I have a moral issue with liberal attitudes to gun ownership and would like to see the opinions of other people

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
First I thought about Bobbies, is that the right term for English police. They used to be unarmed and I think they carry arms now. That made me think that guns make cultures devolve, or that fear and insecurity drive a desire for greater security. That gave me the thought that America is just a place that because guns have long been everywhere, increasing insecurity here would naturally include them as the first choice ‘go to’ for security. Seems I have read more guns here than people.

Hardly any are armed, certainly not those you encounter on a day-to-day basis. Only a small number of specifically designated 'firearms officers'.

Now it used to be that guns were issued to any cops when the occasion was deemed to require it. But it turned out they were terrible shots and that most couldn't hit a barn door at 20 paces. The turning point being the Stephen Waldorf case, where the problem was, apparently, not that the hastily-armed police shot and nearly killed completely the wrong guy (someone who wasn't the 'dangerous' suspect but an innocent man who was just driving the same car) but rather that they fired an astonishing number of rounds and failed to kill the guy (fortunate, in the event, as it was the wrong guy anyway, but also not a good advert for their marksmanship). Now they have specially-trained firearms officers. Who still occasionally get the wrong guy but can at least shoot straight.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
To be driven by fear.
To the point of neglecting the harsh reality of an armed society being a more deadly society.
It is safer if we can more generally disarm the public.
Aren't you the guy saying a police officer can shoot someone in the back for resisting arrest?

A'feared police officer? Shoot 'em up, it's all good.

A'feared public? Golly gee, just stop being a'feared!
 

Stokely

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,224
2,994
136
Democrats should just give up on the issue. Americans are simply crazy about guns and there ain't nothing going to change it. You'll just lose elections.

I happen to think the 2nd amendment is something that is stupid for modern times, especially considering slave owners in the south had a lot to do with getting it put in. We don't have muskets, or slaves, we have modern computer-driven armies so the idea of a militia is just some military wanna-be wet dream.

But it is what it is. We have over 400 million guns in the country, by FAR the most per citizen in the world. It's a grand experiment. People convince themselves they need guns for protection, from crazed meth fiends or whatever, and no stat showing you are more likely to get killed by your own gun means a thing. Look at all the people that think the solution to gun violence is more armed people.

I'd rather Democrats and government work on more important problems that have a hope in hell of getting public support. Schools full of young kids get killed...just the cost of freedom in an insane nation. Look at all the people getting killed by deer every year, you just say that sucks and move on. Guns are like thunderstorms, you just try to get out of the way and hope you don't get hit--the storms aren't going away. 400,000 people a year die in American hospitals from hospital mistakes, there's something to work on!
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,407
8,698
136
You are aware that 'the threat of jail' is not a deterrent, aren't you? Being armed while committing another crime really ups the game, and the time if caught, yet which criminal has that stopped? Criminals would love your world, as it becomes much safer for them when victims loose the right of self-defense.

It can save my life, or that of a loved one. It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It is strictly forbidden to have/sell cocaine, LSD, or heroin, has been for years. How's that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to drive drunk, has been for years. How is that working out?
It is strictly forbidden to rob banks, has been for years. How is that working out?
...
Don't ask me. It's frowned upon to rob banks. Do you do it? Why not? Money's nice to have. If people don't give a damn if they are legally forbidden to rob a bank, why don't they just do it. I gotta think you are left field here, in fact not in the ball park. Of course laws have influence. You don't think people give a damn? You think the laws are just some Monopoly game or something? I don't know what kind of life you have or what you think is going on here, but it's not the world I'm living in. Make it 5 years minimum if caught with a gun and in 50 years you will have trouble finding them, guaranteed.

The war on drugs is fucked up, but that's a different think. MJ is still illegal federally, which just shows you how FU the USA is.

DUI is serious offense and you better believe that the tough laws against it have had a major effect.

Coke is one thing, LSD is very much another.

