heavy weapon systems and even navies.
the use of these weapons are of course are heavily regulated by the militia controlling them, every state has security forces if not a military.
So it is only down to interpreting the amendment in terms of the individual citizen
Drawing the line anywhere is arbitrary.
When this was drawn up it was an era leading up to the Napoleonic wars - Nelson fighting huge sea battles and Wellington sending Napoleon to his Waterloo.
It was the prototype of World War - WW0.
The sort of "Arms" available were already pretty brutal stuff by then
Guns included Cannon .
Where do you draw the line constitutionally ?
What calibre and type of guns and ammo are allowed ?
Why only restrict it to guns, it is a right to bear arms ?
fingers — Feb 19, 2010They understood the importance of an armed society ?
They were in the 18th century -
the navy was made of wood and sailed by canvas
The framers wore powdered wigs
Where are your well armed militia today
Bloods and crips maybe
Or the hicks in those stories you posted
i realize you are not an american, but consider what was at stake during the time period that our founding documents were drafted. the second amendment was put in place as a check against a tyrannical government. who gives a flying fuck if they wore wigs or floated around in wooden boats.
i'll make myself very clear. the people in a country should have a last resort if all other means of dealing with the government fail. the declaration of independence is very clear what should happen if a government is to overstep its bounds and become oppressive. the second amendment was put in place so that should it ever be necessary to break bonds with the government, the citizens would have the tools to do so.
the above statement is not a fact up for arguing. if you don't believe it is applicable anymore that is a separate argument in itself. i however do think it was a wonderful idea when put in place, and still is today. i'm not one of the people who thinks the time is now, but i do believe in the premise of a government run for the people by the people.
i also believe that the right to bear arms is so important to our country and its government that the unfortunate accidents and tragedies that do occur when somebody misuses a gun are worth enduring. i would rather deal with what we see today than have a population disarmed.
again i post from a states supreme court
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
anyone who doesn't believe this decision will carry precedent is fooling themselves
Well, they sure knew a thing or two about tyrannical treatment of "individuals" who weren't allowed to have weapons.
chase — Feb 19, 2010
i'll make myself very clear. the people in a country should have a last resort if all other means of dealing with the government fail. the declaration of independence is very clear what should happen if a government is to overstep its bounds and become oppressive. the second amendment was put in place so that should it ever be necessary to break bonds with the government, the citizens would have the tools to do so.
the above statement is not a fact up for arguing.
Oh believe me - all your "facts" are up for argument and if you don't like it - well tough.
You haven't graduated to tyrant just yet ;D
You don't have a last resort against government through your gun ownership.
The government would crush you like a fly.
It is a delusion.
chase — Feb 19, 2010
i realize you are not an american, but consider what was at stake during the time period that our founding documents were drafted. the second amendment was put in place as a check against a tyrannical government. who gives a flying fuck if they wore wigs or floated around in wooden boats.
Then the first people who should have had arms were the slaves as they lived under abject tyranny for a further 150+ years.
Slave rebellions were supplied with weapons by foreign powers and considered an act of war by the US in those days.
These foreign powers were surely just holding up the slaves constitutional rights.
You had Gun Control then - what changes
"i'll make myself very clear. the people in a country should have a last resort if all other means of dealing with the government fail. the declaration of independence is very clear what should happen if a government is to overstep its bounds and become oppressive. the second amendment was put in place so that should it ever be necessary to break bonds with the government, the citizens would have the tools to do so."
Well, what part of the government are you gonna take out with a shotgun and .40 cal. hand gun? ;D ;D
Why don't you amuse me and give me an example of government oppression in todays world and then explain to me how your gonna stop the oppression with a handgun and a rifle or two. What side is the military going to be own, the governments side or the people's side?
Pitiful argument and an even worse defense for guns. It's bullshit. Just because the founding fathers dreamed up a story that isn't gonna happen in America, doesn't mean you have to take it at face value 150 years later when nothing is even close to the same as it was then.
