Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rellikki

Gun politics

Recommended Posts

The law isn't faulty, but the society itself.

Yes, you're right, but:

1. violent crimes rate is very high, police can't fight with it (and probably is supporting criminals) and I can't legally defend myself - is it right, or wrong?

2. take notice on situation in Poland in early '90s or before the WW2 - it was really easy to legally obtain weapon, but crime rates were low - most frequent were burglaries, but without using a gun.

Some may prefer Far West laws, but i vastly prefer to live in a country where guns and death penalty are banned. I guess it's a matter of society choice.

Well, on one point we agree: death penalty.

But as far as I heard gun politics in France is less strict than in Poland. Could you give me some information about how to obtain shooter's license in France?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you're right, but:

1. violent crimes rate is very high, police can't fight with it (and probably is supporting criminals) and I can't legally defend myself - is it right, or wrong?

2. take notice on situation in Poland in early '90s or before the WW2 - it was really easy to legally obtain weapon, but crime rates were low - most frequent were burglaries, but without using a gun.

I don't know the Polish situation, but what i've noticed travelling in Europe or in the USA is that usually the police is as violent as the society is.

Well, on one point we agree: death penalty.

But as far as I heard gun politics in France is less strict than in Poland. Could you give me some information about how to obtain shooter's license in France?

The French law is quite simple : war / defense weapons are strictly prohibited apart from some obvious professions (police, army etc.). Hunting and sport weapons are strictly limited to sporting / hunting activities with valid hunting or sport licenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now your just being silly. I never said citizens carrying guns to bars will always lead to fatal shootings 100% of the time. I said the likelihood would go way up and it's a very bad idea.

Ok, I'll concede on that point, just simply because I know I might have twisted words or meaning there.

Well in your case, I'd agree that as a peace officer, you should have that right. Most cops I know don't want everyone packing.

This is just it. What gives me rights over anyone else, just simply because I'm a LEO? I may be a LEO now, but I've always and will always just be another citizen. Having a badge shouldn't give me a right over anyone else, unless they choose to surrender their rights by violating the law. And as a LEO, and certainly if I was running traffic stops, you're right; I wouldn't want EVERYONE carrying. But then again, as it is now, only those without felony convictions or without domestic abuse history can currently purchase and carry a firearm. Until a law abiding citizen proves otherwise, they're still a law abiding citizen, and should absolutely have all of the same rights that I do.

We already had that -it was called the Wild West and we evolved from that.

Not true. Think about it. America's "Wild West" turned into America's "hood". Think about the statistics stated earlier about African Americans being a much more likely victim of gun violence. We never left the "Wild West" behind. It's just changed color, and we've learned to call it by something else.

Not now as most people aren't walking around packing. If all were packing then yes and simple assault fights would be a thing of the past.

Exactly! That's why you're talking to a LEO who actually does think we should put a gun in every man and womans hands. When everyone is packing, crime will be reduced to nearly nothing comparatively.

Case in point of why it's a bad idea to make it legal. Like I said, at clubs someone gets punched nightly -if you're saying the "punched" would always have the legal right to then shoot him in the face and carry on about his business -thats a scary society your looking at.

Being punched doesn't give you the legal right to start gunning someone down. But it does give you the right to draw your firearm. If engaged again while you make it clear, then you have a right to defend yourself. (At least in my state. A small few have what's called retreat laws, which means that you're required to try to retreat before engaging.)

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure stating a man has the right to defend himself with lethal force from a "bar punch" -exceeds reasonable response.

(discussed above. And in this case, I'm absolutely sure of the law; again, at least in my state.

Anyways, it's sad that you feel the need to arm yourself at all times. I've lived in some of the shittyest neighborhoods known to man and never felt the need.

When I was in college, I worked with multiple inner city charities. After recouperating from a stab wound because I didn't have any cash, I decided to carry 24/7. And I live in a relatively peaceful and crime free area. No matter whether you live in Compton or Maybury, you never know what's going to happen. And chances are, there's maybe only a 1% chance that you'll ever need to draw a firearm to protect you. But that 1% is still a chance, and I don't prefer to play 'gamble my life'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. Think about it. America's "Wild West" turned into America's "hood". Think about the statistics stated earlier about African Americans being a much more likely victim of gun violence. We never left the "Wild West" behind. It's just changed color, and we've learned to call it by something else.

Most Black on Black crime both people are armed -that hasn't lessoned the crime rate.

Until a law abiding citizen proves otherwise, they're still a law abiding citizen, and should absolutely have all of the same rights that I do.

Well your Corrections correct? Your primary jurisdiction is in the Pen, moreso then the streets as a standard Cop. And here I disagree, I want my cops to have more rights then Jane/Joe Doe. I want them better armed then people walking around. It is harder for them to feel safe in performing their duty as authorities if everyone around them has lethal force at the drop of a hat.

That's why you're talking to a LEO who actually does think we should put a gun in every man and womans hands.

I would guess your in the minority tho.

Being punched doesn't give you the legal right to start gunning someone down. But it does give you the right to draw your firearm. If engaged again while you make it clear, then you have a right to defend yourself. (At least in my state. A small few have what's called retreat laws, which means that you're required to try to retreat before engaging.)

