Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Page 3 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

03 Mar 2012, 10:34 pm

Dox47 wrote:
The stats don't bear you out, the police shoot the wrong people or shoot under questionable circumstances far more often than CCW holders, both in absolute and proportionate numbers. Could be because a citizen has a lot more potential consequences to pulling the trigger than a cop does, even if the cop was completely wrong.


Apples and oranges. The police are required to intervene and do it every day. Hobbyists chime in in specific scenarios which will of course be rarer. They arent catching radio calls. But I accept the risk of a trained professional making an error. They are supervised. I see no reason to encourage a hobbyist to play sheriff. He has no one supervising his mental state, expertise, training or documenting any recent behavioral patterns that might disqualify him from the role. His judgement will only be evaluated by the shoot. Then what happened happened.

I remember a case where a guy killed an old woman while shooting at a fleeing carjacker. He was eventually charged but why encourage it? Let the car go, forcible felony or not. It's an object.

Dox47 wrote:
I remember when I got my first couple of guns and couldn't afford a safe, I bolted holsters in unlikely places around the house (like under the sink in the bathroom) and stashed my guns in such a way that only the most thorough of burglars was likely to find one. Safe storage isn't a cut and dried issue, as a gun that's secured isn't handy when you need it while a gun that's handy may be vulnerable to theft. At my current house, the safe is downstairs (moving 600 lbs up a flight of stairs wasn't in the offing) while the bedroom is upstairs, so I keep my carry guns on the nightstand when I'm home and on my person when I'm out. Works for me, but might violate some arbitrary safe storage law.


That doesnt sound unreasonable. But there are of course other types of people in the world. Their leaving weapons around unattended and unsecured just feeds the black market. Crooks do search the obvious places.

dox wrote:
Been watching Friday?


No idea what that means. It's been my observation and I also read an article discussing how training had to be updated because modern recruits are not only increasingly obese and need remedial exercise but that they arent growing up in a fist fighting culture. They have to train them differently than kids of say 1965 or earlier.

dox wrote:
It still is; you'd go to jail for sure behind that "defense". To even draw a gun you have to be facing an imminent lethal threat or threat of gross bodily harm; life limb or eyesight I've heard is described. You can't draw on someone over a fistfight, you can't draw over harsh words, you can't draw over a menacing appearance, you need imminent threat of a serious nature. Even throwing a punch at someone isn't enough either, there needs to be a weapon present, grossly superior physical strength (usually invoked in cases involving women, the elderly or the disabled), or a multiple assailant situation before you're allowed to even draw, let alone shoot. The vast, vast, majority of defensive gun usage never gets past the draw stage, as most people don't want to get shot and will flee when a gun enters the equation. It tends to upset the criminal calculus, as after all the point of much crime is to acquire things without the effort normally required, and a gunshot wound is more risk than most criminals are prepared to accept.


Depends on the circumstances, people have gotten away with shooting unarmed intruders before (one case I know where an angry neighbor was approaching the front door). The neighbor regreted it but he wasnt charged. The "threat" language here didnt sound too specific. I'll take a look later.

Quote:
If saving lives were your primary concern, you'd be devoting your time and energy to drug law reform. Why mess around with guns at all when gun control is a high risk low reward (at best) proposition that costs massive amounts of political capitol and alienates large chunks of the population when there are much lower hanging fruit?


This post cost me little time and no political capital that I'm aware of. I'm not for gun control in a broad sense anyway. I just believe in some common sense controls.



Last edited by simon_says on 03 Mar 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

03 Mar 2012, 10:36 pm

LiberalJustice wrote:
In short: It is as useful to take away the God-given rights of the people as it is to teach an ass to speak English.


Hi LiberalJustice,

Your first paragraph sounded like Heston's touting an extra commandment for the NRA, then your last sentence sounds like you hold that Moses failed and that all gun-toting people are asses.

Are you trying for the old adage of "Never try to teach a pig to sing, as it annoys the pig, and it is a waste of your time?" But, that adage is true in all languages, and is not limited to just the English Language.

As many here should remember, God did give the power of speech for a special time for Balaam's Ass, but nothing said about expanded Castle Domain firearms invented thousands of years later.

Tadzio



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 Mar 2012, 11:14 pm

Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
Maybe they could expand the law to allow teenage girls to shoot anyone they find to be "creepy."