This isn't why you want gun rights or think that having guns is o.k., now is it Chase. This argument is to full of shit to use as defense for guns.
If it were legal to this.....say a man broke your bedroom window and you first turned on the light, second grabed your gun of choice. The guy starts running....it's legal to shoot the guy. Would you shoot him, or let him run away?
There isn't anything that isn't arguable, debatable, or not worthy in any way of challange. Pretty rediculous statement saying otherwise.
The real reason goes something like this
I like guns they are cool to handle and fire
Carrying a gun is exciting and gains me cudos.
I am paranoid about crime
I enjoy preparing for crime situations.
Which is fine just don't expect people to swallow that old baloney of overthrowing governments and the beauty of the constitution.
Any sane objective reader would interpret the 2nd ammendment as it was intended.
As a right of the "people" to form militias independent of the federal government.
The right of the individual to a gun would not have been considered an issue at that time,
In a farming and hunting society.
You lost your 2nd amendment rights after the civil war
Personal gun ownership has nothing to do with exercising that right one way or other
You join the militia they supply you a gun (like Switzerland) or more generally arms.
You can't do that in the US - Waco shows what happens to militias
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
what is more likely, that a small percentage of the US (you limey brits have no say in this ;)) that is against gun ownership is correct and the rest of us are paranoid idiots, or that the few of you on this liberal website who believe that the constitution, the state supreme court, and the majority of americans are wrong and guns should be banned.
i'm sorry but you are out of touch with the majority of america. let me prove that
Fight for the right to arm bears? :D
The argument is not about the popular vote - if I was arguing against slavery with you pre civil war,
you could have produced very similar opinion polls in the South at least against banning slavery.
Argument is about defending the substance of your position logically.
it is not throwing your toys out the pram and stamping your feet and insisting you are right because you say so and so does everyone else in the group you self select and belong to.
I don't give a shit if the US has popular support gun ownership - you are welcome to them if that's what you want.
The reason I was drawn into this was the crap you were pedalling about other countries with gun controls to support your initial argument.
Ridiculous propaganda with no substance.
You have failed to provide a reasoned response to any of the following questions
Where do you draw the line on arms (bazookas) and why?
Why didn't slaves make use of the 2nd amendment ?
Why can't militias form any more ?
Why is your homicide rate much higher than comparable countries with gun controls
there are just examples - I am sure there are plenty more in this thread
The reason you can't argue a strong case is clear - there are no higher and noble reasons for gun ownership - it is just cultural baggage you are brainwashed into thinking is of some deep significance - it isn't, it is just a reflection of your society and it's hangups.
But don't feel bad - this subject has been argued many times before.
The end result is always the same - Gun Nut is handed his ass ;)
So next time stick to arguing the different point "Does the US have popular support for Gun ownership"
You will win that one ;)
Gun owners are kinda like a 2 year old clinging to their teddy bear. It just makes them feel better, like a crutch that isn't addictive.
A majority of Americans would prefer alcohol, cigs, and speed limits be raised. That doesn't make a lot of sense though when you consider the cost of all these harmful things. One has to draw the line somewhere, I say it's with guns, since it's limitations are pretty much to kill, or harm something with danger existing with it's every use, whether intended or not. Crime, suicides, accidental deaths, that isn't tolerable in society. Innocent people pay huge cost for the legality of guns. Gun owners, well, they just don't give a fuck. They would rather have the opportunity to shoot someone than to consider alternatives and cling to the constitution for their only defense. A document that is sometimes misunderstood and over 150 years old written in a pretty much ancient time. A time when guns were actually "needed" for gathering food. That isn't the case any longer. Now hunting is a sport and murder isn't far behind that.
fingers — Feb 22, 2010 Where do you draw the line on arms (bazookas) and why?
Why didn't slaves make use of the 2nd amendment ?
Why can't militias form any more ?
Why is your homicide rate much higher than comparable countries with gun controls
Off topic: Why do the official US Census sheets ask what your race is if all men are created equal? ::)
Sorry - feel free to return to your regularly scheduled dispute. ;)
