Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You operate under the delusion that police will arrive quick enough to make a difference. Assume the time from observing the situation to finishing the call to 911 is under 90 seconds. For a serious crime police may arrive in anything between two minutes and fifteen minutes. However, violence is usually over in under two minutes. That's not because the system is broken...it's because it's a physical impossibility to get it done much faster. Police aren't meant to stop crimes, they're intended to discourage some crime, raise revenue for the state, and arrest people AFTER they commit a crime.

I mentioned this point already - no delusion involved. I am aware the cops are crap but that's a reason to improve them not replace them. I'm aware something other than police enforcement should be done to prevent crime but I still don't trust people like you to do it. Pure physical size, fighting skill, shooting skill, the money to buy a powerful weapon - these things do not make you a better person than everyone else.

You also operate under the delusion that a person with a gun only uses it by drawing and firing. Not necessarily true. In MOST defensive gun uses the weapon is not fired, only used to stop the situation. In the above example you should: interrupt the beating verbally and get in range of the situation (preferably while hitting 911 on the cell phone). Because one man has a deadly weapon in play you draw your gun and go to low ready. You order them to drop the weapon and stand down (preferably while you shout your position to 911 over the cell). Then you wait there until police arrive and take them into custody. The point is, you only fire when forced to by imminent threat...but because you have that as an option you CAN act to intervene.

I also already covered this point. All I can add is you assume you're drawing the gun on a coward. Anyone with balls is going to say 'either shoot me or put it away' or something similar when threatened with a gun. Then your plan falls apart.

As I clearly said, it's not a bad police force - just laws of physics. You can't be everywhere at once. If you have an answer, let's hear it. Otherwise, go back to fucking up your own country and let us try and survive until someone does come up with a workable solution.

Not at all. If they refuse to back down, and continue to threaten, then you shoot them 3 times, they die, and the world is a much better place. *shrug* everybody who matters wins.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Same old thing... what you're saying is people are just plain too dumb to make appraise a situation or make choices.

Yea okay I'll bite that. Most individuals are too dumb to make these desicions. Thats why a jury consists of more than one person. Obviously some people are smart and morally upstanding enough on their own but who makes that decision?

This is not an acceptable attitude, in my opinion. Our country is founded on individualism. We have individual liberties, including those involving firearms. But more than anything we value the innate value of the individual.

You, not surprisingly, value collectivism and more group oriented thinking.

Your country has been overrun with violent and petty crime, and the people have been conditioned to accept it. You mention elsewhere in this thread that you are allowed to keep a rifle or shotgun in your home, implying that it can be used to defend your home, but that is blatantly false. Homeowners have been arrested for simply punching a home invader in England. Every case of armed defense in the past 10 years has resulted in a prison sentence for the home invader. Street muggings that are responded to with a punch to the face have resulted in both parties being arrested, one for mugging and one for assault. The London police now issue CITATIONS for robbery under £100. That's how acceptable it's become.

If it were YOU being beaten and stabbed by some gearhead on the street, who would you rather have around, 20 Londoners, or me?

Oh wait, you'd rather the tweaker didn't have a knife in the first place. Problem solved. Or, you'd rather the police had arrested him the night before, cognizant of the fact he would commit a violent crime the next day.

You expect the very, very, most unrealistic best of the police, despite decades of evidence showing that they are incapable of responding in time or doing the right thing. And yet you expect the most horrifically poor outcome from armed citizens, despite decades of evidence showing that they are there when action is needed, and that their actions are measured and appropriate.

I realize you've been indoctrinated with this idea that killing is an absolute last resort and that only the government should get to decide who lives and dies, but I was raised differently. Those that would threaten or visit violence upon the innocent have forfeited their right to life, liberty or anything else. They gambled it away. It's not an abhorrent idea to me, as I'm sure it is to you.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I also already covered this point. All I can add is you assume you're drawing the gun on a coward. Anyone with balls is going to say 'either shoot me or put it away' or something similar when threatened with a gun. Then your plan falls apart.

