Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

[nobodyknows]

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.

Apparently Boberfett has it wrong because I think you have a lot of balls.

Just think, a Brit coming into an American forum claiming to want to have a civil discussion on gun control in America based on nothing but his feelings and his cock and bull examples. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, that takes a lot of balls im my book.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You tell us. When did Brits become such sissies?

Socialism is a dependence, and dependence breeds weakness. You could say it is nothing more than an "evolution" of society and that we are next in line. On that thought, when did Americans become such sissies?

Please don't single the Brits out, as America clearly has a Democratic Party itself, who largely subscribe to the same ideology you are opposing here.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus
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.

That's bullshit. The "statistics" presented throughout this thread demonstrate quantity, not probability. They are actually quantifiable data. Ie. "There are three men wearing red shirts on the bench and 1000 men wearing green shirts on the same bench." This statement can be proven through observation.

The same is true for the total lack of gun crimes committed by CCW holders. There is a very exact number that represents this, so it's not up to you whether or not it's believable unless you're claiming that some large conspiracy exists to hide the actual data...?

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.

That's fucking bullshit as well. There is no correlation between left/right political leanings and racism -- or wealth for that matter.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus
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.

OK, since you like little stories so much, please respond to each of these:

1) YOU have just been jumped in an alley by a robber with a knife. He knocks you down and begins stabbing you repeatedly. YOU are doing everything you can to defend yourself against the knife, but it's not working, and YOU are dying. I wander by the alley and see the man stabbing you repeatedly. There is NOBODY else around except the three of us. I have a gun in my waistband. What would you like me to do?

2) I am walking down a public street when a man jumps out and begins to stab ME repeatedly. I'm doing everything I can to fend him off with my hands, but it's not working. I am dying. There is NOBODY close by. I have a gun in MY waistband. What should I do?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse
The "statistics" presented throughout this thread demonstrate quantity, not probability. They are actually quantifiable data. Ie. "There are three men wearing red shirts on the bench and 1000 men wearing green shirts on the same bench." This statement can be proven through observation.

The same is true for the total lack of gun crimes committed by CCW holders. There is a very exact number that represents this, so it's not up to you whether or not it's believable unless you're claiming that some large conspiracy exists to hide the actual data...?

No not at all, the statistics clearly say what they say, but they don't prove anything about ethics. I think I've been very clear on this. You can't convinvce me, for example, that women shouldn't have the vote, or that gay people are evil, or that self-appointed street judges are the best way of preventing crime, no matter what statistics you use. You have to make a proper philosophical argument.

There is no correlation between left/right political leanings and racism.

LOL! Tell that to these guys:

http://www.graphicmail.co.uk/u...00/ftp/Bullets/bnp.jpg

OK, since you like little stories so much, please respond to each of these:

1) YOU have just been jumped in an alley by a robber with a knife. He knocks you down and begins stabbing you repeatedly. YOU are doing everything you can to defend yourself against the knife, but it's not working, and YOU are dying. I wander by the alley and see the man stabbing you repeatedly. There is NOBODY else around except the three of us. I have a gun in my waistband. What would you like me to do?

I wouldn't want anyone interfering with me personally. Make it a woman or a child who's getting beat though and it's a different story, yes it would be best to intervene in this particular case, but that doesn't prove any general principle! In another situation it might be best not to intervene and I don't trust you to make that decision! Why do you get to appoint yourself? If we need patrols to prevent crime then lets have them sanctioned by the local community - responsible reasonable local men elected to perform those duties, and whenever possible, to perform them without resorting to lethal force.

 

[knightc2]

Wow! You would rather be stabbed to death because you don't trust a CPL holder to make the right decision? You are being stabbed and are going to die. What decision is there to make? Either you die or the guy stabbing you does.

I respect your opinions and you are definitely entitled to them but what does a successful group of armed CPL holders have to do with ethics? I do believe that statistics can be manipulated and they often are to prove a point or advance an agenda, but the numbers are pretty clear on concealed weapons holders and the crimes they prevent vs the crimes they commit while carrying a concealed weapon. My point is that responsible gun owners should have a right to defend themselves no matter where they are at any given time. Criminals don't care about gun laws and don't abide by them. CPL holders have proven to be safe responsible individuals that clearly are taking an active step in protecting themselves and others.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: knightc2
Wow! You would rather be stabbed to death because you don't trust a CPL holder to make the right decision? You are being stabbed and are going to die. What decision is there to make? Either you die or the guy stabbing you does.

