A guy got escorted out before her... same thing.
United States & Gun Control discussion.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
A guy got escorted out before her... same thing.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
I don't really feel like spending a lot more of my Christmas time on this topic, so I'll try to cover this as best I can. I think that whatever your position is, everyone can agree that the anti-gun movement is picking up rapid momentum since this latest tragedy. The fact is, clinging to extreme views is going to end up doing more harm than good, like always. If gun ownership is to survive in any kind of dignified way, then more people need to adapt their reasoning to actually challenge the anti-gun movement. Pro-gun people should be the first to propose sensible restrictions which don't infringe on the basic right to bear arms, but which do help against irresponsible people (whether that's down to criminal choices, or unstable mental issues). It doesn't matter if these 'smart' restrictions don't solve the problem all by themselves, as no laws ever do. Limiting any future tragedies would already be a plus, and it would defend ownership by showing that there already are responsible measures in place.
The best thing is that smart restrictions don't actually have to hurt gun ownership for responsible, law-abiding individuals. Neither do they have to come with idiotic limits, such as how many rounds you can have in your magazine, or what calibers you can own, or even what type of weapon you can own (all of those things, and more, should be protected by your rights). Basically, I just really hope you implement some intelligent ideas before the anti-gun people get their way and impose some very bloody retarded ones. With the way most of our countries are going, it would only be a matter of time before the latter could happen. I've always thought that it's better to regulate yourself and choose smart, responsible decisions... rather than be regulated by utter buffoons (who, unfortunately, have more and more support from the population).
I don't mean to imply that it isn't the proper definition, because it is. These things are written in such a way that they can be understood by all people, however, the deeper issues behind these topics are incredibly complex and abstract (and they aren't necessarily accessible to all people). These are issues which the most intelligent philosophers of all time had dedicated their whole lives to and still couldn't concretely define.
We can accept the face value of a law which says that we should be free to do X or Y, but we need to think about the possible ramifications it could have on our other liberties, and attach certain conditions if needed. Hell, even one of the most important freedoms of all, the freedom of speech, still has certain restrictions which most people agree with. For example, anything that can incite violence or public chaos would be categorized as a misuse of that liberty, because you're overstepping your boundaries by encroaching on other people's safety and liberty. Simply saying something offensive or controversial doesn't count though, because no one has the right to go through life unoffended (despite some countries stupidly making this illegal anyway, but that's another topic).
The point isn't that they can't be trusted in society. If they've been reintegrated, then it was obviously judged (or misjudged, as in many unfortunate cases) that they could return to live in society. Like I said though, that doesn't necessarily mean that some of those people should be trusted with guns. The fact is, anyone who's committed a crime has a chance of reoffending at some point, even when we do our best to pick who to let out or not. The solution is not to keep everyone in prison for the rest of their lives just because something might happen. We just have to try to limit the damage certain individuals could cause if they choose to misuse their second chance in society.
A determined criminal will always try to find a way to get a gun if he wants to, but that doesn't mean that he'll always be successful. By at least limiting his legal avenues, and cracking down on the illegal ones, you can already vastly decrease his chances. Secondly, not all criminals fall into that 'hardened criminal' category... by far. There are many of them who simply won't go through the trouble of trying to acquire a gun illegally, simply because that could entail a lot of things which might not be worth it to them.
Limit the opportunities for dumbasses to acquire weapons, and you'll limit the damage the dumbasses might eventually do. So, while there'll still be the smart, determined criminals who'll get their hands on a gun no matter what... looking back, you'll see that you've at least stopped a major group of criminals, as they don't fall into that category.
Really? Take this scenario: there's a dense, urban area with a lot of crime and other social problems. Only the law-abiding people in that area are able to own guns, and there are very few avenues for most of the criminals to acquire weapons illegally. Are you saying that if you suddenly changed the parameters, and let the criminals buy weapons just like the good, honest people... that those good, honest people wouldn't be in more danger?