How you going to determine who punched/pushed who first in a crowd of 1600? How you going to get an accurate assessment of who was reatreating properly which did or didn't make the lethal action valid? What's a bouncer gonna do when he's got take a guy down...his friend pulls a piece out thinking the bouncer is assaulting? I wouldn't dare bounce again if everyone of those lil punks legally had a gun -no one would. See what Im saying. You can argue for people outside carrying - but I'm talking specifically the bar/nightclub element.

And now for outside, maybe in rural America these kinds of things would work. But downtown Philly or New York?

Example: Altercation happens downtown Philly in City Park where thousands are bustling during lunch hour. Gun is drawn, multiple guns drawn.... armed woman sees black male with pistol drawn yet he is just another observer...people panick at all the firepower flashing...2 beat cops finally show up to a park filled with 90+ people ducking behind benches with pistols out.....get my point. Would be chaos.

After recouperating from a stab wound because I didn't have any cash, I decided to carry 24/7. And I live in a relatively peaceful and crime free area. No matter whether you live in Compton or Maybury, you never know what's going to happen. And chances are, there's maybe only a 1% chance that you'll ever need to draw a firearm to protect you. But that 1% is still a chance, and I don't prefer to play 'gamble my life

I'm real sorry that happened to you -I mean it. I was also motorcycle-jacked at gunpointby a rogue thug (no gang affiliation) who preceded to gun on a multi-county chase, shooting another innocent black guy and the cop that foot chased him. Luckily when he aimed at the cops head (after already shot in the leg) gun jammed, then a black dude came running out his house and tackled the punk.I had to go to federal court/FBI etc..FBI told me to be wary of his friends coming after me before court...

Point is, I just choose to not let the fear get me.

Edited by froggyluv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really not surprising. The Right hates Obama all the more, the more he tries to please them. Same reason they won't give him props for Bin Laden, extending Bush Tax cuts etc...

They NEED him as an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really not surprising. The Right hates Obama all the more, the more he tries to please them. Same reason they won't give him props for Bin Laden, extending Bush Tax cuts etc...

They NEED him as an enemy.

Hehe. Are you kidding me?

I guess when your enemy isn't doing anything against you, you

can still play that as him being against you??

I mean I'm no fan of obama, but that's just silly.

I have a question though.

Does anyone know of any legislation banning firearm ownership

for veterans diagnosed with PTSD in the U.S.?

I heard about that. I don't know if it is true.

I hope to hell it is not. Just because a vet comes back

from deployment with some "issues" and sees a therapist

a few times a month at the VA doesn't mean he is a threat

to society.

Maybe someone here more knowledgeable than myself on gun rights in

the U.S. can cut through the political propaganda and explain

this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe. Are you kidding me?

I guess when your enemy isn't doing anything against you, you

can still play that as him being against you??

I mean I'm no fan of obama, but that's just silly.

I have a question though.

Does anyone know of any legislation banning firearm ownership

for veterans diagnosed with PTSD in the U.S.?

I heard about that. I don't know if it is true.

I hope to hell it is not. Just because a vet comes back

from deployment with some "issues" and sees a therapist

a few times a month at the VA doesn't mean he is a threat

to society.

Maybe someone here more knowledgeable than myself on gun rights in

the U.S. can cut through the political propaganda and explain

this?

My friend who is a Vietnam vet claims that they can't do that, and he receives benefits for PTSD. He also retired safely as a State Trooper. He constantly urges me to file a claim with the VA but I won't because I believe that could change at any time. He's got enough years on me that it wouldn't really affect him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude... you have an issue that the VA could help you with but you dont want to get help because you are worried about your firearms? That makes me very sad.... your nation puts those programs into place to support the men and women that put themselves into harms way, and to not be able to access them... gah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's my issue as well.

I have been going to the VA for years, but when I heard

about this legislation to take away gun rights from vets with

PTSD I stopped going.

Now I only go to my school counselor for regular therapy.

Honestly, I can't stand the VA.

They'll hire anyone. I mean, seriously, get fired

from being a taxi driver because you were drunk on the job?

Just apply to become a VA doctor.

Now not all VA doctors are bad. But most are.

I even once had a VA doctor who was a fill in for my regular one

suggest changing my regular medication doses to an even number

because it would be easier to remember.

Screw the VA. Most of the time it's not even worth going.

And forget about filing a claim. I filed one well over a year and a half

ago and have still not heard anything.

Don't care though. I'm in school now. I have other things to worry

about. The VA is history in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then again, as it is now, only those without felony convictions or without domestic abuse history can currently purchase and carry a firearm. Until a law abiding citizen proves otherwise, they're still a law abiding citizen, and should absolutely have all of the same rights that I do.

This is the fundamental problem with firearms.

Once an accident is made, it cannot be unmade.

Once you have shot someone, you cannot un shoot them.

If I crash into your car, I can repair it.

Firearms being such lethal devices, it doesn't make sense to wait until someone misuses them before trying to prevent their misuse.

It's too late then. Once an innocent law-abiding civilian proves himself to be otherwise with a gun, the damage is done.

I agree with the presumumption of innocence as a social philosophy but I also agree with the presumption of capability. Anyone can see red. Anyone holding a gun that is seeing red can shoot someone. No matter what their profession or criminal history.

