nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
Atheus is British, and doesn't really believe in self-defense. He has said before that most every quarrel can be solved with a bout of fisticuffs in the street, and that only a coward needs a gun to stop a mugger.
*shrugs* Some people prefer to be victims. Me? I'll keep my guns until people like him send their men with guns to kill me.
Interesting, what principle is that exactly? From my own point of view, I believe liberty is better, and that restricting liberty should be done only when real and quantative benefits to society as a whole can be established. Examples: speed limits and pollution controls, I am normally pretty right wing, but both of them are very good examples of where the person who abuses the lack of a regulation makes other people pay the price for his actions, thus restriction is warranted.
Before I read up on the research and arguments for concealed carry, I also opposed it. Generally because I believed that heat of the moment crimes would be too high, and that the times when it would be used for defense would be too rare.
I personally read up on "Crazy gun blog" most days, and the thing that has really gotten my attention is his ability to find several legal and completely responsible cases of self defense with a firearm almost every day. Reading up about an old woman protecting herself from a man breaking into her house, or a woman shooting the man who raped her last week have had a great influence on my view. It has put a very personal face on the people who want a gun for their own defense, and I do not believe that an elderly person should only be able to provide for their own defense when they are within the safety of their own home.
I would be interested to hear what matters of principle you think this violates, and what you believe could be done better?
No, you can't paraphrase me, but you can quote what I actually say if you want. And anyway statistics are not facts, so you're not even paraphrasing, you're just spinning.
I simply do not believe ordinary people in civilized countries should carry weapons on the streets. In prinicpal. That's all. Yea you want to defend your family - everyone does - but what if I don't trust you not to attack my family with your defensive weapon? No statistic is going to change that.
Yup xenophobia is a good way of avoiding real debate.
Yes Nebor, that's what I'm doing, they're getting ready right now. Be afraid! Be very afraid! :laugh:
I have always wanted a five-seven, but there are only two gun stores in the local area and neither of them carry FN. How bad is the price on them if you have to order one new and have it shipped to your local dealer?
I too am very liberal in most matters, I generally do believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want, but I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. The basic principal I'm talking about is that no one person should have access to more than a certian amount of destructive potential without oversight. Everyone agrees that regular people should not have access to nuclear weapons right? What about anti-aircraft missiles? So we all do believe in some form of weapons control - it's a matter of how much. I believe the line should be drawn somewhere after a hunting rifle in a locked box but before a concealed semi-auto handgun on a public street. There would have to be some very very convincing research to make me think otherwise. If untrained and unsanctioned civilians with weapons are preventing crime on the streets, that makes me think the police need serious reform, not that we should send out more armed ordinary citizens.
/edit: and concerning said elderly person, maybe they should get a stun gun, or some pepper spray? A firearm is not the only form of defense.
I also don't trust that YOU will not somehow try to attack ME and firmly believe I should have access to a firearm to protect myself from you if you decide to attack me or my family. Why should I trust you? Because you say so?
In our 'civilized' countries people are routinely carjacked, mugged, and have them homes invaded. There are also a lot of people from 'uncivilized' countries that would like to see our civilization wiped off the face of the earth. In our 'civilized' counties the police routinely do not respond to such activities in time to save the people that are being attacked. Thats not an indictment against the police, but the reality of the world we live in. So I'll tell you what - When you find a way to eliminate these crimes or make the police able to respond in the 2 seconds it takes for me to draw my concealed weapon - Then I will consider your request to give up my weapon. Until then, its staying.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Great weapon, small, low recoil, accurate, cheap ammo...don't know why it's not more popular. I guess Americans never warmed up to bullpups.
I keep a .44mag in nightstand if I miss the noise will scare them to death a least and a Mossy 500 with #1 buck under bed, one shot, and zip lock bags will pick up the pieces
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Stupid extreme straw man FTMFL
You need to remember that liberalism is defined as govt of, for, and by the people. As such, you don't sound much like a liberal in this post, but a lot like a monarchist. If govt is the people, then who are the police if not the people? If govt is of the people, but some people can be armed while others cannot, that's kind of like Orwell's "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others." Great idea, genius.