Guess what! Sanity is in short supply, you've better start seeking some, and guess another thing, you may not find much in most places. Start now, or give up.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
Aren't you the guy saying a police officer can shoot someone in the back for resisting arrest?

You are free to reach for a weapon after physically overpowering three officers in combat.
Just do not be surprised if, like jumping off a bridge, your flight of fancy has a rather sudden stop when it meets reality.

The primary issue is that you are lying, omitting the physical fight. The attempted tasers. The ignoring of commands and final warnings when guns were pointed. And the creme de la crop REACHING FOR A WEAPON. Now, unless you intend keep misrepresenting the situation - let's practice having you tell the truth. A person is shot in the back when reaching for a weapon. Say it again. @nickqt Reaching for a weapon.


Everyone is trained to shoot (Read: kill) the suspect when the suspect reaches. That action by a suspect is suicide by cop.
Why?
Because America is armed - and we all have to assume the worst.

I am the guy who has been saying, for years, that we need to disarm the American public. That would allow us to train our officers differently - if everyone and their dog were not armed. If police officers were not being slaughtered by firearms on a regular basis - they could exercise considerable more patience and less fear. They may not have to be trained that their job is kill or be killed.

Police violence is the Second Amendment's gift to Americans.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Muse: Don't ask me. It's frowned upon to rob banks .

Moonbeam: How does the fact it's frowned upon to rob banks give you a pass on answering his question. Would you prefer to be judged by 12, assuming there was any doubt at all that you prevented being carried by 6 by shooting somebody else.

Mu: Do you do it? Why not? Money's nice to have. If people don't give a damn if they are legally forbidden to rob a bank, why don't they just do it. I gotta think you are left field here, in fact not in the ball park. Of course laws have influence. You don't think people give a damn? You think the laws are just some Monopoly game or something? I don't know what kind of life you have or what you think is going on here, but it's not the world I'm living in. Make it 5 years minimum if caught with a gun and in 50 years you will have trouble finding them, guaranteed.

Mo: How is this not a further misconstruction of what he said? His point was that anybody willing to break the law to rob a bank will also not worry about breaking gun laws. Law abiding people are not the issue. You are speaking to him as if he isn't, that he lives in some game world. People like him aren't going to rob banks with or without guns. What also does anything the fact that draconian gun laws might eliminate law abiding people from having them over time have to do with the issue. Guns are legal and it's a fantasy, in my opinion to think they are going away. You are asking him to disarm before that happens. I don't think that is going to happen. How about answering his question.

Mu: The war on drugs is fucked up, but that's a different think. MJ is still illegal federally, which just shows you how FU the USA is.

Mo: Surely you mean in your opinion, like the opinion of a bank robber who robs banks with guns because it is his opinion that will get him the best results. Your point of view strikes me as rather conformation biased. You think laws against MJ are bad. He thinks making guns illegal is bad. Smells like hypocrisy to me.

Mu: DUI is serious offense and you better believe that the tough laws against it have had a major effect.

Coke is one thing, LSD is very much another.

Mo: Gun ownership is very much different than DUI

Mu: Guess what! Sanity is in short supply, you've better start seeking some, and guess another thing, you may not find much in most places. Start now, or give up.

Mo: Perhaps but I am not seeing much in the way of sound arguments in your above words. I have a hunch that the constitutional right to own guns trigger you and may be making you contemptuously arrogant. I point out what I see for no other reason that I believe in truth and can only do the best I can to say what I see. I am not in a contest, at least in my own mind, and am well aware I believe, that competition with others for superiority is a fools errand. I am often aware that I am a nobody.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
You are free to reach for a weapon after physically overpowering three officers in combat.
Just do not be surprised if, like jumping off a bridge, your flight of fancy has a rather sudden stop when it meets reality.

The primary issue is that you are lying, omitting the physical fight. The attempted tasers. The ignoring of commands and final warnings when guns were pointed. And the creme de la crop REACHING FOR A WEAPON. Now, unless you intend keep misrepresenting the situation - let's practice having you tell the truth. A person is shot in the back when reaching for a weapon. Say it again. @nickqt Reaching for a weapon.


Everyone is trained to shoot (Read: kill) the suspect when the suspect reaches. That action by a suspect is suicide by cop.
Why?
Because America is armed - and we all have to assume the worst.

I am the guy who has been saying, for years, that we need to disarm the American public. That would allow us to train our officers differently - if everyone and their dog were not armed. If police officers were not being slaughtered by firearms on a regular basis - they could exercise considerable more patience and less fear. They may not have to be trained that their job is kill or be killed.

Police violence is the Second Amendment's gift to Americans.
I'm not lying about anything. You have repeated that you believe that police officers should shoot someone resisting arrest.

And disarming the American Public is never going to happen, ever, so that's just a waste of time to build into some argument, all so you can reason away from supporting the police shooting people who resist arrest.

As long as there is one gun in existence in the wild, the police better shoot someone resisting arrest, or their life is in danger. So, police can continue to shoot people resisting arrest in perpetuity. There, just saved you time making up some impossible scenario to have to stop supporting the police shooting people resisting arrest.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ivwshane

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
You are free to reach for a weapon after physically overpowering three officers in combat.
Just do not be surprised if, like jumping off a bridge, your flight of fancy has a rather sudden stop when it meets reality.

The primary issue is that you are lying, omitting the physical fight. The attempted tasers. The ignoring of commands and final warnings when guns were pointed. And the creme de la crop REACHING FOR A WEAPON. Now, unless you intend keep misrepresenting the situation - let's practice having you tell the truth. A person is shot in the back when reaching for a weapon. Say it again. @nickqt Reaching for a weapon.


Everyone is trained to shoot (Read: kill) the suspect when the suspect reaches. That action by a suspect is suicide by cop.
Why?
Because America is armed - and we all have to assume the worst.

I am the guy who has been saying, for years, that we need to disarm the American public. That would allow us to train our officers differently - if everyone and their dog were not armed. If police officers were not being slaughtered by firearms on a regular basis - they could exercise considerable more patience and less fear. They may not have to be trained that their job is kill or be killed.

Police violence is the Second Amendment's gift to Americans.
I think that police violence is the result of fear, fear on the part of the police and fear of the people who demand and support their use violence. The second amendment didn't do that. Self hate did.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,960
8,191
136
In Societies that have strict Gun Controls, the Bolded is Not True:

1) Criminals tend to not Arm themselves as often or they do with less lethal weapons
2) Far fewer people Die in Criminal Events
3) There are fewer Murders
4) Anyone possessing a Gun on their person has to keep it Concealed or else they risk being Arrested or at least being noticed. So they have a strong Incentive to only carry/use a Gun when it is absolutely necessary.
5) The Police are less compelled to use their Guns as they know that even among Criminals they have a Low Risk of being confronted with a Gun.
You have been reading too many fairy tales... that is delsuional
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
Isn't the prime reason for the 2nd exactly the reason your using here? Are you saying the second amendment sucked until you needed it, or that it still sucks but it might it might work out for you now?

You have your cause and effect mixed up. Given that one political side is openly threatening to use their guns to oppress the other side, it only makes sense for that other side to re-evaluate its position on the 2a. Not because it might work out for them, but for their own self-defense.
And BTW, the 'prime reason' for the 2a is national security. The 2a even states this. Only morons believe their little peashooters and ragtag militias stand a chance against the govt's organized military might.

Yep. The 2A is claimed to preserve liberty from an oppressive govt. A quaint notion assuming 18th century military technology.. significantly less realistic when the govt has drones, helis and nukes.
Does anyone think it would have been reasonable for protestors to open up with automatic weapons on the badgeless jackboots during Trump's stroll to st john's church? F no.

Regardless, because there are so many guns in this country, and because the right has become so radical, and because our institutions have become so corrupted or ineffective, that it's now reasonable to arm yourself to defend your liberty from your countrymen is not a triumph of the constitution, but rather a stunning admission of its failure.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
I think that police violence is the result of fear, fear on the part of the police and fear of the people who demand and support their use violence. The second amendment didn't do that. Self hate did.