Yeah, he's way beyond cock and bull stories now. He expects us to believe that he'd rather be stabbed to death then accept help from someone with a firearm?? Not only would he condemn himself, but he would condemn all people in a similar situation.

He's clearly lying because he can't admit that the robber should be shot like one would shoot a mad dog or he will lose his argument.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I wouldn't want anyone interfering with me personally.

Originally posted by: Atheus
Oh I would fight as hard as possible, I don't want to die, but I also don't want any help.

Duly noted.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: knightc2
Wow! You would rather be stabbed to death because you don't trust a CPL holder to make the right decision? You are being stabbed and are going to die. What decision is there to make? Either you die or the guy stabbing you does.

Oh I would fight as hard as possible, I don't want to die, but I also don't want any help. I don't believe my life is worth so much that someone should have to risk themselves trying to help me, and besides, I wouldn't want help from any of you people regardless of the circumstances. Sounds a bit harsh I know but you people are against everything I stand for. I might as well accept help from Bin Laden or Hitler.

I respect your opinions and you are definitely entitled to them but what does a successful group of armed CPL holders have to do with ethics?

The ethical question is - should an enforcer of the law, and a protector of the people, be self-appointed or chosen by peers?

I do believe that statistics can be manipulated and they often are to prove a point or advance an agenda, but the numbers are pretty clear on concealed weapons holders and the crimes they prevent vs the crimes they commit while carrying a concealed weapon. My point is that responsible gun owners should have a right to defend themselves no matter where they are at any given time.

Why should simply being a gun owner give you more rights than others?

Criminals don't care about gun laws and don't abide by them. CPL holders have proven to be safe responsible individuals that clearly are taking an active step in protecting themselves and others.

If they're so altruistic and concerned with others' wellbeing, they would have no problem forming an organised crime prevention force, elected and regulated by the local community then? If they're so concerned with safety perhaps they would be willing to put away their guns and patrol with tazers and batons? I doubt it. It's all about the power.

 

[palehorse]

I can just see it now... Atheus is moments from death when he turns to his would-be rescuer and painfully says "I... don't... want.... your.... hellllllllllllp..........ahhhhhHHHHH"

LOL! :roll:

Rationality has exited stage left...

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Atheus

If they're so altruistic and concerned with others' wellbeing, they would have no problem forming an organised crime prevention force, elected and regulated by the local community then? If they're so concerned with safety perhaps they would be willing to put away their guns and patrol with tazers and batons? I doubt it. It's all about the power.

It's not about power, it's about survival. It's not possible to have a cop on every corner or to always have the time to call 911 and wait for the proper authorities to show up.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Atheus

If they're so altruistic and concerned with others' wellbeing, they would have no problem forming an organised crime prevention force, elected and regulated by the local community then? If they're so concerned with safety perhaps they would be willing to put away their guns and patrol with tazers and batons? I doubt it. It's all about the power.

It's not about power, it's about survival. It's not possible to have a cop on every corner or to call 911 and have the time to wait for the proper authorities to show up.

I'm talking about neighbourhood watch patrols not cops in this instance - read my posts above.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I can just see it now... Atheus is moments from death when he turns to his would-be rescuer and painfully says "I... don't... want.... your.... hellllllllllllp..........ahhhhhHHHHH"

LOL! :roll:

Rationality has exited stage left...

Look you obviously think you're some kind of comic book hero and everyone should be glad of your help but that's not the case - not everyone wants to be shamefully 'rescued' from their own problems. Anyway this is completely irrelevant to the topic. It just provides a way for you to invent situations involving me getting hurt. If you want to continue send them to my PM nobody else wants to read it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Atheus

If they're so altruistic and concerned with others' wellbeing, they would have no problem forming an organised crime prevention force, elected and regulated by the local community then? If they're so concerned with safety perhaps they would be willing to put away their guns and patrol with tazers and batons? I doubt it. It's all about the power.

It's not about power, it's about survival. It's not possible to have a cop on every corner or to call 911 and have the time to wait for the proper authorities to show up.

I'm talking about neighbourhood watch patrols not cops in this instance - read my posts above.

Quit acting like a 12 year old.

Neighborhood watch patrols would help but they can't be everyplace either. In the end it falls on YOU to be responsible to defend yourself. If you want to have a gun to do that then fine, it's legal. If you don't feel the need that's fine also. Nobody is making you own/carry a gun.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse
I can just see it now... Atheus is moments from death when he turns to his would-be rescuer and painfully says "I... don't... want.... your.... hellllllllllllp..........ahhhhhHHHHH"

LOL! :roll:

Rationality has exited stage left...