A Brit talking about having balls. That's funny.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: Atheus
Your example only reinforces my point. Cars are registered, you require a test and a licence to drive them, their performance is restricted, etc. All of those things lower car accident deaths. Many still happen of course but it would be much worse without those measures. Same measures for guns then? Didn't think so.

Cars are registered to be driven on public roads. You are licensed to drive on public roads. Neither registration nor a license is required to own a car and use it on private property.

If you're advocating a similar licensing system for guns (unrestricted private use, license required for public use), I'm happy to inform you that it already exists--it's called a concealed carry permit.

If a weapon, or any rounds from that weapon, NEVER leave the owner's property, nobody else can see it or hear it, nobody else has to be involved in any way, then I don't see how that's anyone's business but the owner's. Unless they're seriously mentally ill of course, like some posters here.

Of course, most people want to take their guns hunting, or to the range. That's what they're for after all. So I don't see how that situaion applies.

I don't think there should be any such thing as a concealed carry permit. Defending your own house and family is one thing but taking it upon yourself to become a vigilante killer and saving random strangers from evil? LOL. You're living in a comic book.

That restriction doesn't apply to cars, so why are you trying to apply it to guns? An unregistered car can be freely transported as long as it isn't driven. A similar restriction on weapons would simply require that they remain non-functional (unloaded, maybe locked up) during transport. Incidentally, this is already the law in most places.

Originally posted by: Atheus
All liberalism has limits - screaming fire in a crowded theatre is the classic example. I don't see why firearms should be the sole item exempt from all control.

Firearm use is already limited the same as free speech. Falsely screaming, "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal; so is shooting an innocent man in the face. In both cases, the only limitation is that there are consequences for misuse.

Your analogy would only be valid if theater patrons were required to be gagged so they physically couldn't yell, "Fire!"

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: Atheus
Your example only reinforces my point. Cars are registered, you require a test and a licence to drive them, their performance is restricted, etc. All of those things lower car accident deaths. Many still happen of course but it would be much worse without those measures. Same measures for guns then? Didn't think so.

Cars are registered to be driven on public roads. You are licensed to drive on public roads. Neither registration nor a license is required to own a car and use it on private property.

If you're advocating a similar licensing system for guns (unrestricted private use, license required for public use), I'm happy to inform you that it already exists--it's called a concealed carry permit.

If a weapon, or any rounds from that weapon, NEVER leave the owner's property, nobody else can see it or hear it, nobody else has to be involved in any way, then I don't see how that's anyone's business but the owner's. Unless they're seriously mentally ill of course, like some posters here.

Of course, most people want to take their guns hunting, or to the range. That's what they're for after all. So I don't see how that situaion applies.

I don't think there should be any such thing as a concealed carry permit. Defending your own house and family is one thing but taking it upon yourself to become a vigilante killer and saving random strangers from evil? LOL. You're living in a comic book.

That restriction doesn't apply to cars, so why are you trying to apply it to guns? An unregistered car can be freely transported as long as it isn't driven. A similar restriction on weapons would simply require that they remain non-functional (unloaded, maybe locked up) during transport. Incidentally, this is already the law in most places.

Locked box and unloaded during transport would suit me fine.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus
I also already covered this point. All I can add is you assume you're drawing the gun on a coward. Anyone with balls is going to say 'either shoot me or put it away' or something similar when threatened with a gun. Then your plan falls apart.

A Brit talking about having balls. That's funny.

Have some fucking respect I didn't insult you. :frown:

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Nebor
If it were YOU being beaten and stabbed by some gearhead on the street, who would you rather have around, 20 Londoners, or me?

I can say with absolute certainty I wouldn't want you anywhere near me.

I realize you've been indoctrinated with this idea that killing is an absolute last resort and that only the government should get to decide who lives and dies, but I was raised differently.

Not government, court, jury, citizens.

Those that would threaten or visit violence upon the innocent have forfeited their right to life, liberty or anything else. They gambled it away. It's not an abhorrent idea to me, as I'm sure it is to you.