I don't want police walking around with guns any more than criminals or anyone else. Wearing a uniform does not put you in an automatic position of my trust.

There are people I know whom I am comfortable to be around when they are carrying guns and there are people I don't know who I am not. Policemen, are very low on my list of trustee's. (Sorry, but the profession is a bully magnet).

If you give police guns, they will use them. It's that simple.

I liked the comment made earlier about the brutality of a policeforce reflecting the society they police.

And I have sympathies for the Polish guy who feels unable to protect himself and his property.

In my country (Britain) the de-regulation of gun ownership comes top of every civilian charter. If the people could vote, it is for guns that they most wish to.

(followed by a return of the death penalty in second place).

I also feel that I can't count on the police to come to my aid. I don't think the justice system has any moral right to dictate to me what methods I may or may not use to defend myself.

There is certainly a prejudice against gun use by the police here. But who gives a shit what they think? If they won't protect me against criminals, if they abjectly refuse, time and time again, they aren't part of the solution they are the problem.

They tried to put me away for this the other year, but the public wouldn't stand for it.

People carrying weapons, however is something I feel very strongly about. If you have it you will use it.

If a gun is a method of conflict resolution available to you, it will empower you to intervene in scenario's which you would otherwise not feel able to.

It actually precipitates violence.

Plus if you are carrying one, then there are many ways in which you can't behave. You can't fool around in nightclubs or bars for example.

You can't leave you jacket by the swings while you play on the climbing frame with the children.

Instead you need to maintain a level of vigilance for people attempting to take your gun from you, from people threatening enough to warrant you drawing your gun. At some subconscious level you must calculate the gun in your pocket, (or kinfe/knuckleduster/whatever) into every thing you do.

It's always on your mind and once you carry one, you must constantly be on the lookout for violence. You can't relax.

You are quite literally, "looking for trouble". And like everything else in life if you spending long enough looking for something, you will find it. Real or just perceived.

If you are carrying a gun in a public place and you aren't keyed up about it, then you are too irresponsable , os it's either "irresponsable" gunman or just a "tense" gunman. Either way, that's not me or people I aspire to hang out with it.

I carry a gun most of the day. On my own property. In private. I don't live in the kind of society where I feel any concern whatsoever about my safety while out shopping/picking the kids up from schools etc.

I do feel concerned about my safety late on Saturday night when the pubs kick out, but I would feel a lot more concerned about this if gun ownership was more prevalent or concealable guns were legally available.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus if you are carrying one, then there are many ways in which you can't behave. You can't fool around in nightclubs or bars for example.

You can't leave you jacket by the swings while you play on the climbing frame with the children.

Instead you need to maintain a level of vigilance for people attempting to take your gun from you, from people threatening enough to warrant you drawing your gun. At some subconscious level you must calculate the gun in your pocket, (or kinfe/knuckleduster/whatever) into every thing you do.

It's always on your mind and once you carry one, you must constantly be on the lookout for violence. You can't relax.

You are quite literally, "looking for trouble". And like everything else in life if you spending long enough looking for something, you will find it. Real or just perceived.

If you are carrying a gun in a public place and you aren't keyed up about it, then you are too irresponsable , os it's either "irresponsable" gunman or just a "tense" gunman. Either way, that's not me or people I aspire to hang out with it.

I carry a gun most of the day. On my own property. In private. I don't live in the kind of society where I feel any concern whatsoever about my safety while out shopping/picking the kids up from schools etc.

I do feel concerned about my safety late on Saturday night when the pubs kick out, but I would feel a lot more concerned about this if gun ownership was more prevalent or concealable guns were legally available.

I also live in a society where I am very safe. I almost never carry in public. I don't feel the need to. You are 100% correct about the consciousness of knowing your armed at all times. It does play a part in every action you do... if not you shouldn't be carrying.

If I am going to drink the guns stay home (as well as my car keys, thinking of accidents that can't be undone). If I am going to do anything in public really, I would most likely not carry.

Just because I have the right, doesn't mean I will... but I want to retain that right.

If someone was to break into my home or try to carjack me they would most likely just get maced anyways... less damaging to my property. But if there's more than one of them or I think they are armed, then I'd be prepared for that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it should be allowed to have guns at home when you aren´t a criminal and have no records, you can use them to protect your house and to shoot them at the range, but I don´t think that it should be allowed to wear them in public or even concealed. And If you have them at your house you should lock them in a safe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude... you have an issue that the VA could help you with but you dont want to get help because you are worried about your firearms? That makes me very sad.... your nation puts those programs into place to support the men and women that put themselves into harms way, and to not be able to access them... gah.

I should clarify, I don't have any issues. It's just easy to claim PTSD for the free money. For me it's more about pride than firearms. I'm fine.

On the firearms bit, PTSD affects more than just vets, they won't be taking guns away from victims of violence and car crash survivors so I doubt it would ever fly.

Edited by HyperU2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Black on Black crime both people are armed -that hasn't lessoned the crime rate.

You're talking about typical 'shootouts'. Consider these victimless crimes, since both parties are typically illegally carrying or doing illegal activities anyways. The only real victims of these situations are their families.

Well your Corrections correct? Your primary jurisdiction is in the Pen, moreso then the streets as a standard Cop. And here I disagree, I want my cops to have more rights then Jane/Joe Doe. I want them better armed then people walking around. It is harder for them to feel safe in performing their duty as authorities if everyone around them has lethal force at the drop of a hat.