Look you obviously think you're some kind of comic book hero and everyone should be glad of your help but that's not the case - not everyone wants to be shamefully 'rescued' from their own problems. Anyway this is completely irrelevant to the topic. It just provides a way for you to invent situations involving me getting hurt. If you want to continue send them to my PM nobody else wants to read it.

That's complete bullshit as well. If you go back to the original post, you'll notice that there were TWO FUCKING QUESTIONS -- the second one had myself in the position of the victim being attacked. They were hypothetical scenarios meant to judge your true position on this issue; and, it now appears after-the-fact, to assess your sanity.

You never did bother to address the second question.

Unlike you, I do not have an irrational hatred of those who feel differently than me on any particular issue, and I'd never wish you any harm.

It's obvious that you cannot have a rational discussion on this issue. You're quickly approaching "delusional" ... so I'm finished responding to you.

 

[Atheus]

@nobodyknows et al

Not everyone is capable of or willing to defend themselves - the old and the very young for example - and therefore someone else needs to protect them. I believe these protectors should be sanctioned by the community and chosen for their maturity and calmnesss under pressure not self-appointed. Self appointed powers are a quick and easy road to corruption and abuse. We obviously disagree. End of conversation.

@palehose

I said PM dude nobody else needs to read that stuff

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Atheus
@nobodyknows et al

Not everyone is capable of or willing to defend themselves - the old and the very young for example - and therefore someone else needs to protect them. I believe these protectors should be sanctioned by the community and chosen for their maturity and calmnesss under pressure not self-appointed. Self appointed powers are a quick and easy road to corruption and abuse. We obviously disagree. End of conversation.

@palehose

I said PM dude nobody else needs to read that stuff

LOL, conversation NOT over. :laugh:

Who are you to want to take away my right to defend myself because of your irrational fear?

You say "self appointed powers are a quick and easy road to corruption and abuse." Yet you declare yourself the right to have the power to take away my right to own/carry a legal firearm for my own protection. In other words the ONLY PERSON YOU REALLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT IS YOURSELF.


Get real, you're not even from this country.

Now the conversation is over.

 

[CLite]

Do the people in this thread realize every fucking gun post is a circle jerk 40 page monster of a post?

At least the circular arguments in other partisan threads discuss different topics. How the hell is there enough different material to make a 40 page post every 3 weeks when new gun laws are proposed at the lowest levels of government?

Anyone who has posted consistantly throughout these 30 pages needs to seriously consider seeking help.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CLite
Do the people in this thread realize every fucking gun post is a circle jerk 40 page monster of a post?

At least the circular arguments in other partisan threads discuss different topics. How the hell is there enough different material to make a 40 page post every 3 weeks when new gun laws are proposed at the lowest levels of government?

Anyone who has posted consistantly throughout these 30 pages needs to seriously consider seeking help.

Your right, only a fool argues with another fool. Unless of course one feels that fool needs "educated".

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CLite
Do the people in this thread realize every fucking gun post is a circle jerk 40 page monster of a post?

At least the circular arguments in other partisan threads discuss different topics. How the hell is there enough different material to make a 40 page post every 3 weeks when new gun laws are proposed at the lowest levels of government?

Anyone who has posted consistantly throughout these 30 pages needs to seriously consider seeking help.

Your right, only a fool argues with another fool. Unless of course one feels that fool needs "educated".

Hrm I guess I'm a fool too... damn I knew I shouldn't of posted in a gun thread (

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I wouldn't want help from any of you people regardless of the circumstances. Sounds a bit harsh I know but you people are against everything I stand for. I might as well accept help from Bin Laden or Hitler.

So regular citizens helping each other survive against violent criminals are as bad as Bin Laden or Hitler? I think this thread has pretty much played itself out the way these things always do.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus
I wouldn't want help from any of you people regardless of the circumstances. Sounds a bit harsh I know but you people are against everything I stand for. I might as well accept help from Bin Laden or Hitler.

So regular citizens helping each other survive against violent criminals are as bad as Bin Laden or Hitler? I think this thread has pretty much played itself out the way these things always do.

Atheus you demonstrate an extremely black and white, infantile worldview. You say your argument is philosophical but I don't believe you. It seems to me it's very psychological, brought about by a certain socialization growing up I'm sure, and you will use any info/stimulus to advance this emotional hang up.