No, I believe rapists etc should die, but it's not for some random self-appointed gunman to decide who's guilty. You're not a criminal until you are PROVEN guilty in court. It's one of the founding principles of both our societies and I'm shocked at how it is treated in this thead.

 

[Atheus]

I know it's not an easy way, to try and solve problems more peacefully - in fact it might the most difficult way of all. But I believe it's the only way and the right way. Humanity cannot continue to be this violent or we will surely destroy ourselves eventually. I'm going to stop posting in these threads.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I know it's not an easy way, to try and solve problems more peacefully - in fact it might the most difficult way of all. But I believe it's the only way and the right way. Humanity cannot continue to be this violent or we will surely destroy ourselves eventually. I'm going to stop posting in these threads.

Dude.. pass on over whatever you are smoking.. because its some GOOD SHIT.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Nebor
If it were YOU being beaten and stabbed by some gearhead on the street, who would you rather have around, 20 Londoners, or me?

I can say with absolute certainty I wouldn't want you anywhere near me.

You know I'm a (reserve) police officer and an active duty soldier, right? I'm one of the guys you claimed should have guns in public earlier in this thread.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus
I also already covered this point. All I can add is you assume you're drawing the gun on a coward. Anyone with balls is going to say 'either shoot me or put it away' or something similar when threatened with a gun. Then your plan falls apart.

A Brit talking about having balls. That's funny.

Wonderful, we finally start to have at least a decent conversation in which someone who opposes the freedoms we hold dear, and instead of treating him with respect we have to insult him with broad based stereotypes. Isn't that what pisses us off about their arguments, they are insulting demeaning and use broad based insulting stereotypes? You would do a lot better to support our cause by treating them with respect and actually discussing the topic with them rather than just insulting them.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus
I also already covered this point. All I can add is you assume you're drawing the gun on a coward. Anyone with balls is going to say 'either shoot me or put it away' or something similar when threatened with a gun. Then your plan falls apart.

A Brit talking about having balls. That's funny.

Wonderful, we finally start to have at least a decent conversation in which someone who opposes the freedoms we hold dear, and instead of treating him with respect we have to insult him with broad based stereotypes. Isn't that what pisses us off about their arguments, they are insulting demeaning and use broad based insulting stereotypes? You would do a lot better to support our cause by treating them with respect and actually discussing the topic with them rather than just insulting them.

He did say: "It's purely a matter of prinicipal for me, I'm not ignoring any facts, I'm simply not interested in statistics on this particular point - the concealed carry thing that is. I don't think it should be legal for any normal citizen, not involved with any kind of police force or military outfit, to carry a weapon on a public street."

You can't have a conversation with that. He rejects all evidence contrary to his beliefs. The more of his posts you read the more you realize he is a complete lunatic.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I know it's not an easy way, to try and solve problems more peacefully - in fact it might the most difficult way of all. But I believe it's the only way and the right way. Humanity cannot continue to be this violent or we will surely destroy ourselves eventually. I'm going to stop posting in these threads.

Ok, I am back from work, and I have caught up on the discussion.

A few points.

Considering Nebor's story about stopping a group of men armed with at least one knife from "i love you bashing." First, you yourself said you do not like bigots, in this instance a group of bigots found a person they hated when he was alone and used overwhelming force to attack him with a deadly weapon. Without direct intervention this most likely would have been the cause of very severe injuries or possibly his death. This direct intervention cannot be minutes away, it must be now. I have to make some assumptions, but Nebor said a knife was involved, I assume it was already drawn and in the assailants hands, if that was the case, even if the victim was 100 feet away, he only had seconds before his assailant could attack him. There is no possible way police could have intervened to save this man if they were not already there. However, because a private citizen was present, and was armed he was able to change the situation from one in which bigots where going to possibly murder someone, and instead possibly saved an innocent mans life.

Now your response is "what if the victim was a pedophile and the group was led by the father of a girl he assaulted?" Please take a step back and consider what you are doing. In order for what Nebor did to be wrong, the man he saved had to be a pedophile being attacked by his victims father? If we have to reach to that very extreme circumstance to question Nebor's actions that seems to me to be very indicative that what he did was right.