Humans self hate, and are thus not fit for an unregulated Second Amendment.

Doing our best to curb it is a literal effort to reduce deaths and save lives.
Enshrining it as untouchable is an effort to take lives.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
I'm not lying about anything. You have repeated that you believe that police officers should shoot someone resisting arrest.

You knowingly omit reaching for a weapon. Definitely lying.
Furthermore, you have completely neglected the demonstration I provided, of how police are trained.
I do not want them to be in these situations. I want them to be trained to avoid these outcomes.
But they will always fear for their lives in a society like ours.

Seeing as you seem to be ignoring things, take a moment and watch their training material. (NSFW, Graphic) You kill a reaching suspect - or this happens.
Kill or be killed, thank you Second Amendment.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
You knowingly omit reaching for a weapon. Definitely lying.
Furthermore, you have completely neglected the demonstration I provided, of how police are trained.
I do not want them to be in these situations. I want them to be trained to avoid these outcomes.
But they will always fear for their lives in a society like ours.

Seeing as you seem to be ignoring things, take a moment and watch their training material. (NSFW, Graphic) You kill a reaching suspect - or this happens.
Kill or be killed, thank you Second Amendment.
I'm not lying about anything, you're just so focused on being a right-wing authoritarian that you make shit up in your own mind, and then attack me for it.

You. Defend. Police. Shooting. People. Resisting. Arrest.

I don't give a fuck if you think someone was reaching for a nuclear-powered potato cannon.

You defend police shooting people resisting arrest.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Yep. The 2A is claimed to preserve liberty from an oppressive govt. A quaint notion assuming 18th century military technology.. significantly less realistic when the govt has drones, helis and nukes.
Does anyone think it would have been reasonable for protestors to open up with automatic weapons on the badgeless jackboots during Trump's stroll to st john's church? F no.

Regardless, because there are so many guns in this country, and because the right has become so radical, and because our institutions have become so corrupted or ineffective, that it's now reasonable to arm yourself to defend your liberty from your countrymen is not a triumph of the constitution, but rather a stunning admission of its failure.

I actually think it speaks to the constitution’s brilliance. The founding fathers were absolutely adamant about not having a standing army. Had the 2nd amendment been about checking an authoritarian government, imagine how much easier that would be for the so called militia patriots.

Now imagine that not only do we not have a standing army but that we also kept it so that guns were a states rights issue and imagine all the gun restrictions we’d have by now. With no violent option to overthrow a tyrannical government, guess what’s left? Civic engagement.


The only big idea I think the founding fathers got wrong was the electoral college. They thought having a sub set of voters who get to determine who the next president would be would safeguard against an unfit president. What they failed to realize is that concentrated power is easier to corrupt/hoodwink than say the electorate overall.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
I'll have to read the whole thread, but did the OP at some point actually provide a moral argument? Because the first post sure as shit didn't actually contain one. I'm not sure if the OP doesn't know what moral arguments actually are (which would make his idolatry of Jordan Peterson suddenly make a lot more sense), or he's starting to build his justification for why he's likely once again somehow forced at gun point to vote Republican even though he knows they're destroying the country. Granted that's better than other justifications that people have used on here ("people advocating gun control are rapists" and "sure Republicans are horrible and doing massive harm, but I can't figure out how to use Google or my own brain, so Democrats might be just as bad or worse, so gotta vote Republican because I don't even know what Democrats stand for!").

Not that I expected any less in the lead up to the election, but OP, if you're going to say something then understand what the fuck you're talking about. "Democrats should give up on gun control because Americans worship guns more than politicians" is not a moral argument. Its basically the complete and total opposite of one.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
I'm a liberal who owns guns and has always supported 2a rights. I believe that most gun control laws are ineffective because they don't address the real problem associated with gun violence, which is unregulated gun sales that allows guns to get into the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues. Conservative nutters use the 'liberal wanna take our guns!' fearmongering in order to intentionally avoid fixing that problem, because many of them profit from that largely un-regulated gun trade.