It's not about being a super hero or macho or better than someone else. It's not about your fears or insecurities, your stereotypes or biases. It's simply the Natural right to self defense that a society based on individual rights and Justice both requires and promotes.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Atheus
@nobodyknows et al

Not everyone is capable of or willing to defend themselves - the old and the very young for example - and therefore someone else needs to protect them. I believe these protectors should be sanctioned by the community and chosen for their maturity and calmnesss under pressure not self-appointed. Self appointed powers are a quick and easy road to corruption and abuse. We obviously disagree. End of conversation.

@palehose

I said PM dude nobody else needs to read that stuff

If the elderly are armed with a concealed weapon, they are actually able to protect themselves, they may not be the equal of a young man with a weapon, but it at least puts them within the threshold of being able to succeed.

You seem to have a problem with "self appointed powers." Do you realize in all of the scenarios we have presented you with, that the criminal has already declared him self a "power." He believes he has the power over you, to decide if you live or die, or if he gets to rape you. We are NOT talking about citizens running around stoping non-violent crimes, acting as judge jury and executioner. We are talking about citizens stopping criminals from taking this power.

I must be very clear, concealed carry holders are NOT ALLOWED to take the law into their own hands, UNLESS the attacker is in the act of commiting a violent crime, and that attacker is a clear and imminent threat. They are only allowed to intervene in situations where there is no time to go get help, if there was time for them to get the authorities, than in almost all cases, what they have done is against the law. The attacker must be A. intent on causing severe harm, B. capable of causing severe harm, C. the threat of harm must be immediate.

I do thank you for your willingness to discuss the issue, but you seem to be very very set in your idea that people should not have power. Even to the point that you seem to believe that it would be better if a person who was assaulted on the street died at the hands of their attacker. In other words, unless I am mistaken, you do not care about the outcome of letting citizens carry weapons. And here I must say I disagree with your method of making decisions. I think the outcome is the most important aspect to consider when making a decision, if concealed carry saves lives, and stops crime, then I support it. IF it caused more crime, and cost many citizens their lives, I would be against it. You however, do not consider this outcome important, instead you seem to be more horrified that private citizens might be forced to make hard decisions. This is a view that I believe is wrong, we cannot protect people from the horrors of life, nor can we expect the "government" to be able to protect them from hard decisions.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Craig234

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.

I wonder why you think the risk is important, but for discussion, according to everyone I know who has handled the weapon, it is slightly more powerful than the normal semi-automatic rifle, but only about half as powerful as a large caliber hunting rifle. The class of weapon in question was owned by more than a quarter million people for over 60 years.

I question your requiring your own "belief of the weapons risk." I would like to know how many types of weapons with which you are well versed in the risk the weapon poses to the general public. If people who were familiar with this type of weapon said that your belief of its level of risk was unwarranted, would you be willing to listen to people with more experience?

 

[knightc2]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Oh I would fight as hard as possible, I don't want to die, but I also don't want any help. I don't believe my life is worth so much that someone should have to risk themselves trying to help me, and besides, I wouldn't want help from any of you people regardless of the circumstances. Sounds a bit harsh I know but you people are against everything I stand for. I might as well accept help from Bin Laden or Hitler.

I don't consider myself anything like Hitler or Bin Laden. Neither of them would defend you in a dark alley if you were getting stabbed.

The ethical question is - should an enforcer of the law, and a protector of the people, be self-appointed or chosen by peers?

Enforcer of the law? I don't consider myself or any other concealed weapon carrier an enforcer of the law. I'm not here to stop speeders, arrest shoplifters or prevent mail fraud. I just want to be able to protect myself, my family and others if need be.

Why should simply being a gun owner give you more rights than others?

I doesn't. Others have the right to own guns too. It is in our Constitution. I also have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Getting shot/stabbed/raped by a lawless thug infringes on these rights. I aim to defend them.

If they're so altruistic and concerned with others' wellbeing, they would have no problem forming an organised crime prevention force, elected and regulated by the local community then? If they're so concerned with safety perhaps they would be willing to put away their guns and patrol with tazers and batons? I doubt it. It's all about the power.

Why? They aren't vigilantes that are hell bent on defending the neighborhood. We are merely defending ourselves from the bad people of this world. And to ask that CPL holders put away their guns in favor of tazers and batons in the name of safety is ludicrous. Whos safety are you referring too? The criminals? They certainly aren't trading in their guns for batons.