But, even you seem to believe that we should let the courts decide who is guilty and what the punishment is. A mob assaulting a man in the street is not even close to that belief. And even if it was a pedophile being assaulted by a child's father, the assault is still not right. No person, no matter whom, or how evil they are deserves to be set upon by a mob of men and beaten. We both seem to believe in a court of law. However, the law cannot be everywhere, and when the police cannot arrive in time, private citizens do not deserve to be beaten, raped or murdered just because the police were not close enough to save them. In this situation the men who were assaulting this man chose to take his life into their hands, they did nothing to deserve the right to choose if this man lived or died.

Secondly, you seem to believe that a criminal confronted with a firearm is not going to care, and ask you to shoot him. I don't know where to go with this. Do you seriously believe that we cannot defend ourselves because every single person who decides to commit a crime suddenly becomes insane and no longer fears death or serious injury from a firearm?

Finally you seem to think that we are bypassing the court of law when we shoot a criminal in the commission of a violent crime with a concealed weapon. I think this is something you have not seriously thought through. I believe from your previous statements that you are ok with a man defending his house with a rifle or shotgun. If that is true, do you believe that if a rapist breaks into your house and is in the act of attacking your wife with a knife that you are playing judge jury and executioner by shooting him? Unless you think that is wrong, what would be different from a man assaulting your wife in a park, and attacking her with a knife, and you shooting him there in the park? Did your right to protect your family cease to exist when you left your home, or did the criminal attacking your wife suddenly gain a greater right to life, and or a trial by jury just because he happened to commit the crime in the park? I know you think your position makes sense, but if you believe a man should be able to defend his family in his home, why do you think he should not have that right the second he steps out his front door?



Now, please take note: IF private citizens were not behaving responsibly, if they were taking the law into their own hands and shooting people for minor problems, or if people were using concealed carry to harm other citizens I would agree with you. However, that is not the case, here in America, what we have seen is that people are defending each other and themselves, and that the criminals are not using this right to empower themselves. We have stories like Nebor's, and a black man attacked by four white supremecists who defended himself by firing his gun into the ground, these are good things and I want them to continue. I do not want men who want to "i love you bash, or ***** bash" to succeed. I support this because the opposite is happening, and we are seeing that people really can be trusted with power.

 

[knightc2]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I mentioned this point already - no delusion involved. I am aware the cops are crap but that's a reason to improve them not replace them. I'm aware something other than police enforcement should be done to prevent crime but I still don't trust people like you to do it. Pure physical size, fighting skill, shooting skill, the money to buy a powerful weapon - these things do not make you a better person than everyone else.

Pure physical size, fighting skill, shooting skill and money to buy powerful weapons doesn't make anyone a better person but it does make them a more prepared one.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I also already covered this point. All I can add is you assume you're drawing the gun on a coward. Anyone with balls is going to say 'either shoot me or put it away' or something similar when threatened with a gun. Then your plan falls apart.

You don't draw a gun on anyone or anything you are not willing to shoot. The plan doesn't fall apart, it gets put in motion. If someone threatens me and has a death wish I won't hesitate to shoot them. If it's my life or his I'll do my best to make sure it's his.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Atheus

I've owned, carried and collected firearms for 15 years and only been involved in two shootings. Only one outside the home where I intervened in a i love you-bashing that involved a knife. But hey, that guy could have just sorted things out with those 4 bigger guys (one of them armed with a knife) with a quick boxing match, right?

So you took it upon yourself to shoot them? Judge jury and executioner? IMO the best case in this situation is call the cops, they respond quickly, they arrest the criminals, and then the court punishes them - not you. Yes this is highly optimistic and maybe even unrealistic, but that just means the cops are crap and need reform, not that we should replace cops with vigilates.

This kind of goes along with what I'm talking about... a general, implicit feeling that people are -in the end- incapable and ignorant and must rely of the Omniscient state to provide for them. If you think defending someone against a group of armed thugs is vigilantism, then you just will not understand the psyche of a free and just society.

You misunderstand, of course I would want to defend someone in that situation, but...