Girls would be popping their friends' fathers right and left.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

03 Mar 2012, 11:43 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Quote:
We have a very strict weapons law in Germany. It's almost impossible for civilians to legally buy a gun. And yet I don't see people attacking each other with knifes or blunt objects. Initiating close combat takes a certain amount of courage (and, as heavenlyabyss has pointed out, it also takes a certain degree of sociopathy to stab someone with a knife). Pulling a trigger is much easier.
I also don't see that traditional victim groups would be more at risk in Germany, seeing that we have lower numbers of violent crime and sexual assault than the USA. It appears that guns aren't such a great equalizer after all. They can empower both victims and criminals, and the latter are far more likely to (a) carry a gun, and (b) pull a gun on someone else. It is in the nature of assault crimes, armed robbery, home invasions etc. that the perpetrator pulls his gun before the victim does. So if anything, a greater availability of guns makes these situations far more dangerous and deadly for the victims, especially for armed victims who unsuccessfully try to fight back.

Different country, different culture. We DO have a crime problem in the US. We DO have human predators in the US. Do you suppose all this will just magically go away if we melt down our guns?

Quote:
But the main argument against guns is, in my opinion, the way in which law enforcement officers treat civilians. In a country where civilians might be armed, the police does not only employ a far greater amount of preemptive force, police work is also much less attractive for sensible, peaceable and level-headed people. Instead, law enforcement jobs are more likely to attract hardcases and control freaks with a penchant for violence. The news are filled with cases of police brutality in the USA.
I've also seen a video (see below) where a traffic cop threatens to shoot a man in the head after he informs the officer that he's legally carrying a gun. This shows that even a situation as harmless as a cop issuing a speeding ticket is likely to escalate in a bloodbath if guns are involved. I wouldn't want to live in a place where I have to be afraid of the police simply because they have a reason to be afraid of civilians.

You’d think I would have experienced this phenomenon first hand since I’ve been pulled over and informed the officer that I had a loaded weapon on board. They’ve either nodded their understanding of the situation (not that it is a situation) or just shrugged. The last time I didn’t even bother to tell them.
In addition to that, I’m a volunteer range safety officer (RSO) at the shooting range here. We have LE agencies from this county, the state, and even federal come to train and conduct drills on our facilities sometimes. I’ve interfaced with several of them while I was wearing a pistol and at most all I’ve gotten from any of them, if anything, is s casual “which model is your Glock?” or “how do you like that holster?”.
An isolated case here and there of a cop (who was probably a nut anyway) doesn’t mean that it’s standard practice to go off like that on a citizen with a gun.

Quote:
It's exactly the other way around in Germany. We had a small number of school shootings, all of which involved legal gun ownership. In one case, the teenage shooter was a member of a shooting club, one of the last legal loopholes in our weapons law. In another case, the teenager's father was a sport shooter and one of the few civilians who can legally own guns. All of those of those crimes could have been prevented by stricter regulations. On the other side, I haven't heard of a single case where a gun in the hands of a civilian has prevented a crime.


That’s because, like in the US, schools are gun free zones. Officially making an area a gun free zone is un-officially making it a free fire zone for any would be gunman to operate un-opposed.
Sure, the cops show up after it’s all over and draw lines around the fallen bodies and go look for the guy after he’s gone. Usually they find him but that doesn't bring back his victims. That or they hang out a safe distance away all dressed up in their SWAT costumes and “assess the situation” until the shooter conveniently runs out of ammo or shoots himself. THEN of course they charge in and rough up the survivors.
Really great protection there.............. :roll:
Guns have already been invented and are woven deeply into our society so they can’t very well be de-invented. Banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. As far as guns in the hands of citizens preventing violent crime it happens all the time in the US, probably even in Deutschland once in a while….
I can find you volumes of cases where armed citizens have successfully thwarted attacks in this country.

Now come back with something else, no matter how weak, just to have it shredded by us.

Oodain wrote:
Quote:
switzerland has "forced" gun ownership and that results in a high firearm crime rate per capita

So all those Swiss Army reservists are criminals is what you’re saying?
Whatever……… :roll:

Tadzio
Quote:
What you call "some kind of abstract form" is called referencing sources of information with citations to the source of the information, here, a thing called a book. I am tempted to demean the fine art of satire by comparing your thread responses to scenes/dialogue from many of Leslie Nielsen's movies: "We have to get these people to a hospital," "A Hospital!! !, What is it???", "It's a big building with many beds in it, but that's not important right now." "Surely you're joking!," "I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."
It is unfortunate that you also construe so many things you fail to understand as necessitating your interpretation of the existence of a present insult , as so many faulty interpretations of "imminent danger" start with such a singular presumptive error in judgement.