I would guess your in the minority tho.

I have many LEO friends outside of corrections, and 'most' of them feel the same way I do. But in reality, outside of my group of friends, it's pretty rare to find cops who feel the same way.

But... take a look at what Baff1 said. Think about his attitude, and understand that he has a well founded reason to feel like that. Lately in the US, there has been tons of high profile cases of cops abusing their 'power'. The fact of the matter is, if you give cops more 'rights' than the common citizen, then they're gonna use them, and eventually abuse them without remorse. No one wants a police state.

Also, I just applied at my local department for an open detective position. Wish me luck. :P

How you going to determine who punched/pushed who first in a crowd of 1600? How you going to get an accurate assessment of who was reatreating properly which did or didn't make the lethal action valid? What's a bouncer gonna do when he's got take a guy down...his friend pulls a piece out thinking the bouncer is assaulting? I wouldn't dare bounce again if everyone of those lil punks legally had a gun -no one would. See what Im saying. You can argue for people outside carrying - but I'm talking specifically the bar/nightclub element.

I honestly can't discuss this properly on this point, just simply because I don't have experience with nightclubs, specially in a highly urbanized area. But I can say from experience that many people around here carry in bars. Even some of the larger ones with hundreds of people in them. And there are multiple fights a night in some. But I can't recall ever hearing about a bar shooting in this area.

And now for outside, maybe in rural America these kinds of things would work. But downtown Philly or New York?

Example: Altercation happens downtown Philly in City Park where thousands are bustling during lunch hour. Gun is drawn, multiple guns drawn.... armed woman sees black male with pistol drawn yet he is just another observer...people panick at all the firepower flashing...2 beat cops finally show up to a park filled with 90+ people ducking behind benches with pistols out.....get my point. Would be chaos.

Honestly, I think a situation like this is exaggerated to absurdity. And carrying concealed in NYC is perfectly legal anyways. And I'm sure that there are quite a few in NYC that carry illegally as well. But you never hear of crazy ass Mexican standoffs in central park, simply because whether you have a gun or not, self preservation kicks in. No one wants to die. No one wants to get in a gun fight.

I'm real sorry that happened to you -I mean it. I was also motorcycle-jacked at gunpointby a rogue thug (no gang affiliation) who preceded to gun on a multi-county chase, shooting another innocent black guy and the cop that foot chased him. Luckily when he aimed at the cops head (after already shot in the leg) gun jammed, then a black dude came running out his house and tackled the punk.I had to go to federal court/FBI etc..FBI told me to be wary of his friends coming after me before court...

Point is, I just choose to not let the fear get me.

For me, it honestly has nothing to do with fear, and instead everything to do with being prepared. If you're holstering a gun, chances are pretty slim that you'll ever be forced to draw, let alone shoot, throughout your entire lifetime. But would you accuse someone getting earthquake insurance in the middle of the US paranoid? 3 years ago, I would have. But then a little less than 3 years ago, we had an earthquake that cracked my neighbors foundation and his house started sinking into the ground. Guess who had earthquake protection added to his policy? Consider carrying a gun the same sort of thing. Just because a man decides to carry a gun everyday doesn't mean that he's constantly looking over his shoulder waiting to get beat up by some thugs. It just means that he's as prepared as he can be to defend himself and his family against what ever may threaten them.

This is the fundamental problem with firearms.

Once an accident is made, it cannot be unmade.

Once you have shot someone, you cannot un shoot them.

If I crash into your car, I can repair it.

But if you take a life in that crash, you can't bring them back. Terrible argument.

Firearms being such lethal devices, it doesn't make sense to wait until someone misuses them before trying to prevent their misuse.

It's too late then. Once an innocent law-abiding civilian proves himself to be otherwise with a gun, the damage is done.

I agree with the presumumption of innocence as a social philosophy but I also agree with the presumption of capability. Anyone can see red. Anyone holding a gun that is seeing red can shoot someone. No matter what their profession or criminal history.

I've already posted the numbers that cars cause more deaths than guns in America. So should we just presume that someone may make a mistake on behind the wheel and prevent them from buying and driving cars?

And honestly, this sounds like one of those 'projection' issues, no offense intended. So are you saying that if you carried a gun, that the moment you became angry you'd draw and start gunning people down?

I don't want police walking around with guns any more than criminals or anyone else. Wearing a uniform does not put you in an automatic position of my trust.

There are people I know whom I am comfortable to be around when they are carrying guns and there are people I don't know who I am not. Policemen, are very low on my list of trustee's. (Sorry, but the profession is a bully magnet).

If you give police guns, they will use them. It's that simple.

I agree with the first two paragraphs. Unfortunately in law enforcement, there are a lot of poorly trained assholes that just want to be in a place of power. I've watched officers at the county police range that sweep the barrel across everyone behind them after every mag. And I know first hand how some officers can be bullies, just for the pure enjoyment of it. But there are good cops. In fact, most cops are good cops. It's just that the terrible cops are the ones who get the most face time. They're the ones you remember.