Like I've been saying, we got to be realistic. There are criminals out there who are reoffending and are yet to be caught again, and you can't just catch all of them overnight and keep them in jail forever. You can, however, drastically cut down on their access to weapons and thus limit the damage they do in the meanwhile (before being locked up again). I don't even understand under how it makes sense to enable gun access for criminals... but then again you believe that it's possible for only the good, honest people to live in society and for everyone else (no shades of grey) to be locked up forever. All morality and ethics completely aside, that's not even realistically possible to achieve. Although it would be a good scenario for you to test the whole civil revolution thing and people rising up against the government (because that's what would start to happen).
Again, I have no idea of what kind of dystopian ideas you have planned for society... but they sound pretty fucked up. I find it ironic that while arguing about liberty, you haven't noticed how incredibly anti-liberty and despotic your 'solution' actually is. Society isn't binary; it's not black and white. You can't simply label people as "TRUSTED" or "NOT TRUSTED" and accordingly let them roam free or lock them up/execute them. In a truly free society (not to be confused with the literal meaning, i.e., anarchy), you are trusted on many different levels and your rights and responsibilities are adjusted accordingly.
Limiting certain people's rights is much better than taking them all away. You can't seriously be advocating for every mentally disabled person who isn't responsible enough to drive a car to be institutionalized, right? I don't think you're protecting liberty if you're taking all of it away from those people, as opposed to just some parts. I'd rather they be free in society, for those who are otherwise harmless, but if they don't have the mental faculties to properly drive a car, I don't want them plowing into people.
It's like you're defending this view that you should have all your rights in society or none at all, based on an ideal (liberty), but you've totally misunderstood this ideal by taking it 100% literally. By doing this, you're completely ignoring the metaphysics of the issue, as well as centuries of meaningful reasoning and logic which goes with it. Come on... most of us are not autistic, robots or fanatics. We don't just read commands and follow them blindly. We not only understand the face value of a statement, but we can also think a bit deeper, without changing the actual issue.
You are aware that this is already done, right? There are restrictions against -- off the top of my head -- new learners, people with poor eyesight, people on medication, etc. Restrictions on stuff like that are carried out by the people who issue the licenses (who have a duty to test if you are fully or partially fit for a license, or unfit) and are enforced during random police stops. This kind of stuff doesn't prevent a few people from breaking their restrictions, but it sure helps control the large majority of people, and that's all that a law is intended to do.
No, what is stupid is the attempt to divide people into only two categories (refer to what I said earlier).
Just because you've done your time doesn't mean you're simply 'trusted' again. I don't know about you, but 'trusting' criminals with certain, specific backgrounds doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. They may very well have paid their time, but that doesn't mean society is ready to give them everything back as soon as they return. The road to rehabilitation and regaining trust should be a long and tested path. And yet that's still better (and actually realistic) compared to keeping them in prison forever.
All questionable points, and covered under previous responses.
A good decision, but that will only help your children if they're at home and know how to access your weapons (and if you trust them to do so). Anywhere outside of home, and when they're not with you, they're at the mercy of society. So hey, why not try to make it a safer place to begin with?
Really? Your response to me saying that those aren't excuses, is to say that they are excuses? I think you misread me. My whole point is that despite personal shortcomings, people should still feel they have the duty and responsibility to defend themselves.
Yes. I think any sane person can agree that it would be nice to reduce the likelihood of having to defend yourself in the first place. Lowering crime is generally seen as a good thing. While everyone should be prepared to defend themselves at home if needed, I don't wish it upon anyone to have to be in that situation.
1) Works pretty well, actually. Before being able to obtain a weapon, you should be able to prove that you can secure it safely when you're not present. The fact that some people will occasionally be careless doesn't matter. What matters is that the majority of people will become more responsible in general. You don't just discount a law because it doesn't fix everything on its own and some people will break it (otherwise we wouldn't have any laws).
2) Yeah, well it's one thing for some lazy ass to report a missing weapon whenever (or if) he feels like dragging his own ass down to the police station... but it's a whole other thing to compel people to report it swiftly. It could be the difference between someone having the time to commit a crime or not.
3) Whatever you think 'doesn't work' when it comes to stopping criminals from legally buying weapons, you can bet the situation would be ten times worse in some places if they were allowed to legally buy them (on top of the hardened criminals who'll always manage to arm themselves if they want to, you're now welcoming a large number of criminals who for whatever reason wouldn't or couldn't obtain one through the black market). Obviously a criminal record on its own should not be grounds for an exclusion, but just like a background check, many things need to be considered, such as the severity and nature of the crime, when it was committed, what efforts the person has taken for his rehabilitation since then, etc.