Whatever......
In your case you don’t state something and reference, it you pretty much just reference it and expect us to go find out what you are trying to say. Just spit it out because I don’t have the inclination to interpret meaning out of all that gibberish.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

04 Mar 2012, 12:20 am

"Castle Domain" has officially contracted "Dirty Harry-itis", as least on Wikipedia for now (March 03, 2012):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

The Ngram Viewer reveals the doctrine as having the characteristics of an attempted pseudo-"WMD" exploitational fad, again corrupting history:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... moothing=3
"Castle Domain" notably mentioned in 1892 to 1926, then absent from 1927 to 1965, then from 1965 to 1985 fluctuations, with jerky explosions into 2008 (a 22-fold increase from 1965 to the present).

"Castle Domain" used to mean restrictions on unwarranted police entry:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... s+beard%22
"The Albany law journal: a monthly record of the law and the lawyers, Volume 45" (1892), page 408.

Then it, the Supreme Court clarified the then labeled "Castle" doctrine:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... an+said%22
"The central law journal, Volume 48" (1899), page 8, case at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=550

While remaining the "Castle" doctrine, the law was stretched for bananas, to more nullify "the doctrine of retreat":
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +Banana%22

The Bananas still not subject to Feminism's exceptions:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +as+BWS%22
(she can't defend the castle--or herself in her own home (no castle for any hers!! !))

Then, somehow, (maybe like wheel-chair ramps for porker Hog's Breath cafe's exceptions to ADA for stars), back to total Dirty Harry Land in the USA at wikki.

Tadzio



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

04 Mar 2012, 1:32 am

Raptor wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Quote:
We have a very strict weapons law in Germany. It's almost impossible for civilians to legally buy a gun. And yet I don't see people attacking each other with knifes or blunt objects. Initiating close combat takes a certain amount of courage (and, as heavenlyabyss has pointed out, it also takes a certain degree of sociopathy to stab someone with a knife). Pulling a trigger is much easier.
I also don't see that traditional victim groups would be more at risk in Germany, seeing that we have lower numbers of violent crime and sexual assault than the USA. It appears that guns aren't such a great equalizer after all. They can empower both victims and criminals, and the latter are far more likely to (a) carry a gun, and (b) pull a gun on someone else. It is in the nature of assault crimes, armed robbery, home invasions etc. that the perpetrator pulls his gun before the victim does. So if anything, a greater availability of guns makes these situations far more dangerous and deadly for the victims, especially for armed victims who unsuccessfully try to fight back.

Different country, different culture. We DO have a crime problem in the US. We DO have human predators in the US. Do you suppose all this will just magically go away if we melt down our guns?

Quote:
But the main argument against guns is, in my opinion, the way in which law enforcement officers treat civilians. In a country where civilians might be armed, the police does not only employ a far greater amount of preemptive force, police work is also much less attractive for sensible, peaceable and level-headed people. Instead, law enforcement jobs are more likely to attract hardcases and control freaks with a penchant for violence. The news are filled with cases of police brutality in the USA.
I've also seen a video (see below) where a traffic cop threatens to shoot a man in the head after he informs the officer that he's legally carrying a gun. This shows that even a situation as harmless as a cop issuing a speeding ticket is likely to escalate in a bloodbath if guns are involved. I wouldn't want to live in a place where I have to be afraid of the police simply because they have a reason to be afraid of civilians.

You’d think I would have experienced this phenomenon first hand since I’ve been pulled over and informed the officer that I had a loaded weapon on board. They’ve either nodded their understanding of the situation (not that it is a situation) or just shrugged. The last time I didn’t even bother to tell them.
In addition to that, I’m a volunteer range safety officer (RSO) at the shooting range here. We have LE agencies from this county, the state, and even federal come to train and conduct drills on our facilities sometimes. I’ve interfaced with several of them while I was wearing a pistol and at most all I’ve gotten from any of them, if anything, is s casual “which model is your Glock?” or “how do you like that holster?”.
An isolated case here and there of a cop (who was probably a nut anyway) doesn’t mean that it’s standard practice to go off like that on a citizen with a gun.

Quote:
It's exactly the other way around in Germany. We had a small number of school shootings, all of which involved legal gun ownership. In one case, the teenage shooter was a member of a shooting club, one of the last legal loopholes in our weapons law. In another case, the teenager's father was a sport shooter and one of the few civilians who can legally own guns. All of those of those crimes could have been prevented by stricter regulations. On the other side, I haven't heard of a single case where a gun in the hands of a civilian has prevented a crime.


That’s because, like in the US, schools are gun free zones. Officially making an area a gun free zone is un-officially making it a free fire zone for any would be gunman to operate un-opposed.
Sure, the cops show up after it’s all over and draw lines around the fallen bodies and go look for the guy after he’s gone. Usually they find him but that doesn't bring back his victims. That or they hang out a safe distance away all dressed up in their SWAT costumes and “assess the situation” until the shooter conveniently runs out of ammo or shoots himself. THEN of course they charge in and rough up the survivors.
Really great protection there.............. :roll:
Guns have already been invented and are woven deeply into our society so they can’t very well be de-invented. Banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. As far as guns in the hands of citizens preventing violent crime it happens all the time in the US, probably even in Deutschland once in a while….
I can find you volumes of cases where armed citizens have successfully thwarted attacks in this country.

Now come back with something else, no matter how weak, just to have it shredded by us.

Oodain wrote:
Quote:
switzerland has "forced" gun ownership and that results in a high firearm crime rate per capita

So all those Swiss Army reservists are criminals is what you’re saying?
Whatever……… :roll:

Tadzio
Quote:
What you call "some kind of abstract form" is called referencing sources of information with citations to the source of the information, here, a thing called a book. I am tempted to demean the fine art of satire by comparing your thread responses to scenes/dialogue from many of Leslie Nielsen's movies: "We have to get these people to a hospital," "A Hospital!! !, What is it???", "It's a big building with many beds in it, but that's not important right now." "Surely you're joking!," "I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."
It is unfortunate that you also construe so many things you fail to understand as necessitating your interpretation of the existence of a present insult , as so many faulty interpretations of "imminent danger" start with such a singular presumptive error in judgement.


Whatever......
In your case you don’t state something and reference, it you pretty much just reference it and expect us to go find out what you are trying to say. Just spit it out because I don’t have the inclination to interpret meaning out of all that gibberish.


Hi Raptor,

Many showings of the 2011 movie "Beautiful Boy" have very recently been canceled. Rhetorically, I wonder why?

Raptor said: "My state has had the same castle doctrine policy for a few years now and last time I checked the streets weren't running red with blood.
About the only places where the streets even come close to running red with blood are the states and cities that forbid it's citizens from defending themselves. Go figure.............."

Where can I find the records verifying your reports of "streets......running red with blood" levels? Which year were your State's "Castle Doctrine Policy" instituted, or officially recognized in your State Courts? What did your State do with the "Doctrine of Retreat"? How do citizen armed defenders recognize other actively engaged citizen armed defenders against the "criminal citizen/otherwise armed and dangerous"?

Which is your gibberish, and which is your balderdash? Do you know what Occult Hemophilia is to Dracula?

Tadzio



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

04 Mar 2012, 4:48 am

Raptor wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Quote:
We have a very strict weapons law in Germany. It's almost impossible for civilians to legally buy a gun. And yet I don't see people attacking each other with knifes or blunt objects. Initiating close combat takes a certain amount of courage (and, as heavenlyabyss has pointed out, it also takes a certain degree of sociopathy to stab someone with a knife). Pulling a trigger is much easier.
I also don't see that traditional victim groups would be more at risk in Germany, seeing that we have lower numbers of violent crime and sexual assault than the USA. It appears that guns aren't such a great equalizer after all. They can empower both victims and criminals, and the latter are far more likely to (a) carry a gun, and (b) pull a gun on someone else. It is in the nature of assault crimes, armed robbery, home invasions etc. that the perpetrator pulls his gun before the victim does. So if anything, a greater availability of guns makes these situations far more dangerous and deadly for the victims, especially for armed victims who unsuccessfully try to fight back.

Different country, different culture. We DO have a crime problem in the US. We DO have human predators in the US. Do you suppose all this will just magically go away if we melt down our guns?


Considering that it's a bit of a challenge to rob a liquor store with a knife or a club, it stands to reason that taking guns out of the equation prevents a great number of crimes. Less poverty and a greater level of social equality (which is the main cultural difference between the USA and Germany) would help as well.

Quote:
Quote:
It's exactly the other way around in Germany. We had a small number of school shootings, all of which involved legal gun ownership. In one case, the teenage shooter was a member of a shooting club, one of the last legal loopholes in our weapons law. In another case, the teenager's father was a sport shooter and one of the few civilians who can legally own guns. All of those of those crimes could have been prevented by stricter regulations. On the other side, I haven't heard of a single case where a gun in the hands of a civilian has prevented a crime.


That’s because, like in the US, schools are gun free zones. Officially making an area a gun free zone is un-officially making it a free fire zone for any would be gunman to operate un-opposed.
Sure, the cops show up after it’s all over and draw lines around the fallen bodies and go look for the guy after he’s gone. Usually they find him but that doesn't bring back his victims. That or they hang out a safe distance away all dressed up in their SWAT costumes and “assess the situation” until the shooter conveniently runs out of ammo or shoots himself. THEN of course they charge in and rough up the survivors.
Really great protection there.............. :roll:
Guns have already been invented and are woven deeply into our society so they can’t very well be de-invented. Banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. As far as guns in the hands of citizens preventing violent crime it happens all the time in the US, probably even in Deutschland once in a while….
I can find you volumes of cases where armed citizens have successfully thwarted attacks in this country.

Now come back with something else, no matter how weak, just to have it shredded by us.


After learning that our school shootings were caused by legal gun ownership, your solution to the problem is even more civilian gun ownership? Arm the teachers so that they can have a shoot-out with the students? Yeah, you totally shredded my argument :roll:

We didn't de-invent guns either, we simply tightly regulated gun ownership. And for some reason, there isn't much in terms of a black market. People don't have to fear for their lives in a widely gun-free society, and as a result they don't feel the need to own a gun themselves. Without sufficient demand, gun smuggling and illegal weapon sales simply aren't worth the risk, which means that wannabe-criminals also have a hard time obtaining guns.

Btw, you could use the same argument in defense of human trafficking. Like you said, banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. I guess it should be legalized then.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

04 Mar 2012, 5:08 am

It's seems the U.S is still dominated by the "Wild Bill Doctrine" that consists of "If anyone has a gun, everyone else having one means they can shoot the threat" completely neglecting such things as bystanders caught in the crossfire, misses, bullets going through a target and confusion.

Can't we agree on a few things:

- Felons should not be allowed to obtain guns legally.
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a psychological evaluation.
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to demonstrate a need to own one.
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a clean rap-sheet.

Furthermore:

- No civilian should be permitted to own fully automatic weapons such as assault rifles.
- No civilian should be permitted to own more firearms than he or she can give grounds for owning. For instance, if you are a sport shooter with pistols, hunt deer and hunt various birds, I can see why you need a couple of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun, I can't see why you need to own 10 of each. Are these zombies you are firing at?

I'm as much of a fan of the constitution as anyone else, but if you insist on the right to bear arms, it should be a musket from 1776, not a Glock with an extended clip and expanding bullets.



Reindeer
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 372

04 Mar 2012, 6:55 am

Shooting people entering your property because you felt threatened isn't what a civilization is meant to be ;P
That is isolation.


_________________
AS: 132
NT: 36
AQ: 40


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

04 Mar 2012, 9:41 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Considering that it's a bit of a challenge to rob a liquor store with a knife or a club, it stands to reason that taking guns out of the equation prevents a great number of crimes. Less poverty and a greater level of social equality (which is the main cultural difference between the USA and Germany) would help as well.
So why not address the root of the problem rather than the symptoms? Firearm-related homicides are a symptom of the problems that are endemic in poverty. Does Germany even have the extent of poverty that the US has?

CrazyCatLord wrote:
It's exactly the other way around in Germany. We had a small number of school shootings, all of which involved legal gun ownership. In one case, the teenage shooter was a member of a shooting club, one of the last legal loopholes in our weapons law. In another case, the teenager's father was a sport shooter and one of the few civilians who can legally own guns. All of those of those crimes could have been prevented by stricter regulations.
Where's the correlation between legal gun ownership and gun-related homicides?

Image

CrazyCatLord wrote:
On the other side, I haven't heard of a single case where a gun in the hands of a civilian has prevented a crime.
No s**t. If all the law abiding citizens are disarmed, there is no one around with a gun to stop a criminal. 93% of guns used in crime are obtained illegally, meaning not from gun shops or gun shows.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
People don't have to fear for their lives in a widely gun-free society, and as a result they don't feel the need to own a gun themselves. Without sufficient demand, gun smuggling and illegal weapon sales simply aren't worth the risk, which means that wannabe-criminals also have a hard time obtaining guns.
Gun control doesn't magically reduce the demand among crooks. It only reduces the demand among law abiding citizens who would rather not risk a murder charge.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Btw, you could use the same argument in defense of human trafficking. Like you said, banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. I guess it should be legalized then.
Or you could use the same argument with drugs. Has prohibition ever worked?

Reindeer wrote:
Shooting people entering your property because you felt threatened isn't what a civilization is meant to be ;P
That is isolation.
What's more important than ought-to's is got-to's. You can daydream about your ideal civilization all you want, but when people are faced with a situation where they must fend off an intruder they don't have time for that s**t. And no one said you should be able to shoot someone on mere suspicion, but because that person poses an imminent threat. And I've already defined imminent threat, so if you have any problems with that definition then address it directly.




TM wrote:
- Felons should not be allowed to obtain guns legally.
Yes
TM wrote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a psychological evaluation.
Yes
TM wrote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to demonstrate a need to own one.
f**k no. The Government wouldn't ask me what I need a Murcielago for, and I certainly don't need any self-righteous gun control advocates telling me what I need as if they know me better than I do.
TM wrote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a clean rap-sheet.
No. Only serious crimes should disqualify you.
TM wrote:
- No civilian should be permitted to own fully automatic weapons such as assault rifles.
f**k no. Especially not after seeing the stupidity of the Brady laws which only pertain to cosmetic features and how they conveniently make the term "Assault weapons" more inclusive to skew statistics whenever they see fit. Not that you called them "Assault weapons" since you used the right term thank god, but there is so much stupidity surrounding assault rifles that I have lost complete faith in the judgment of the gun control crowd especially regarding them.
TM wrote:
- No civilian should be permitted to own more firearms than he or she can give grounds for owning. For instance, if you are a sport shooter with pistols, hunt deer and hunt various birds, I can see why you need a couple of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun, I can't see why you need to own 10 of each. Are these zombies you are firing at?
f**k no. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what they "need"? What they really need is not to have gun control advocates sticking their noses in and acting like they know them better than they know themselves.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

04 Mar 2012, 10:37 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
TM wrote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to demonstrate a need to own one.
f**k no. The Government wouldn't ask me what I need a Murcielago for, and I certainly don't need any self-righteous gun control advocates telling me what I need as if they know me better than I do.
TM wrote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a clean rap-sheet.
No. Only serious crimes should disqualify you.]/quote]

"Self defense" would be an adequately stated need, as would hunting, sport shooting and similar reasons. I'd settle for "Have to have undergone training in the use and maintenance of a firearm" instead of the demonstrating need.

On the crimes issue, any violent crime should disqualify you, as you've already demonstrated an ability to inflict violence on another person, enabling you to do that more effectively next time is a dodgy policy.



AceOfSpades wrote:
TM wrote:
- No civilian should be permitted to own fully automatic weapons such as assault rifles.
f**k no. Especially not after seeing the stupidity of the Brady laws which only pertain to cosmetic features and how they conveniently make the term "Assault weapons" more inclusive to skew statistics whenever they see fit. Not that you called them "Assault weapons" since you used the right term thank god, but there is so much stupidity surrounding assault rifles that I have lost complete faith in the judgment of the gun control crowd especially regarding them.


No civilian should be allowed to own an automatic weapon ever, there is no need that can be claimed which justifies putting weapons of such power in the hands of a civilian. Semi-auto with a 30 round magazine is fine with me, but no automatic weapons. The only thing that would make me inclined to change my mind was if there was a much stricter gun control law dealing with automatic weapons, including them having to be locked up when not in use, a singled contract between the owner and the authorities that gave them permission to search the owners house when they desire to and a very strict limit on the amount of ammunition that could be kept for such weapons.


AceOfSpades wrote:
TM wrote:
- No civilian should be permitted to own more firearms than he or she can give grounds for owning. For instance, if you are a sport shooter with pistols, hunt deer and hunt various birds, I can see why you need a couple of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun, I can't see why you need to own 10 of each. Are these zombies you are firing at?
f**k no. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what they "need"? What they really need is not to have gun control advocates sticking their noses in and acting like they know them better than they know themselves.


What is really needed is for the "John Wayne wannabees" to realize that nobody needs to own more than 5 guns at a time. What is it that needs to be compensated for that requires having an arsenal in your house? Firearms are dangerous weapons and its better to limit their availability, not because the owners themselves may do something destructive, but because a criminal or 10 robbing a house with 30+ guns and several thousand rounds of ammo that are not kept locked up is a risk to society.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

04 Mar 2012, 1:45 pm

There's a mass shooting someone in this country pretty much every day now, it seems. Are we just supposed to do nothing about it? :?



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

04 Mar 2012, 2:48 pm

Quote:
What is really needed is for the "John Wayne wannabees" to realize that nobody needs to own more than 5 guns at a time. What is it that needs to be compensated for that requires having an arsenal in your house? Firearms are dangerous weapons and its better to limit their availability, not because the owners themselves may do something destructive, but because a criminal or 10 robbing a house with 30+ guns and several thousand rounds of ammo that are not kept locked up is a risk to society.


There was a guy on "Doomsday Preppers" with a gun safe holding 60 guns. In each episode a person is clinging to a specific fantasy of how the world will end. It's not just "something might happen and civilization will end". It's more like, "the government will become totalitarian, and then the food trucks will stop". Sometimes it doesnt even make sense as a scenario. But they don't always have guns.

When it comes to owning large numbers of guns, I wonder what the divide is between collectors and survivalist scenario fans.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

04 Mar 2012, 3:21 pm

I’ll just hit on a few of these. Call it a copout or whatever but I have other things on my to-do list today.....

Tadzio wrote:

Quote:
Where can I find the records verifying your reports of "streets......running red with blood" levels?

The thing about the “streets running red with blood” is an anti-gun crowd expression intended to evoke emotion. Every time some piece of gun control legislation is defeated, an existing gun law rescinded, etc… they say the streets will run red with blood. It doesn’t pan out that way and the anti-gun crowd loses credibility.
Look up the source of all this by yourself. No matter what I find you’ll label it as being from a right wing source and no matter what you find I’ll label it as a left wing source.

CrazyCatLord,
Well, I said I’d shred anything you'd come back with but you’ve robbed me of the pleasure by shredding yourself to oblivion.
You totally turn logic 180 degrees with your replies. Apparently you don’t know the part of our constitution that addresses specific rights of citizens. Oh well, you don’t live here so I wouldn’t expect it.
In THIS country gun ownership has soared in the past few years and they know why they have them. It’s going to be a long time before anyone can soften their stance. We’re not exactly an obedient people, either.
In addition to all that, you seem to believe that the best defense against a deadly threat is to cower and kindly await your fate.
This is called the sheep mindset and I’m glad that I'm not afflicted with it.
Whatever; someone else can have a go at you if they feel like wasting their time….

TM wrote:
Quote:
It's seems the U.S is still dominated by the "Wild Bill Doctrine" that consists of "If anyone has a gun, everyone else having one means they can shoot the threat" completely neglecting such things as bystanders caught in the crossfire, misses, bullets going through a target and confusion.

1. You can only legally fire on a threat of death (like a deadly weapon being brandished against you) or maybe severe injury from assault; the former being easier to justify than the latter for the obvious reasons.
2. Anyone that discharges a firearm in self-defense (or anything else) is criminally and civilly responsible for the path and final destination of each and every projectile they launch, PERIOD!
Quote:
Can't we agree on a few things:

I doubt it but let's address each...
Quote:
- Felons should not be allowed to obtain guns legally.

It IS illegal for a felon to obtain a firearm in the United States. It was illegal for them to do whatever they did to become felons, too, but they apparently did it anyway.
Quote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a psychological evaluation.

Quote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to demonstrate a need to own one.

Absolute NO on those two. This is a clear infringement and on top of that both are subjective no matter how they are written.
Quote:
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a clean rap-sheet.

That’s at least pretty much in effect with NICS as it stands. Each transfer from a dealer has to clear this at the expense of the buyer, even if the purchase is not approved.

Quote:
Furthermore:
- No civilian should be permitted to own fully automatic weapons such as assault rifles.

Do you know what an “assault rifle” is by definition? An assault rifle has full auto capability in addition to other criteria. An AR-15 or the AK pattern carbines and rifles commonly found in any gun shop are not full auto capable and therefor not true assault rifles by definition, period.
Weapons with full auto capability have been federally regulated since 1934, further regulated in 1968, and more still in 1986. Some individual states have added further restrictions. Legislation has pretty much priced them into extinction except for those that have had them for a long time or have money to burn. The ones that end up used in crime are illegally procured or converted from semi-auto weapons.
Quote:
- No civilian should be permitted to own more firearms than he or she can give grounds for owning. For instance, if you are a sport shooter with pistols, hunt deer and hunt various birds, I can see why you need a couple of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun, I can't see why you need to own 10 of each. Are these zombies you are firing at?