The part I don't agree with here is that cops will use guns just simply because you give them guns. You make it sound like cops are running around shooting innocents for the hell of it. Any LEO is under very strict restrictions on even just drawing a weapon, let alone using it. And in the case of a LEO actually being involved in a shooting, they're put on leave and whether it's a clear cut case or not, they're investigated thoroughly. I actually know one, and know of quite a few cops who are scared to death of guns and don't even shoot them unless they're absolutely required to by their departments.

I liked the comment made earlier about the brutality of a policeforce reflecting the society they police.

And I have sympathies for the Polish guy who feels unable to protect himself and his property.

In my country (Britain) the de-regulation of gun ownership comes top of every civilian charter. If the people could vote, it is for guns that they most wish to.

(followed by a return of the death penalty in second place).

It's a sad day when anyone is criminalize for being able to protect his property and family. It just sets them up for victimization.

I also feel that I can't count on the police to come to my aid. I don't think the justice system has any moral right to dictate to me what methods I may or may not use to defend myself.

There is certainly a prejudice against gun use by the police here. But who gives a shit what they think? If they won't protect me against criminals, if they abjectly refuse, time and time again, they aren't part of the solution they are the problem.

They tried to put me away for this the other year, but the public wouldn't stand for it.

At least here in America, the police actually do not have any specific duty to protect anyone. So I absolutely agree with you. Until government states pay us to be personal bodyguards for each and every individual, there should never be a total firearm restriction.

People carrying weapons, however is something I feel very strongly about. If you have it you will use it.

If a gun is a method of conflict resolution available to you, it will empower you to intervene in scenario's which you would otherwise not feel able to.

It actually precipitates violence.

Plus if you are carrying one, then there are many ways in which you can't behave. You can't fool around in nightclubs or bars for example.

You can't leave you jacket by the swings while you play on the climbing frame with the children.

Instead you need to maintain a level of vigilance for people attempting to take your gun from you, from people threatening enough to warrant you drawing your gun. At some subconscious level you must calculate the gun in your pocket, (or kinfe/knuckleduster/whatever) into every thing you do.

It's always on your mind and once you carry one, you must constantly be on the lookout for violence. You can't relax.

You are quite literally, "looking for trouble". And like everything else in life if you spending long enough looking for something, you will find it. Real or just perceived.

If you are carrying a gun in a public place and you aren't keyed up about it, then you are too irresponsable , os it's either "irresponsable" gunman or just a "tense" gunman. Either way, that's not me or people I aspire to hang out with it.

This is absolutely right, all except for the suggestion that firearms precipitates violence. I don't have time to look up the statistics for you at the moment. But in cases of successful self protection involving a firearm, there is a very very low ratio of shots fired to success in pacifying the aggressor. It's staggeringly low. I suppose if you ask, I could look it up later. But with those unstated statistics, there's absolute proof that firearms pacify violence far more often than when they instigate violence.

As for the rest, carrying a gun daily in public is a huge responsibility that most people either aren't ready for, or don't want to deal with. It's not so much a sense of empowerment, but it does make you keep a firm grasp on your situational awareness at all times. After the first few months of carrying, the 'tenseness' goes away. But the awareness is always in the back of your mind.

I carry a gun most of the day. On my own property. In private. I don't live in the kind of society where I feel any concern whatsoever about my safety while out shopping/picking the kids up from schools etc.

I do feel concerned about my safety late on Saturday night when the pubs kick out, but I would feel a lot more concerned about this if gun ownership was more prevalent or concealable guns were legally available.

I've heard "This isn't the kind of thing that happens in this neighborhood" way way too many times to agree with this. The longer everyone's guard is down, the higher the chances that something will happen that will change everyone's mind in an instant.

I think that it should be allowed to have guns at home when you aren´t a criminal and have no records, you can use them to protect your house and to shoot them at the range, but I don´t think that it should be allowed to wear them in public or even concealed. And If you have them at your house you should lock them in a safe

When seconds count, what good is having a gun locked away in a safe in a home defense situation? And even on the streets, are you suggesting that all governments should open their citizens up to victimization by criminals? You can ban guns all you want, but the criminals will still carry.

Edited by TheCapulet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I think a situation like this is exaggerated to absurdity. And carrying concealed in NYC is perfectly legal anyways. And I'm sure that there are quite a few in NYC that carry illegally as well. But you never hear of crazy ass Mexican standoffs in central park, simply because whether you have a gun or not, self preservation kicks in. No one wants to die. No one wants to get in a gun fight

Well let me start with this one as I think my response kind of covers my overall opinion and where I'm coming from. Also, it used to be to carry conceal -you needed valid reason above safety such as your the night deposit guy etc...

Yes, it is an extreme example and highly unlikely with the current amount of gun-carryers on the street. My example is colored by your overall assertion that we would have a more polite, law-abiding, criminally impotent society if ALL were armed. In that instance, I can easily see similar situations as the one I hypothesized-happen.

First off, I don't like nor trust being around people, other then police, who are carrying a gun for really no good reason cept "just in case". I sure as hell wouldn't feel good or safer walking around on streets with everyone and their grandma packin. People with guns put my guard up, not hunters, but just everyday people. My guard would be in ultra-red overdrive if everywhere I went, I knew guns were in abundance.