Imagine you see a similar situation where several men are beating another. Now imagine the man they are beating is a pedophile who just assaulted one of their kids. You have no idea of this. Still want to to shoot the attackers? You might kill perfectly innocent men and let the pedo escape. This is why courts have to decide who's guilty before anyone gets killed. All those involved in the conflict should be arrested with a little harm to their person as possible. I do support the death penalty.

Let's say in your above scenario that instead of stopping the beating with the threat of supieror force you call the police. By the time they get there, they have beat the man to death. Now they go to jail and the little girl does without her Dad right when she needs him the most. How far do you want to take this ridiculous tact??

No the guy getting beat is the pedo not the dad - the dad gets off on temporary insanity. My point is you have no idea who the bad guys are when you arrive. Stopping the beating is all well and good but not by killing people. That's just as bad as letting it continue.

You like to take things to the worst possible outcome and you also act as if owning a gun means you're looking for an excuse to shoot someone and that's just not based in reality.

I wish people would stop saying things like that - I enjoy shooting and hunting, I like guns as mechanical things, and I have no problem with the simple act of owning them. It's the carrying them in publuic and the using them on human beings I have a problem with.

You don't have a point, all you have are your ridiculous cock and bull stories. How very English.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ayabe
The ban isn't happening now or anytime soon.

Pelosi and Reid have both stated it's off the table.

So how about throttling back the fear machine to idle for a little bit, it's been backfiring quite a bit lately.

How about we do want we want? In case you haven't noticed, it's still a free country.

Apparently, there's no law against useless bitching sniveling by cowards.

Don't worry, the messiah is working on that one, I sent him a letter wrapped in a rainbow envelope with some watermelons on it.

As is so well evidenced by you. If you don't like this thread then keep your sniveling ass out of it and let the rest of us exercise our free speech.

Damn I hate you nazi types that think they can have sway over what others can do, think, say, etc.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus
You misunderstand, of course I would want to defend someone in that situation, but...

Imagine you see a similar situation where several men are beating another. Now imagine the man they are beating is a pedophile who just assaulted one of their kids. You have no idea of this. Still want to to shoot the attackers? You might kill perfectly innocent men and let the pedo escape. This is why courts have to decide who's guilty before anyone gets killed. All those involved in the conflict should be arrested with a little harm to their person as possible. I do support the death penalty.

The answer to this question, and your entire challenge, is simple: the party who should be shot is the party who is actively committing a violent felony, regardless of motive or circumstances.

Also, common sense will usually prevail; so I would, in turn, challenge you to demonstrate when it hasn't. Please cite one example -- just one -- wherein a CCW holder has mistakenly shot the wrong party in any situation that resembles your example.

I can probably cite thousands of cases wherein the CCW holder shot the correct felon... I'm only asking you for one.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus
You misunderstand, of course I would want to defend someone in that situation, but...

Imagine you see a similar situation where several men are beating another. Now imagine the man they are beating is a pedophile who just assaulted one of their kids. You have no idea of this. Still want to to shoot the attackers? You might kill perfectly innocent men and let the pedo escape. This is why courts have to decide who's guilty before anyone gets killed. All those involved in the conflict should be arrested with a little harm to their person as possible. I do support the death penalty.

The answer to this question, and your entire challenge, is simple: the party who should be shot is the party who is actively committing a violent felony, regardless of motive or circumstances.

Also, common sense will usually prevail; so I would, in turn, challenge you to demonstrate when it hasn't. Please cite one example -- just one -- wherein a CCW holder has mistakenly shot the wrong party in any situation that resembles your example.

I can probably cite thousands of cases wherein the CCW holder shot the correct felon... I'm only asking you for one.

You're barking up the wrong tree, this guy's already said that he's not interested in facts or statistics, even claiming that statistics aren't facts (lulz). I used to take these threads seriously too, but there's really no point. They all end up the same, one side presents a bunch of facts, the other side comes up with a bunch of made up stories while ignoring all common sense. When you have someone that's so incredibly ignorant that they admit to not caring about the facts, you're better off banging your head against a wall then trying to have a rational discussion with them.