You already said you are not interested in 'research' in regards to this topic.. Fact is, most citizens who are concealed carry permits probably have more firearms training and experience that most police officers. For CCW holders, guns are a strong interest and hobby - And that often involves shooting 10's of thousands of rounds, practicing shooting every week if not multiple times a week, and knowing more about their weapons than any police officer or military person would ever hope to know.
MANY police officers look at their weapons only as a tool, and ONLY use it when absolutely necessary. That means only training when required to pass qualifications. Most officers never shoot their weapons in the line of duty. What makes this officer who shoots his gun twice a year more qualified to carry than a person who shoots a couple hundred rounds a week, who practices their draws daily, and regularly participates in tactical shooting events?
My state, Florida, now has over 500,000 concealed carry permits issued. You simply do not hear of ANY incidents with them. According to you it seems like we should be having like 100 shootings a day. Its simply NOT the case regardless of what you'd like to believe.
In the case of stun gun or pepper spray, both require very close range, and most often require the actual use of the item, which are not nearly as reliable as you might think. The major problem with pepper spray is the operator actually hitting himself or herself with it, I know it sounds silly, but think about what a badly timed breezed could do. A stun gun, I am almost certain you have to be practically touching the person to use it, and if I recall correctly those things are very painful, but they are not debilitating. If an elderly person used one, they would have to be in very close physical proximity to a person intending to do them bodily harm, and I doubt the pain of a stun gun would make the person more lenient. I have never actually been hit with a stun gun, nor am I very familiar with them, they may be more effective than I am giving them credit.
However, in the case of a firearm, according to the FBI, (or some other government agency, I think it was the FBI report) less than 10% of people who use a firearm to stop what they thought was a crime in progress had to discharge their firearm. I think it was actually less than 5%, but I know it was less than 10%. Of those who did fire, again, less than 20% actually fire to hit their assailant. These people have proven to be very reluctant to use their firearm to attempt to harm another person, even when they believe the person to be a violent criminal intent on causing them harm. In almost all the cases, merely demonstrating to your assailant that you have a firearm, changes the situation. Criminals usually work just like predators in nature, they try to find isolated victims who offer little chance of harming them when they attack. When the victim turns out to be armed, the situation that the criminal thought was very safe for him suddenly changes, and the possible profit very often is no longer worth the risk of being shot.
There is a second point in there that is very very important, the criminal gets to choose the time and place of the crime. In America most home invasions are during the day, and the criminals case victims homes almost 3 times as long as in other countries that have done similar criminal surveys. The most often cited reason for these two changes in behavior were a fear of being shot by the owner. They often cite the owner as being a larger fear than the police. This same mentality almost certainly carries over to the streets. Criminals are going to choose a time when they believe they have the best chance of success, that means no matter how many cops you put on the streets, the criminals are always going to do their best to get around the police. In order for the police to protect they have to be very vigilent, the criminal only has to find you one time when the police are not around, and he does not carry a sign that says criminal. He can just wait till the police leave, and the police do not know his intentions.
A lot of people in the United States share your view about restricting peoples access to heavy weaponry. Many of them do not realize that those very dangerous weapons they fear are actually quite legal for normal citizens to own, with the right licenses. Think about the show mythbusters if you have seen it. I can think of at least two shows where they have worked with private citizens who own cannons. Now you may not consider a cannon to be the worst thing a person could own, but consider the damage a person could do to a city from a hillside with an 6 inch gun, and some explosive shells. However, despite the fact that private citizens own some antiquated field artillery, you never hear of them snapping and going on a rampage from hillside destroying a city.
I take the stand that if a group of people prove themselves to be responsible and do not cause the people around them harm or any other ill effect, the government has no reason to restrict them. They don't kill people with their cannon, and they like shooting their cannon off somewhere where it doesn't cause too much trouble, I don't see the problem. Also, I really hate that people want to take these rights from people who have been responsible with some vague accusation that they might cause harm.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Meh, fsck it... gun grabbers are fear-filled idiot deluded authoritarians. They're like the left-wing version of right-wing law-and-order nuts. Hate their own countrymen, but love their govt. NOTHING could be further from the basic ideals of liberalism.