I'm a non-white, weight liftin maniac that likes to go for runs at all hours of the day -lotta times thru white neighborhoods. Some people have major racial phobias and I don't like the thought that some previously traumatized lady might overreact when I surprise her. You might not understand this, but it's a reality -I've had women run from me with purses clutch while i was running for the train. Yet i've never committed a crime (other then underage drinking) in my life, and even tackled a purse snatcher who mugged a lady in a train station.

I feel safe now and know for damn sure i'd feel a lot less safer if everyone always had a gun on them. Other problem, more guns in circulation. That means dropped and lost weapons (theres no check for how responsible someone is) as well as easy prey for criminals. Yep, I say if a crook wants a gun -it would be easier to get in that future then now. You think that secretary running at dusk for her train home would stand a chance against a grab, choke hold etc...? Not a chance in hell.

I'm a big believer in the Laws of Nature: Rabbits stay away from Tigers because Tigers got a meaner bite. In your world, every animal now has Tiger Claws and will now behave differently then before ie..avoidance, don't take chances etc...

Thats the reason these thug young'ins are so cocky -they got Tiger claws, even tho they're 110 pounds dripping wet. In the 70's, before guns in the hood, we all street fought with Uncles, Grandmothers etc.. present to judge and call it when there was an obvious hard punch thrown. Back then, only "that nut" carried a gun.

Times have changed -but you won't find me carrying regardless.

Best of luck on making Detective btw :)

Edited by froggyluv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me like personal insecurity is the larger issue here. If you are so convinced that having a gun automatically means you'll use it, then don't carry. I never have that problem despite a few close calls.

No matter how else it is argued, a gun is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. It's the person holding it that is the problem.

Accidents cannot be undone, therefor we should ban everything that has ever been used to kill a person. Guns make it easier, just like tools are supposed to. The real solution is to change the user. Focus more on things like education and public condition, then crime has less of a reason to exist. Banning guns is like putting out a wet floor sign. The floor is still wet.

I'll keep mine, and I'll carry mine. Don't like it? Sorry, too bad for you.

Edited by GRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, no offense there mate but please try to digest a little better.:)

Of course the whole matter of guns comes down to secutirty and insecurity -it is my assertion that insercurity drives one to want to carry when they are not in a life or death field. I said I would feel insecure in a world filled with guns -not that I'd be tempted to use one -ever. My instinct is always to grapple/knockout not shoot :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy seemingly did a suicide by cop last night by shooting at a bunch of folks at a high school football game. I'm assuming he was trying to die because he hit fuck all. Anyway someone nearby who was gardening picked up a rock for a weapon. I know the chances are infinitely small of being in the right place at the right time (or wrong) but I feel obligated to carry, not to save my as but others. I'm fine if I go down too but I couldn't hack the survivors guilt. I can see not wanting every swinging dick carrying but it beats a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you take a life in that crash, you can't bring them back. Terrible argument.

I've already posted the numbers that cars cause more deaths than guns in America. So should we just presume that someone may make a mistake on behind the wheel and prevent them from buying and driving cars?.

No. In my country, you need a lisence to drive a car. You need to undertake a training course. The are age limits, insurance requirements, vehicle pre-requisites.

It is a heavily regulated and enforced procedure.There are yearly safety checks that you must under take and a multitude of enforcement personel.

It is far easier in my country to own a gun than it is a car.

Further to this, a car is a device that has a single purpose, to transport people.

A gun is another type of device entirely. It's purpose is to kill.

A car can by accident cause injury or death, a gun does so by design as well as accident.

There isn't really much point in you looking up statistics for me. I can find supporting statistics for any argument I make just as much as you can.

This is a common sense argument.

Digging up some statistics and then interpretting them to "prove" your point isn't going to prove anything at all. Sorry. That's not how statistics work.

've heard "This isn't the kind of thing that happens in this neighborhood" way way too many times to agree with this. The longer everyone's guard is down, the higher the chances that something will happen that will change everyone's mind in an instant.

The same can be said about gun massacres in schools.

The longer you believe that gun ownership prevents violence, the more at risk of it you are. Complacency.

A teenager with a gun, is not put off with the thought of dying. He is a teenager, he doesn't fear death.

Instead he is being empowered by a gun to cause fear. Something he enjoys.

Guns precipitate violence.

The same spotty nerd who goes on a rampage with a gun in school, is just a spotty nerd without one. Powerless.

Actions are taken by those people who believe they have the capability to act. Remove that capability and the potential for such actions are similarly removed.

The fear of dying in a gunfight isn't enough to prevent one. Every soldier faces this fear every day and still goes out to fight. They are drawn to it. They actively pursue it.

Do not underestimate peoples desire to participate in gunfights. They want to risk their lives.

It's the pinnacle of every movie I watch, every book I read, every game I play. A very real boys own fantasy that we all share.

We all daydream about our own moment of truth from time to time. That fateful day when we will be attacked by violent criminals and rescue our womenfolk, children and elderly, when we will bump into Osama bin Laden just as he is arming his bomb and a gun fight will ensue during which we will save all.

Or we will stand up to the local mafia lord or rapists in blaze of glory...

And when my gun is in my hand these thoughts are much amplified. These idle daydreams more frequent. Guns precipitate violence. A gun is a tool the purpose of which is to make violence.

Hammers precipitate the use of nails. A person with a hammer is more likely to use nails than person without.