I've gotta give Atheus credit though, at least he admits that he doesn't care about the facts.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus
You misunderstand, of course I would want to defend someone in that situation, but...

Imagine you see a similar situation where several men are beating another. Now imagine the man they are beating is a pedophile who just assaulted one of their kids. You have no idea of this. Still want to to shoot the attackers? You might kill perfectly innocent men and let the pedo escape. This is why courts have to decide who's guilty before anyone gets killed. All those involved in the conflict should be arrested with a little harm to their person as possible. I do support the death penalty.

The answer to this question, and your entire challenge, is simple: the party who should be shot is the party who is actively committing a violent felony, regardless of motive or circumstances.

Also, common sense will usually prevail; so I would, in turn, challenge you to demonstrate when it hasn't. Please cite one example -- just one -- wherein a CCW holder has mistakenly shot the wrong party in any situation that resembles your example.

I can probably cite thousands of cases wherein the CCW holder shot the correct felon... I'm only asking you for one.

You're barking up the wrong tree, this guy's already said that he's not interested in facts or statistics, even claiming that statistics aren't facts (lulz). I used to take these threads seriously too, but there's really no point. They all end up the same, one side presents a bunch of facts, the other side comes up with a bunch of made up stories while ignoring all common sense. When you have someone that's so incredibly ignorant that they admit to not caring about the facts, you're better off banging your head against a wall then trying to have a rational discussion with them.

I've gotta give Atheus credit though, at least he admits that he doesn't care about the facts.

Okay gonna have to respond to this despite my own best judgement.

You're wrong to say statistics are facts. They can be made to say whatever the person producing them wants them to say and in no way do they consititute proof or any facts of any kind. That you believe there are any provable facts and absolutes in ethics at all is laughable.

You're right about only one thing - I am not interested in statistics on the particular point to which I replied with that phrase. Perhaps it was the wrong phrase but I did essentially mean it. Why? Because I can't simply give up my most basic beliefs on the evidence of some dodgy spreadsheet. Lets twist it around a bit; another subject I probably disagree with most of you on is race. I believe that people should be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin but many of you on the far right would think the opposite. You can tell me all day long how black people cause more crime than white people, but that won't make me into a racist, it will only convince me society is screwed up. No matter how much you tell me torture is a useful tool against terrorists, that is never going to make me torture someone for information, because I believe it is fundamentally wrong. Do you see? It's the same with vigilantes on the streets - it doesn't matter to me if there is a positive outcome in any one situation, I still believe we as a society are better than that.

I hope you can accept, even though you disagree with me, that I am not being unreasonable here. In fact I'm probably the least extreme 'anti-gun' poster on these forums since I actually quite like guns. I just don't like shooting people.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
You don't have a point, all you have are your ridiculous cock and bull stories. How very English.

I am constantly disturbed by the lack of respect for any and all foriegners expressed on these boards. It seems an acceptable argument against almost any point to simply insult someone's country. It's really disgusting. And for BoberFett to refer to us as not having balls? Where does that even come from? The British used to be regarded as the hardest people in the world what the hell happened to that? I'd like to hear about any other people who have survived so many bombings and fought off so many invasion attempts in the last few centuries.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Nebor
If it were YOU being beaten and stabbed by some gearhead on the street, who would you rather have around, 20 Londoners, or me?

I can say with absolute certainty I wouldn't want you anywhere near me.

You know I'm a (reserve) police officer and an active duty soldier, right? I'm one of the guys you claimed should have guns in public earlier in this thread.

Anyone who claims to be the equivelant of a fighting force of twenty men is almost certianly a puffed up little dweeb. I'd rather have just one Londoner let alone twenty. Or better still nobody at all. Even if you are useful, why would I want you, a far right American Republican with whom I disagree on almost every issue, to appoint himself judge jury and executioner and decide whether I get to live or die? What's to stop you simply shooting this crackhead and me? You know what? If I had to have someone instantly star-trek-transported into my home right now, you or a random street crackhead, I would choose the crackhead, and you'd have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
You don't have a point, all you have are your ridiculous cock and bull stories. How very English.

I am constantly disturbed by the lack of respect for any and all foriegners expressed on these boards. It seems an acceptable argument against almost any point to simply insult someone's country. It's really disgusting. And for BoberFett to refer to us as not having balls? Where does that even come from? The British used to be regarded as the hardest people in the world what the hell happened to that? I'd like to hear about any other people who have survived so many bombings and fought off so many invasion attempts in the last few centuries.

You tell us. When did Brits become such sissies?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Atheus
I know it's not an easy way, to try and solve problems more peacefully - in fact it might the most difficult way of all. But I believe it's the only way and the right way. Humanity cannot continue to be this violent or we will surely destroy ourselves eventually. I'm going to stop posting in these threads.

Ok, I am back from work, and I have caught up on the discussion.

A few points.

Considering Nebor's story about stopping a group of men armed with at least one knife from "i love you bashing." First, you yourself said you do not like bigots, in this instance a group of bigots found a person they hated when he was alone and used overwhelming force to attack him with a deadly weapon. Without direct intervention this most likely would have been the cause of very severe injuries or possibly his death. This direct intervention cannot be minutes away, it must be now. I have to make some assumptions, but Nebor said a knife was involved, I assume it was already drawn and in the assailants hands, if that was the case, even if the victim was 100 feet away, he only had seconds before his assailant could attack him. There is no possible way police could have intervened to save this man if they were not already there. However, because a private citizen was present, and was armed he was able to change the situation from one in which bigots where going to possibly murder someone, and instead possibly saved an innocent mans life.

I fully understand what you're saying - I would like to think I myself would intervene in this situation, but I don't see why lethal force is the only way, and I don't see why the people doing the enforcing should be self appointed. What about a locally elected neighbourhood watch who patrol the street at night in shifts with batons and tazers and radios?

Now your response is "what if the victim was a pedophile and the group was led by the father of a girl he assaulted?" Please take a step back and consider what you are doing. In order for what Nebor did to be wrong, the man he saved had to be a pedophile being attacked by his victims father? If we have to reach to that very extreme circumstance to question Nebor's actions that seems to me to be very indicative that what he did was right.

But, even you seem to believe that we should let the courts decide who is guilty and what the punishment is. A mob assaulting a man in the street is not even close to that belief. And even if it was a pedophile being assaulted by a child's father, the assault is still not right. No person, no matter whom, or how evil they are deserves to be set upon by a mob of men and beaten. We both seem to believe in a court of law. However, the law cannot be everywhere, and when the police cannot arrive in time, private citizens do not deserve to be beaten, raped or murdered just because the police were not close enough to save them. In this situation the men who were assaulting this man chose to take his life into their hands, they did nothing to deserve the right to choose if this man lived or died.

I agree that the dad did not have a right to attack the pedo himself, but in this case he would be blinded by rage, and would probably get off in court for temporary insanity. He certainly does not deserve to be shot. Why can't he be tazered or knocked on the head with a bit of wood?

Secondly, you seem to believe that a criminal confronted with a firearm is not going to care, and ask you to shoot him. I don't know where to go with this. Do you seriously believe that we cannot defend ourselves because every single person who decides to commit a crime suddenly becomes insane and no longer fears death or serious injury from a firearm?

Okay that was a slightly dumb thing to say, but it's what I would do I think, I hate nothing more than threats. I'd much rather die than take orders from the end of a gun.

Finally you seem to think that we are bypassing the court of law when we shoot a criminal in the commission of a violent crime with a concealed weapon. I think this is something you have not seriously thought through. I believe from your previous statements that you are ok with a man defending his house with a rifle or shotgun. If that is true, do you believe that if a rapist breaks into your house and is in the act of attacking your wife with a knife that you are playing judge jury and executioner by shooting him? Unless you think that is wrong, what would be different from a man assaulting your wife in a park, and attacking her with a knife, and you shooting him there in the park? Did your right to protect your family cease to exist when you left your home, or did the criminal attacking your wife suddenly gain a greater right to life, and or a trial by jury just because he happened to commit the crime in the park? I know you think your position makes sense, but if you believe a man should be able to defend his family in his home, why do you think he should not have that right the second he steps out his front door?