The best thing is that smart restrictions don't actually have to hurt gun ownership for responsible, law-abiding individuals. Neither do they have to come with idiotic limits, such as how many rounds you can have in your magazine, or what calibers you can own, or even what type of weapon you can own (all of those things, and more, should be protected by your rights). Basically, I just really hope you implement some intelligent ideas before the anti-gun people get their way and impose some very bloody retarded ones. With the way most of our countries are going, it would only be a matter of time before the latter could happen. I've always thought that it's better to regulate yourself and choose smart, responsible decisions... rather than be regulated by utter buffoons (who, unfortunately, have more and more support from the population).
I don't mean to imply that it isn't the proper definition, because it is. These things are written in such a way that they can be understood by all people, however, the deeper issues behind these topics are incredibly complex and abstract (and they aren't necessarily accessible to all people). These are issues which the most intelligent philosophers of all time had dedicated their whole lives to and still couldn't concretely define.
We can accept the face value of a law which says that we should be free to do X or Y, but we need to think about the possible ramifications it could have on our other liberties, and attach certain conditions if needed. Hell, even one of the most important freedoms of all, the freedom of speech, still has certain restrictions which most people agree with. For example, anything that can incite violence or public chaos would be categorized as a misuse of that liberty, because you're overstepping your boundaries by encroaching on other people's safety and liberty. Simply saying something offensive or controversial doesn't count though, because no one has the right to go through life unoffended (despite some countries stupidly making this illegal anyway, but that's another topic).
The point isn't that they can't be trusted in society. If they've been reintegrated, then it was obviously judged (or misjudged, as in many unfortunate cases) that they could return to live in society. Like I said though, that doesn't necessarily mean that some of those people should be trusted with guns. The fact is, anyone who's committed a crime has a chance of reoffending at some point, even when we do our best to pick who to let out or not. The solution is not to keep everyone in prison for the rest of their lives just because something might happen. We just have to try to limit the damage certain individuals could cause if they choose to misuse their second chance in society.
A determined criminal will always try to find a way to get a gun if he wants to, but that doesn't mean that he'll always be successful. By at least limiting his legal avenues, and cracking down on the illegal ones, you can already vastly decrease his chances. Secondly, not all criminals fall into that 'hardened criminal' category... by far. There are many of them who simply won't go through the trouble of trying to acquire a gun illegally, simply because that could entail a lot of things which might not be worth it to them.
Limit the opportunities for dumbasses to acquire weapons, and you'll limit the damage the dumbasses might eventually do. So, while there'll still be the smart, determined criminals who'll get their hands on a gun no matter what... looking back, you'll see that you've at least stopped a major group of criminals, as they don't fall into that category.
Really? Take this scenario: there's a dense, urban area with a lot of crime and other social problems. Only the law-abiding people in that area are able to own guns, and there are very few avenues for most of the criminals to acquire weapons illegally. Are you saying that if you suddenly changed the parameters, and let the criminals buy weapons just like the good, honest people... that those good, honest people wouldn't be in more danger?
Like I've been saying, we got to be realistic. There are criminals out there who are reoffending and are yet to be caught again, and you can't just catch all of them overnight and keep them in jail forever. You can, however, drastically cut down on their access to weapons and thus limit the damage they do in the meanwhile (before being locked up again). I don't even understand under how it makes sense to enable gun access for criminals... but then again you believe that it's possible for only the good, honest people to live in society and for everyone else (no shades of grey) to be locked up forever. All morality and ethics completely aside, that's not even realistically possible to achieve. Although it would be a good scenario for you to test the whole civil revolution thing and people rising up against the government (because that's what would start to happen).
Again, I have no idea of what kind of dystopian ideas you have planned for society... but they sound pretty fucked up. I find it ironic that while arguing about liberty, you haven't noticed how incredibly anti-liberty and despotic your 'solution' actually is. Society isn't binary; it's not black and white. You can't simply label people as "TRUSTED" or "NOT TRUSTED" and accordingly let them roam free or lock them up/execute them. In a truly free society (not to be confused with the literal meaning, i.e., anarchy), you are trusted on many different levels and your rights and responsibilities are adjusted accordingly.
Limiting certain people's rights is much better than taking them all away. You can't seriously be advocating for every mentally disabled person who isn't responsible enough to drive a car to be institutionalized, right? I don't think you're protecting liberty if you're taking all of it away from those people, as opposed to just some parts. I'd rather they be free in society, for those who are otherwise harmless, but if they don't have the mental faculties to properly drive a car, I don't want them plowing into people.
It's like you're defending this view that you should have all your rights in society or none at all, based on an ideal (liberty), but you've totally misunderstood this ideal by taking it 100% literally. By doing this, you're completely ignoring the metaphysics of the issue, as well as centuries of meaningful reasoning and logic which goes with it. Come on... most of us are not autistic, robots or fanatics. We don't just read commands and follow them blindly. We not only understand the face value of a statement, but we can also think a bit deeper, without changing the actual issue.
You are aware that this is already done, right? There are restrictions against -- off the top of my head -- new learners, people with poor eyesight, people on medication, etc. Restrictions on stuff like that are carried out by the people who issue the licenses (who have a duty to test if you are fully or partially fit for a license, or unfit) and are enforced during random police stops. This kind of stuff doesn't prevent a few people from breaking their restrictions, but it sure helps control the large majority of people, and that's all that a law is intended to do.
No, what is stupid is the attempt to divide people into only two categories (refer to what I said earlier).
Just because you've done your time doesn't mean you're simply 'trusted' again. I don't know about you, but 'trusting' criminals with certain, specific backgrounds doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. They may very well have paid their time, but that doesn't mean society is ready to give them everything back as soon as they return. The road to rehabilitation and regaining trust should be a long and tested path. And yet that's still better (and actually realistic) compared to keeping them in prison forever.
All questionable points, and covered under previous responses.
A good decision, but that will only help your children if they're at home and know how to access your weapons (and if you trust them to do so). Anywhere outside of home, and when they're not with you, they're at the mercy of society. So hey, why not try to make it a safer place to begin with?
Really? Your response to me saying that those aren't excuses, is to say that they are excuses? I think you misread me. My whole point is that despite personal shortcomings, people should still feel they have the duty and responsibility to defend themselves.
WTF?Dude did you really write that?
Yes. I think any sane person can agree that it would be nice to reduce the likelihood of having to defend yourself in the first place. Lowering crime is generally seen as a good thing. While everyone should be prepared to defend themselves at home if needed, I don't wish it upon anyone to have to be in that situation.
1) Works pretty well, actually. Before being able to obtain a weapon, you should be able to prove that you can secure it safely when you're not present. The fact that some people will occasionally be careless doesn't matter. What matters is that the majority of people will become more responsible in general. You don't just discount a law because it doesn't fix everything on its own and some people will break it (otherwise we wouldn't have any laws).
2) Yeah, well it's one thing for some lazy ass to report a missing weapon whenever (or if) he feels like dragging his own ass down to the police station... but it's a whole other thing to compel people to report it swiftly. It could be the difference between someone having the time to commit a crime or not.
3) Whatever you think 'doesn't work' when it comes to stopping criminals from legally buying weapons, you can bet the situation would be ten times worse in some places if they were allowed to legally buy them (on top of the hardened criminals who'll always manage to arm themselves if they want to, you're now welcoming a large number of criminals who for whatever reason wouldn't or couldn't obtain one through the black market). Obviously a criminal record on its own should not be grounds for an exclusion, but just like a background check, many things need to be considered, such as the severity and nature of the crime, when it was committed, what efforts the person has taken for his rehabilitation since then, etc.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
Just to quickly go back to another topic... I know Iraq was mentioned a few times, as an example of people standing up to a military power, but I'm not sure it fits. Mostly because, well, the insurgents didn't win... despite the added advantaged of much greater firepower (e.g., machine guns), vast access to explosives (with IEDs and such doing the bulk of their damage), and the fact that many of them were ready to die for their religion (how many people, these days, would be patriotic enough to match that kind of fanatical will? I'm sure there are many, but are there enough?). Not to mention that the U.S. Military was mostly taking great care with its operations in Iraq, while some people believe they should've taken the gloves off (which would've put an even greater dent into the insurgency).
There's a great difference between causing a lot of deaths against a large military force, and actually successfully overthrowing it. What I think gun ownership in the U.S. does have the ability to do though, at the very least, is to make a potentially treacherous government pause for a moment to think whether they would want to get involved in such a quagmire in the first place (even if they could eventually win it). And you could say that preventing them from going down that road is just as good as defeating them. Plus, the government's protectors are comprised of its own citizens, so they would probably be the first people to turn against them if the government ever went batshit anyway. As I've said many times though, you still really only need one reason for gun ownership, and that's self-preservation.The topic of the abilities of the people to defend themselves against their own government is a separate, interesting one, however.
There's a great difference between causing a lot of deaths against a large military force, and actually successfully overthrowing it. What I think gun ownership in the U.S. does have the ability to do though, at the very least, is to make a potentially treacherous government pause for a moment to think whether they would want to get involved in such a quagmire in the first place (even if they could eventually win it). And you could say that preventing them from going down that road is just as good as defeating them. Plus, the government's protectors are comprised of its own citizens, so they would probably be the first people to turn against them if the government ever went batshit anyway. As I've said many times though, you still really only need one reason for gun ownership, and that's self-preservation.The topic of the abilities of the people to defend themselves against their own government is a separate, interesting one, however.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
You misquoted him. He said "more freedoms than just about anywhere else in the world".
Huge miscalculation:
A. There could be anywhere from 10 to 30 million Americans willing to take up arms in such a scenario. And although it's difficult to be precise, it is fair to say that the number of Iraqi insurgents in total would have ranged anywhere from several tens of thousands to less than 100,000. There is no comparison with the sheer volume of armed American citizens who would go to war under the right circumstances.
B. Fractionalization and division within the military. I'll put it to you like this: in case of some kind of revolution, how many M-1 Abrams do you think will get driven off to aid the "rebels". We had zero (or statistically close to zero) deserting American military in Iraq. If history is any guide, we would have a substantial rate of desertion in case of revolution. Some of those joining the "rebels" would include high ranking enlisted-men and very senior officers with extraordinary levels of expertise.
C. Quality of weaponry, equipment and infrastructure. Pulling from a pool of fighters as large as the United States citizenry, the potential for a large, fit, trained, extremely effective militia to be fielded is very high. Simply put, with enough time, there would be hundreds of thousands of combat-ready, professionally trained American militia-men at the very peak of fitness (former military doing the CrossFit thing, training on their own, keeping up their skills even though they are out), recent veterans, as well as a much larger group of irregular, unprofessional militia-persons. There would also not be the equipment and technology gap we saw in Iraq. American citizens have awesome firepower, as well as a decent compliment of other gear, such as commo, laptops, and other very modern equipment.
I have no comment on the explosives.
The larger point, though, is that this state of American readiness, dormant though it may be, must be maintained in perpetuity in order to always serve as the final guarantor of liberty. When France was occupied by foreign powers, there was an America that could send Airborne to parachute in and Marines to land on it's shores to liberate the country. If, in the future, America were to fall, there's no other United States to come to our aid. We're the last place on earth like this. We must preserve the balance between our government and our well-armed citizenry.
All of this is pure fantasy anyway, at this stage. The laws haven't even been put forward, and we have no idea what is in them. It may be that in the next few weeks, the short-term-memory of America prevails and this whole thing will blow away.
rockclimber
Unverified
You are correct, Sir. Nevertheless, my question still stands. I would like some help in understanding the implied causality between owning weapons and having more freedom.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
A. True. Although there would also be the entire U.S. Military which they would need to face (minus desertions, as you said), as opposed to the fraction which is in Iraq.
B. Yes, as I mentioned, I think the first people who would lead the rebellion would be from the government's protectors themselves. In fact I think that only a tiny minority of the military would be willing to start a civil war... which begs the question, would there be a war at all?
C. True again.
It definitely is a complex subject, and thankfully one which we'll probably never see tested.