I’ve already addressed this above since it deals with the “need to own” thing.
Quote:
I'm as much of a fan of the constitution as anyone else, but if you insist on the right to bear arms, it should be a musket from 1776, not a Glock with an extended clip and expanding bullets.
:roll:
By that you’re saying that the constitution had a limited life and expired a few hundred years ago on ALL accounts.
As I’ve stated before in this thread; what you do by disabling citizen's rights and responsibilities to self defense is to enable the predators of society to operate with less opposition.
You are, in a sense, partnered with THEM.

Reindeer wrote:
Quote:
Shooting people entering your property because you felt threatened isn't what a civilization is meant to be ;P

Who stated that you can or should shoot people for trespassing? Use of deadly force requires a lot more justification than that; both in a criminal and civil sense.
Breaking into someone’s dwelling is usually considered a higher threat than just coming on to someone’s property but even then there are legal limitations.
Quote:
That is isolation.

Isolation is a personal choice aside from deadly force. If someone wants to be isolated in their own home or on their own property that is at their discretion, not yours….



LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

04 Mar 2012, 4:33 pm

Tadzio wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
In short: It is as useful to take away the God-given rights of the people as it is to teach an ass to speak English.


Hi LiberalJustice,

Your first paragraph sounded like Heston's touting an extra commandment for the NRA, then your last sentence sounds like you hold that Moses failed and that all gun-toting people are asses.

Are you trying for the old adage of "Never try to teach a pig to sing, as it annoys the pig, and it is a waste of your time?" But, that adage is true in all languages, and is not limited to just the English Language.

As many here should remember, God did give the power of speech for a special time for Balaam's Ass, but nothing said about expanded Castle Domain firearms invented thousands of years later.

Tadzio


That was an analogy. What I meant was that it is useless to teach a donkey (AKA an ass) to speak English because it will never learn, let alone benefit from it, in the same way that it is useless to take away the Constitutional rights of the American people.


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

04 Mar 2012, 5:23 pm

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
What is really needed is for the "John Wayne wannabees" to realize that nobody needs to own more than 5 guns at a time. What is it that needs to be compensated for that requires having an arsenal in your house? Firearms are dangerous weapons and its better to limit their availability, not because the owners themselves may do something destructive, but because a criminal or 10 robbing a house with 30+ guns and several thousand rounds of ammo that are not kept locked up is a risk to society.


There was a guy on "Doomsday Preppers" with a gun safe holding 60 guns. In each episode a person is clinging to a specific fantasy of how the world will end. It's not just "something might happen and civilization will end". It's more like, "the government will become totalitarian, and then the food trucks will stop". Sometimes it doesnt even make sense as a scenario. But they don't always have guns.


For starters it wasn’t very wise of the "prepper" to give a quantitative figure on how many weapons he owns or his other assets. By this it looks like they found someone at the shallowest end of the gene pool that also happens to be a prepper. The prepper school of thought covers a wide spectrum.

Unless your head is buried really deep in the sand it doesn’t take much fact based imagination to see what a precarious situation civilization or even the word is in. This could even be a local issue in the aftermath of natural disaster like what we had with hurricane Katrina as just one example. There were a lot of people up sh*t creek without a paddle all the sudden in New Orleans.
I can go over and over events just in the US where there has been at least a temporary loss of services and breakdown of rule of law so this isn’t about fantasy or paranoia.

The goal of the prepper is to survive or be better prepared to survive. True, some of them go too far at the expense of living a normal life in the present but that’s just the way of human nature.
Also, the type of prepper that eagerly desires a breakdown of society isn’t the kind of person I want anywhere near me. It is apparent that they are dangerously out of touch with reality and a potential liability in the event of an actual catastrophe. However, they are just part of the world we live in and we can’t sort them out from the rest.

Am I a prepper?
To some extent, yes. I do take some steps of preparation in the potential event of suspension of services and/or temporary breakdown of rule of law.
If you keep even a small stash of “just in case” items like canned food or MRE’s, drinking water, extra batteries, a generator and fuel, candles, camp stove, etc… then you are a prepper, too.
It’s obvious that making no preparations at all for “just in case” that if or when “just in case” does come you’ll only add to the burden of relief efforts and slow overall recovery. Everyone should be a prepper to some extent or another BUT as long as we live in a FREE society it can’t really be mandated.


By comparison, we wear our seatbelts in case we are in an accident, not because we want to have one.
Same logic applies but on a different scale.

Quote:
When it comes to owning large numbers of guns, I wonder what the divide is between collectors and survivalist scenario fans.


There really is no divide nor should there be. You can be both a collector and a prepper or whatever….