Your right to defend yourself does not lessen when you step out your door, but your right to infringe on the rights of others does. You can make your home a fortess and shoot everyone who trespasses on it if you like. It's your property. Nobody has to visit your house. But they do have to walk the streets, and if the majority of them don't want you carrying a gun and interfering in other people's confrontations, then IMO you shouldn't get to do it.

Now, please take note: IF private citizens were not behaving responsibly, if they were taking the law into their own hands and shooting people for minor problems, or if people were using concealed carry to harm other citizens I would agree with you. However, that is not the case, here in America, what we have seen is that people are defending each other and themselves, and that the criminals are not using this right to empower themselves. We have stories like Nebor's, and a black man attacked by four white supremecists who defended himself by firing his gun into the ground, these are good things and I want them to continue. I do not want men who want to "i love you bash, or ***** bash" to succeed. I support this because the opposite is happening, and we are seeing that people really can be trusted with power.

Again I fully understand what you're saying but I still disagree. As I said above, you can give all kinds of good individual examples, but I still believe there is something fundamentally wrong with self-appointed street judges. The only way to convince me otherwise would be to convince me the world is permantently and irreversibly fucked up and we should all stop aiming for our ideals and just accept the lowest common denominator. I sincerely hope nobody manages to convince me of that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: conehead433
Everyone should carry a weapon so we can stop these lunatics who want to do bodily harm to innocents minding their own business.

What if the result were to cause road rage and similar killings to skyrocket, where the killer gets away, while saving far fewer lives from the occassional nut mass killer?

Do you have proof of this correlation?

Why yes, I have bookfulss of documentation to prove that my hypothetical for discussing a principle is, indeed, the factual situation.

Next up: what if we found a way to power spacecraft with a thimblefull of water - and the proof that we can, since I asked!

Note: I am not trying to resolve the question here of what would happen. I'm asking how he would react if that were the result - would he abandon the policy or not?

I want to take this one and run with it. IF we allowed private citizens to carry firearms in public concealed, and the result was that citizens abused that right and used it to deny other citizens of their right to life and liberty, yes I would without hesitation condemn the right of free citizens to carry their arms in public. IF a small number of citizens caused a great amount of harm, I would prefer that we start by trying to prevent that small number of citizens from aquiring arms. If that failed, and the cost/benefit of citizens carrying arms was even close to a toss up between increased crime on the part of permit holders, and decreased crime commited to carry holders I would still support removing that right.

I only support that right because from all the evidence I have seen I believe that the societal benefit of the right of the private citizen to bear arms has been a great success and has proven that private citizens can be trusted, and that they have been diligent and faithful with the duty they have been entrusted with.

Take note, I answered two hypotheticals, one where concealed carry caused way more killings than it stopped, and one where it was a toss up.

But in response, answer this, would you consider banning a class of weapon that has been used only once to kill someone by a private citizen?

I think your position is quite reasonable.

To answer your question, I need more info - how much of a risk do I think the weapon is, is the only reason it's been used so little because few are owned, etc.

I'm open to the point you're making to weigh the history available, not just speculation.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
You don't have a point, all you have are your ridiculous cock and bull stories. How very English.

I am constantly disturbed by the lack of respect for any and all foriegners expressed on these boards. It seems an acceptable argument against almost any point to simply insult someone's country. It's really disgusting. And for BoberFett to refer to us as not having balls? Where does that even come from? The British used to be regarded as the hardest people in the world what the hell happened to that? I'd like to hear about any other people who have survived so many bombings and fought off so many invasion attempts in the last few centuries.

You tell us. When did Brits become such sissies?

Attempting to start a fight over the internet is the mark of a true wus in my opinnion - nice and safe behind the keyboard. If we ever meet in person we can discuss who's a coward and who's not but until then just keep your insults to yourself ok?