FYI most gun deaths are not due to mental health issues (and that's with most gun deaths being self inflicted, since many of the people that shoot and kill themselves don't actually have a mental health disorder, its a rash decision borne out of a variety of factors, with guns just enabling such a rash decision to have life ending consequences). That's just the bullshit way of dismissing those deaths as something that can't be addressed. And many of the "criminals" were not criminals until they were (as in until they actually committed a crime, which the gun access occurred prior to) so that line of thinking is fundamentally flawed as well.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,960
8,191
136
I think that police violence is the result of fear, fear on the part of the police and fear of the people who demand and support their use violence. The second amendment didn't do that. Self hate did.
It is how they are trained. Trained to lie to civilians, trained to assume people are up to no good, or guilty, trained that if you are not lilly white, or speak anything other than amurican they just have to figure out what crime you are guilty of. That is the 'official' classroom stuff.

Once they get in the field with their field training cop, then they learn they are above the law, they can step all over peoples rights, and how to implement their racist views with authority.

And when it makes the local TV news, there is the police union and lawyers to step in and prove it justified and proper.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
It is how they are trained. Trained to lie to civilians, trained to assume people are up to no good, or guilty, trained that if you are not lilly white, or speak anything other than amurican they just have to figure out what crime you are guilty of. That is the 'official' classroom stuff.

Once they get in the field with their field training cop, then they learn they are above the law, they can step all over peoples rights, and how to implement their racist views with authority.

And when it makes the local TV news, there is the police union and lawyers to step in and prove it justified and proper.
Walk a mile in their shoes. The life of a policeman shouldn't always be about dealing with the worst of people but helping the communities best to make others their best. We are what we eat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,960
8,191
136
Walk a mile in their shoes. The life of a policeman shouldn't always be about dealing with the worst of people but helping the communities best to make others their best. We are what we eat.
Actually that is their job. Their clientele are the worst of people, or the victims often at a low point in their life.

There are many racist cops, who feel it is perfectly acceptable to beat a black man for j-walking. They get away with it, and it empowers them to further step on people. Actually the local instance of this, the man would still be out there wearing a badge, except for the fact someone within the department leaked the bodycam video to the local media. Fortunately they have never been able to determine who leaked it.

It also show that the problem is systemic, because it turns out the footage had been reviewed internally, but nothing was done, even though the j-walker was treated in the ER.

With the current events, departments all over the country are facing staffing problems as the good cops are leaving the profession. Locally 30+ senior officers have resigned this summer, leaving the profession after 8+ years on the job.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Actually that is their job. Their clientele are the worst of people, or the victims often at a low point in their life.

There are may racist cops, who feel it is perfectly acceptable to beat a black man for j-walking. They get away with it, and it empowers them to further step on people. Actually the local instance of this, the man would still be out there wearing a badge, except for the fact someone within the department leaked the bodycam video to the local media. Fortunately they have never been able to determine who leaked it.

It also show that the problem is systemic, because it turns out the footage had been reviewed internally, but nothing was done, even though the j-walker was treated in the ER.

With the current events, departments all over the country are facing staffing problems as the good cops are leaving the profession. Locally 30+ senior officers have resigned this summer, leaving the profession after 8+ years on the job.
There are problems in the police force. I am not defending them. I am telling you that a constant diet of bad people and constant fearing for your life will create a conservative mentality. That police, police unions, and conservative government all have a tendency for this kind of corruption is, in my opinion, inevitable without changing the system. The job of a policeman must be changed so as to garner community respect. It won't be easy because of the current high level of animosity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Good idea - then you'll be too far away for them to shoot you, and they can't chase after you because you've got their shoes!


I need to eat more good-looking rich people, I guess.
Nice. But I would think you'd be better off with Ambrosia and Magic Mushrooms.