Guns precipitate violence. Violence is the purpose they were created for and purpose we envisioned when we bought them.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has the right to protect themselves, their family and friends

from criminals.

However, there is one point that noone brought up here, I think

because the reasons are outdated and not practical.

But the reason we have the 2nd Ammendment isn't just for protection

against criminals or hunting, or hobby, it's to protect American

citizens against the possibility of being victimized by a tyranical

government and to protect our freedoms.

Personally, I believe such reasoning is outdated. I don't think

we will ever face persecution of tyranical govts or authorities

atleast in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children.

But you just never know...

2 or 300 years from now, politics may change. The philosophy of

our govt may change. Or some other emerging superpower may

want to take down the world's number 1 superpower by invasion.

Who knows. Like I said, I think in today's society, the idea

of protecting oneself against a tyranny is not really an issue.

Like the declaration of independence states, when the

people feel like the govt is abusing its power and becoming less

democratic, it is the duty of the people to change the govt.

I don't think this really applies today. There will always be problems

with govt, and there will always be people who are angry about

the govt. That is no reason for a new system.

I am just throwing this out to see how others feel about this.

Do you think this is still a valid argument for the 2nd ammendment?

Like someone else said in this thread. I think it is unlikely this

will ever be the case in this country, but it is better to have

that protection and not need it, then not have that protection

and then one day find your the freedoms we have may be seized

by a sudden radical change in power or have your communty subjected

to a dramatic Nazi or Stalin like regime no matter how low the possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares ... about paranoia?

Better if everybody should get or stay armed to the teeth instead of loosing the right to kill someone who looks suspicious or is a stranger. :rolleyes:

Maybe next time you should ask who has what kind of benefit from selling guns and advertizing that "a life with out guns isn't that great + safe"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone has the right to protect themselves, their family and friends

from criminals.

However, there is one point that noone brought up here, I think

because the reasons are outdated and not practical.

But the reason we have the 2nd Ammendment isn't just for protection

against criminals or hunting, or hobby, it's to protect American

citizens against the possibility of being victimized by a tyranical

government and to protect our freedoms.

Personally, I believe such reasoning is outdated. I don't think

we will ever face persecution of tyranical govts or authorities

atleast in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children.

But you just never know...

2 or 300 years from now, politics may change. The philosophy of

our govt may change. Or some other emerging superpower may

want to take down the world's number 1 superpower by invasion.

Who knows. Like I said, I think in today's society, the idea

of protecting oneself against a tyranny is not really an issue.

Like the declaration of independence states, when the

people feel like the govt is abusing its power and becoming less

democratic, it is the duty of the people to change the govt.

I don't think this really applies today. There will always be problems

with govt, and there will always be people who are angry about

the govt. That is no reason for a new system.

I am just throwing this out to see how others feel about this.

Do you think this is still a valid argument for the 2nd ammendment?

Like someone else said in this thread. I think it is unlikely this

will ever be the case in this country, but it is better to have

that protection and not need it, then not have that protection

and then one day find your the freedoms we have may be seized

by a sudden radical change in power or have your communty subjected

to a dramatic Nazi or Stalin like regime no matter how low the possibility.

I think countries like Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran show that gun ownership does not bring you freedom from tyranny, rather in their cases it opened the door for it.

I agree that gun ownership gives you greater opportunity for insurrection... but is that necessarily a good thing?

Surely we can find examples for both. Countries where armed revolution has made things worse and examples of countries where armed revolution has made things better.

If we take America's history as our example, did their War of Independance really deliver them anything better than the UK and Canada and Australia and New Zealand have?

Are they so much freer than the rest of us?

In some ways they are, in other ways they are not.

There is definitely a political aspect to gun ownership.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. In my country, you need a lisence to drive a car. You need to undertake a training course. The are age limits, insurance requirements, vehicle pre-requisites.

It is a heavily regulated and enforced procedure.There are yearly safety checks that you must under take and a multitude of enforcement personel.

It is far easier in my country to own a gun than it is a car.

Further to this, a car is a device that has a single purpose, to transport people.

A gun is another type of device entirely. It's purpose is to kill.

A car can by accident cause injury or death, a gun does so by design as well as accident.

There isn't really much point in you looking up statistics for me. I can find supporting statistics for any argument I make just as much as you can.

This is a common sense argument.

Digging up some statistics and then interpretting them to "prove" your point isn't going to prove anything at all. Sorry. That's not how statistics work.

The same can be said about gun massacres in schools.

The longer you believe that gun ownership prevents violence, the more at risk of it you are. Complacency.

A teenager with a gun, is not put off with the thought of dying. He is a teenager, he doesn't fear death.

Instead he is being empowered by a gun to cause fear. Something he enjoys.

Guns precipitate violence.

The same spotty nerd who goes on a rampage with a gun in school, is just a spotty nerd without one. Powerless.

Actions are taken by those people who believe they have the capability to act. Remove that capability and the potential for such actions are similarly removed.

The fear of dying in a gunfight isn't enough to prevent one. Every soldier faces this fear every day and still goes out to fight. They are drawn to it. They actively pursue it.

Do not underestimate peoples desire to participate in gunfights. They want to risk their lives.

It's the pinnacle of every movie I watch, every book I read, every game I play. A very real boys own fantasy that we all share.