I've really never wanted any weapons that were illegal or difficult to acquire for citizens...EXCEPT for a P90. If I could own only one weapon without restriction, that's what it would be.
Ok... I've never really been into the whole gun/anti-gun thing, but reading through this thread I have a couple questions:
1. Why do we blame guns, and not the people who choose to use them improperly, for crime/assault/murder/etc? A gun is just a tool, right? It's not inherently evil, it depends on how it's used, it seems. Yes, it's only purpose is to kill or injure, but it also makes for a strong deterrent. I mean, we survived the cold war because both major powers in the world had an equally large "gun", right? Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop violent people from being violent. Should we ban knives because they can be used to stab people? And then, once we realize that crime is still happening, do we ban clubs? Fists?
2. As long as a person registers their gun, so law enforcement is aware of what a person is armed with in case of a conflict, does it matter what type of gun they own? If the police know what to expect, then they can approach the person accordingly.
3. How does gun banning/restriction reduce crime? Does anyone know what the per-capita crime rates are in countries which have banned guns vs. the US? It seems to me that, as I said in point 1, violent people will be violent regardless of what tools are available to them.
4. Self-defense, self-reliance, independence, and precedents: Is it wise to put so much trust in ANY government? While a strong central government insures that armed factions don't rise up only to support their own local self-interest, it also creates a monolithic force which can begin to act in its own self-interest, and not in the interests of the people it purports to represent. History illustrates a common pattern of those with power forcing those without power into servitude. If this is a common thread throughout history, why are we so happy to make ourselves vulnerable to it happening yet again? Wouldn't you at least like to have the option of self-defense, should you need it, than to not have the option at all?
5. Where do you draw the line on private weapon ownership? I think the founding fathers originally gave us the right to bear arms because it put citizens on a fairly level playing field with any tyrannical government's own military. The weapons of the time weren't much more advanced than "big muskets on wheels" (cannons). Now, however, to create that same balance we would need to arm citizens with tanks, missiles, rockets, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. In the 1770's, one crazy guy with a musket couldn't cause much harm before he was stopped. In 2009, however, one crazy guy with a machine gun (or a tank, bomb, etc...) can cause a huge amount of damage before he's stopped. Is self-defense now an anachronism, seeing as how it would be illogical (and suicidal) to again put citizens on a level playing field with governments?
1. Why do we blame guns, and not the people who choose to use them improperly, for crime/assault/murder/etc? A gun is just a tool, right? It's not inherently evil, it depends on how it's used, it seems. Yes, it's only purpose is to kill or injure, but it also makes for a strong deterrent. I mean, we survived the cold war because both major powers in the world had an equally large "gun", right? Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop violent people from being violent. Should we ban knives because they can be used to stab people? And then, once we realize that crime is still happening, do we ban clubs? Fists?
2. As long as a person registers their gun, so law enforcement is aware of what a person is armed with in case of a conflict, does it matter what type of gun they own? If the police know what to expect, then they can approach the person accordingly.
3. How does gun banning/restriction reduce crime? Does anyone know what the per-capita crime rates are in countries which have banned guns vs. the US? It seems to me that, as I said in point 1, violent people will be violent regardless of what tools are available to them.
4. Self-defense, self-reliance, independence, and precedents: Is it wise to put so much trust in ANY government? While a strong central government insures that armed factions don't rise up only to support their own local self-interest, it also creates a monolithic force which can begin to act in its own self-interest, and not in the interests of the people it purports to represent. History illustrates a common pattern of those with power forcing those without power into servitude. If this is a common thread throughout history, why are we so happy to make ourselves vulnerable to it happening yet again? Wouldn't you at least like to have the option of self-defense, should you need it, than to not have the option at all?