D
Deleted member 2517
Guest
I agree with the rest of your post- people forget how big America is in terms of both land area and population (Other than India and China, we outnumber everyone else by a large margin- Indonesia by almost 80 million people).
The bold is what really stands out to me though- anyone remember Kony 2012? Neither do I.
I know that question wasn't aimed at me, but in it's simplest form, banning the ownership of a firearm is itself a reduction in freedom, not the least of which is the freedom to defend oneself.
Ask yourself if you believe you have the inherent right to defend yourself against an attacker, or if you should be relegated to passively awaiting assistance from authority figures. As you are being assaulted, perhaps by numerically superior forces (in other words as you are getting your ass kicked by 3 thugs who want your wallet and your wife's purse), do you feel that you have a right to responsibly use a tool which could drastically change the outcome?
It's not just about freedom, it's also about a right to defend oneself. A firearm ban would infringe on the individual's natural and inherent right to self-defense.
EDITED TO ADD: This silly notion that we'd all be just o.k. in defending ourselves without firearms is ridiculous on its face. I internalize this debate. I'm 6-foot, 240 lbs. right now, have a great bench and practice (and teach) mixed martial arts. Yet I know that if I am cornered somewhere by 5 or 6 guys, some of them with knives, I'm going to get taken down eventually. If I am with my wife when it happens, as soon as I am unconscious or bleeding out, she'd get the treatment one might expect. But a Concealed Carry firearm changes the calculus drastically, as well as the outcome.
They didn't? I think a lot of us would beg to differ but that is probably best for a seperate thread.
We left, they're still there. I think that means they won.
Exactly what I thought. We shouldn't fall for equating "ending the war in Iraq" with "winning the war in Iraq". If I quit halfway through a marathon, I guess I could say I ended it...
JBS: No disrespect taken. As far as statistics, you are right that I did not provide any. What I was getting at was that I think, and I italicize that because nothing has happened yet, that some kind of regulation or revamp of the laws are inevitable at this point. We have a president that has openly stated that he wants certain weapons off the street, you have morons like Baxter and Feinstein leading the charge, and now the famously stupid Biden heading up a task force, and to top it off, a media leaning so far left they are in danger of falling on their heads.
All I was getting at was that if something must happen, the above things were a couple of things I wouldn't be opposed to considering versus their proposed AWB. After your post though, you have a point I didn't consider in terms of the final 'oh shit' last stand, and I would have to agree that in general, those ideas above would apply more to the security industry in practice.However, I stick by the idea of requiring a bit more in depth practice than is currently taught in classes.
As far as the storage thing, no, I would most definitely not be in support of home inspections. It would have to be one of those things that is made in good faith. Good point in the legislation though, it would certainly be written in such legalese that it would render it inoperable.
All I was getting at was that if something must happen, the above things were a couple of things I wouldn't be opposed to considering versus their proposed AWB. After your post though, you have a point I didn't consider in terms of the final 'oh shit' last stand, and I would have to agree that in general, those ideas above would apply more to the security industry in practice.However, I stick by the idea of requiring a bit more in depth practice than is currently taught in classes.
As far as the storage thing, no, I would most definitely not be in support of home inspections. It would have to be one of those things that is made in good faith. Good point in the legislation though, it would certainly be written in such legalese that it would render it inoperable.
:-/
:youllpay: I GIVE UP! There's no way to cure that kind of stupidity lol. On a serious note though...I'm at a loss for words.
Yep... it's easy to win if all one has to do is wait until the announced withdrawal of one's enemy. I still can't believe we allowed these IDIOTS to do that. I have no qualms with withdrawal... but setting a date is just stupidity².
Did they call for anything else? Even Fox is only reporting this "solution" by the NRA, so if the NRA's sole stance is "armed guards in schools" and no weapons ban then I'm deeply disappointed. On the world's stage and all they could do was offer that along with criticism of video games and the press? That's IT? Christ, this thread has more ideas than the NRA with one week to prepare? One week of watching news coverage and it cannot even propose solutions that our unwashed masses thought of? And this is the leading voice of the 2nd Amendment?
Wayne LaPierre, your fail boat has arrived.
I think you missed my sarcasm which I tried to convey with the Afghanistan comment. No worries, it happens.