We all daydream about our own moment of truth from time to time. That fateful day when we will be attacked by violent criminals and rescue our womenfolk, children and elderly, when we will bump into Osama bin Laden just as he is arming his bomb and a gun fight will ensue during which we will save all.

Or we will stand up to the local mafia lord or rapists in blaze of glory...

And when my gun is in my hand these thoughts are much amplified. These idle daydreams more frequent. Guns precipitate violence. A gun is a tool the purpose of which is to make violence.

Hammers precipitate the use of nails. A person with a hammer is more likely to use nails than person without.

Guns precipitate violence. Violence is the purpose they were created for and purpose we envisioned when we bought them.

In this case, if all you could think about when carrying a weapon is being some glorified hero, I can absolutely understand why YOU don't want a gun, and I completely support you in that. But people who have invested large amounts of money in their firearms, in their carry licenses, and in their family are many magnitudes more mature than someone just wanting to be a real life movie star. For instance, most days I carry simply because of work. But when I'm out with the girlfriend, or out with my parents, church, family get-togethers, I'm wearing that gun in the same place it sits every day. (I rarely open carry, just simply because in the past, specially some of the lifers get awful grabby when guns are hanging out. So CC is a job req.) I don't carry with them because I hope they all get a front row seat for me getting the chance to be some hero. I carry because I care about their safety, and I have the ability to be a proactive protector of that safety if anything were to ever happen. Chances are that it never will. And I pray every day that it never does. There's nothing honorable or glorifying about taking another man's life, criminal or not. No matter what, he has a family. He might have a girlfriend, or a son and daughter. A mother and father who just hope he grows out of it, etc. When a criminal dies, their families usually get the worst end of the deal.

What could be said for school massacres is the same thing said after nearly every university shooting. Put a gun in every professor and teacher's hand, give them a 4 hour defensive handgun course, and it will solve 90 percent of these school shootings. Even teachers with guns may not detour some crazed kid filled with hate from bringing a weapon to school, but they sure as hell will stop him from the carnage that has happened before.

I think countries like Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran show that gun ownership does not bring you freedom from tyranny, rather in their cases it opened the door for it.

I agree that gun ownership gives you greater opportunity for insurrection... but is that necessarily a good thing?

Surely we can find examples for both. Countries where armed revolution has made things worse and examples of countries where armed revolution has made things better.

If we take America's history as our example, did their War of Independence really deliver them anything better than the UK and Canada and Australia and New Zealand have?

Yes. Yes it did.

If statistical proof and citations wont help support an argument in your eyes, then I agree, let's just look at the common sense of this argument.

You're saying that if someone gives you a gun, eventually, you're going to shoot someone... because it's a gun, right? (Just using you as an example. Not insinuating anything) Because being a 'hero' has just way too much draw to keep that firearm in it's holster where it belongs.

I call that a perspective of someone who's never carried a gun in public, or maybe ever. The moment you have a gun on your hip full time, it is a constant sobering reminder that you have a weapon capable of ending a life in the blink of an eye. And it absolutely will remove every thought of being a hero, or getting in some glorious gun fights while killing your way through hordes of terrorists, rapists, and gangbangers. Sure, running and gunning our way through a video game with the latest representations of our favorite guns is cool as hell. But there's absolutely a disconnect between real life and a video game in every single sense. And if there's not, then whoever is in this hypothetical point of view is in no way mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with carrying a weapon. And chances are, they wouldn't be old enough to buy a gun anyways.

I've carried a gun for 5 years now. I've never even once had to draw my weapon in a self defense situation, even in my line of work. My father has carried a gun probably going on 35 years now. He's only once ever drawn his gun on someone; an intruder in our house who was held at gunpoint until the police arrived. (In that case, a gun absolutely disarmed the situation. He was also carrying a gun.) And my grandfather has carried the same .38 revolver in his back pocket ever since he got back from the Korean war. And as far as I know, he's never drawn on someone either. I have multiple friends both inside and outside of various departments in my area. Only one cop, who happens to be a state cop, has ever had to draw his weapon in defense. But he was on duty at the time, and was able to disarm the situation without a shot fired. None of the rest have ever mentioned being in a situation where they had to draw their weapon in defense.

So with that said, where does common sense come from? It comes from critically thinking about all of your past experiences, taking them into consideration, and coming to a well thought out and educated conclusion to a thought or idea.

And so my common sense suggests that you're wrong. When the streets run red with the blood of innocents from all us gun toting heroes, then I'll concede to you. Until then, you should probably stay away from common sense arguments, because they're not on your side either.

Edited by TheCapulet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guns precipitate violence.

Nonsense. People don't spontaneously become violent by virtue of having a weapon at their disposal. Violent people are violent by nature; guns are merely tools that they use.

Actions are taken by those people who believe they have the capability to act. Remove that capability and the potential for such actions are similarly removed.

You can't remove that capability. It doesn't matter how many laws you pass; people who want guns will get guns. Gun control never limits anyone with violent intentions. These people have already decided to break the law, and illegal gun ownership pales is comparison to assault, rape or murder.

Like I said earlier in this thread, if there were some way to magically stop everyone from acquiring guns, I would be 100% in favor of it. But there's not. There never has been, and there never will be. The best thing we can do is allow everyone to protect themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×