5. Where do you draw the line on private weapon ownership? I think the founding fathers originally gave us the right to bear arms because it put citizens on a fairly level playing field with any tyrannical government's own military. The weapons of the time weren't much more advanced than "big muskets on wheels" (cannons). Now, however, to create that same balance we would need to arm citizens with tanks, missiles, rockets, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. In the 1770's, one crazy guy with a musket couldn't cause much harm before he was stopped. In 2009, however, one crazy guy with a machine gun (or a tank, bomb, etc...) can cause a huge amount of damage before he's stopped. Is self-defense now an anachronism, seeing as how it would be illogical (and suicidal) to again put citizens on a level playing field with governments?
Yea but I don't trust you either that's just a circular argument. Either we both get to carry guns or neither of do, and since I don't want to carry one for obvious reasons, it seems reasonable to request that other people don't either. Not to mention there are plenty of people incapable of safely using a firearm - you'd have a gun but they wouldn't I suppose? What makes you think you're better than them?
What on earth are you talking about? That's not the definition of liberalism that's just a quote from the Gettysburg address. A liberal is someone who believes in personal freedom, which I do, very much. I'm 'pro-choice', pro drug legalization, an advocate of freedom of speech and religion, I hate racists and I protest against racist groups, etc. That makes me a liberal in most everyone's eyes. Check the political compass thread and you'll find me somewhere a little more liberal/right than Ghandi. And where did I mention monarchy again? Must have missed that one...
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. It's not an extreme position at all. It's not an extreme either position to think a police force should exist to protect the populace. In fact I'd say it's probably accepted in principle by 99% of the world's population. And why are you quoting Orwell? The man was a socialist - you and he would have disagreed on almost everything!
You notice the difference in the way daishi5 and you discuss this topic? That is the difference between someone with a real logical point to make, and the brains to make it, and someone just regurgitating sentaces they don't understand.
Well that's the problem... you just don't understand America. Here we have a rich tradition of letting those with the skills and desire to do things that other people may not have the skills or desire to do. It's all about opportunity and independence... the idea that we should restrict behaviors and freedom because some people may not be able or want to do something goes against our heritage. We have always been an individualistic nation compared to most, and this is one thing that I think sets us apart and helps make us great.
Hmm perhaps a tazer then? Of course a firearm is almost always going to be more effective but do you want to give a 9mm semi-auto to a senile old lady? She might just close her eyes and empty the clip in the general direction of a percieved threat...
On the home invasion point, I have no problems with firearms in the home, it's only when they are taken out on the streets among people who have no choice but to be there that I have a problem. Yes, everyone has a right to defend themselves, but isn't part of defending yourself disarming your enimies? You'd be fine with a CCW I'm sure, but someone like Vic or PrinceOfWands would blow me away just for being a leftie given half a chance. So who gets to decide who's a nutter and who's a good citizen? The goverment? The only way to work it would be to give everyone a CCW... a very very bad idea IMO...
I love that show
A cannon isn't the best example though I think - most people would own them for purely intellectual reasons or for historical reenactment and those people are usually quiet and a bit geeky. Not likely to hurt anyone. Besides imagine trying to load and fire a cannon in a public place!
I believe that too - up to a point. Everything has limits.
You have to draw a line. Most of the time it is right to assume the person won't cause harm but at some point you have to assume they will becasue the risk is too great. I'll mention anti-aircraft weapons again - nobody should have those no matter how responsible they apparently are, right? You and I just draw the line in slightly different places. Perhaps one day I'll change my mind but I doubt it.
It's not fair to say I don't understand America as such, I just look at it from a different perspective. America didn't invent personal freedom or individual oppurtunity, but it does help you do some great things, along with your willingness to take risks and attempt the impossible. The moon landing comes to mind.
Many of you seem to be arguing the same point - this is a matter of personal freedom and any attempt to infringe on that is unacceptable - and it's that I don't understand. You all must realise there has to be some level of control in almost all areas... right? Otherwise it's just anarchy...
Sure, some level of control. We disagree on how much "some" is, mainly due to the different history/culture I mentioned.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter