Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Page 6 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,087
Location: Seattle-ish

06 Mar 2012, 12:23 am

simon_says wrote:
Have a nice day bubba.


I think we just got called rednecks... *sighs*


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Mar 2012, 1:34 am

What's the we? You two are like talking to Sybil. Is there a third personality?



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

06 Mar 2012, 1:37 am

Dox47 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Have a nice day bubba.


I think we just got called rednecks... *sighs*


Hey Dox47,

Watch the insults to former Loompanics Unlimited's redneck academic customers who at least know the 2nd Law!! !

And, it's not contradicted by refrigerators, nor by the Law of Large Numbers (though that one tends to gets past ruveyn all the time).

You sure side-tracked the Castle Doctrine discussion, while whining endlessly about no one else sticking to the thread that "The just-passed Minnesota bill to expand 'Castle Doctrine' gun rights should be called the Shoot First law," as, to you, it only involves your self-centric experiences with any assumed self-evident right to bear arms (firearms), and absolutely nothing else.

Tadzio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loompanics



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

06 Mar 2012, 2:41 am

Raptor wrote:
I wouldn’t really need a sub-machinegun to kill off several people. As riflemen go, I consider myself only fair to maybe good on a good day. Give me a concealed vantage point over a high pedestrian traffic area and my old pre-WW1 Swedish Mauser (a 6.5mm five shot bolt action rifle with open sights) and I can hit people out to 300+ yards all day as long as they present themselves. That would go on until I ran out of ammo or the cops finally manned up and stopped me.

The lesson there is that the weapon is only as dangerous as the user. Give a street creep a sub-machinegun with a 30 round mag and I doubt he’d hit but a few people with fatal or disabling hits and probably half of those 30 rounds would miss entirely due to lack of control and generally poor tactics.

CCW map of the United States

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

Hi Raptor,

Please use at least a more passive, or 3rd person, for dire hypotheticals as such.

Parts of your post could be taken as a possible sign of a foreboding in future hindsight. I don't wish the burden with subjectively feasible consideration of over-reaction/inaction including such possible coincidental social burden from too sensitive or insensitive error or reasonable misreading, as reading the works of fiction allegedly penned by Seung-Hui Cho made public well after the fact was still too close to having been subjected to actualizable warnings, instead of previously only hypotheticals.

Tadzio



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,087
Location: Seattle-ish

06 Mar 2012, 3:56 am

simon_says wrote:
What's the we? You two are like talking to Sybil. Is there a third personality?


Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status. As an urban and urbane gun owner, I take umbrage to the stereotypes so commonly used on us, hence my shared annoyance. I think guns is possibly the only area of politics where Raptor and I tend to completely agree, he's more of a traditional conservative while I'm a non-orthodox libertarian.

Now if you'd care to bring an original argument to the gun debate you might get some more original responses; as I mentioned before I've fought this exact fight many times (as has Raptor), and both of us tend to have the same weariness towards debunking the same claims and the same hyperbole for the umpteenth time.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Mar 2012, 4:06 am

Dox47 wrote:
Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status.


I don't know, it might have more to do with Raptor's well known love of the Confederacy than his views on firearms


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Mar 2012, 8:17 am

Dox47 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Have a nice day bubba.


I think we just got called rednecks... *sighs*


It was a weak parting shot by someone that's lost an un-winnable debate. Coming from him we should take it as a compliment. :D



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Mar 2012, 10:33 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Like I said, both would help. Fighting poverty and social injustice prevents violent crimes that are caused by economic desperation. Whereas taking guns out of the hands of civilians prevents people from shooting their spouse in the heat of the moment over a domestic disagreement. It also prevents antisocial kids from taking their father's .45 to school and shooting their math teacher. Not all crime is caused by poverty.
Not all crime is caused by poverty, but since poverty is a societal issue rather than a personal issue like insanity or sadism then that means it is more statistically significant, Also just to clarify, I'm not from the "Poverty causes crime" school of thought. I think it's more like people who lack impulse control when it comes to violence lack impulse control in other areas of their life which makes them dysfunctional. I also don't believe that crimes are mostly committed out of desperation, but because they're like that to begin with. The criminal underworld is about money, power, and respect not survival. But anyways, poverty does breed dysfunctional subcultures which make bad people worse so that's what I see as the problem.

And you seriously think the average joe would be capable of such an overreaction to the point where it becomes statistically significant? You really need to check your concept of human nature. Because it's mostly repeat offenders that have the propensity for that sort of thing. I wouldn't worry about the average joe since most people wouldn't even resort to hitting a woman, let alone shooting one.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Quote:
Where's the correlation between legal gun ownership and gun-related homicides?

Image


I think I already explained that in relation to German school shootings.
You're right, anecdotes totally trump statistics :roll:.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
No one except the police. Of course they're likely not around when I'm being robbed in some dark alley, but I'd rather hand over my wallet than take the chance to draw a gun on a criminal who is also pointing a gun at me. Chances are that he'll shoot first.

Btw, I've never been robbed, burglarized or assaulted in Germany. The only time I've been robbed was in the streets of Amsterdam, where I suddenly had a knife at my throat. I doubt that a gun would have done me much good in that situation. But handing my wallet over did the trick. Perhaps I'm just a spineless idealist, but I believe that most conflicts can be solved without violence. If I lose some money in the process, that is a better outcome than getting myself injured or killed, and/or injuring or killing another person.
Who said you should pull a gun out if you already have one pulled out on you? That says a lot about how you condescendingly view gun owners. You do know that just because someone owns a gun it doesn't mean that person thinks a gun is a hammer and every problem is a nail right? And you do know that being a gun owner doesn't automatically mean you think pulling a gun out is a first resort right? Handing over your money when you have a gun pointed at you isn't spineless idealism, but thinking that gun control would've prevented him from having a gun to point at you in the first place is. It's also spinelessly idealistic to think cops should monopolize the deadly use of force just because you can't count on yourself to be responsible for your own safety.

There are gun owners who advocate things like conflict resolution/avoidance and situational awareness. Avoid sketchy areas, avoid being a douche that provokes violence, know how criminals typically position themselves to set you up, and watch yourself within fringe areas of public establishments.

Situational awareness would've helped in your case. Criminals always position themselves in ways that set you up for their crimes. There are always telltale signs that something's about to go wrong. Knowing which areas you should keep an eye out for and what type of maneuvers you should look out for is the key.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Obtained illegaly as in stolen from someone's nightstand. With a gun in every other household, it's quite easy for criminals to obtain one.
Theft only constitutes 10-15% of guns obtained illegally. 40% of guns obtained illegally are bought from the streets and the other 40% is simply given to them by a friend or family member.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Crooks also have less use for guns in a widely gun-free country. Someone who plans to break into a house with a potentially armed owner badly needs a gun himself. Moreover, he will be very much inclined to shoot the house owner on sight. A German burglar might as well take his chances and run when he's caught in the act. This admittedly makes it harder for people to defend their property, but they're also less likely to get shot by a scared and desperate criminal. And also less likely to shoot some misguided teenager, I might add.
Or it would deter crooks from even entering a house in the first place. They aren't going to toughen themselves up accordingly to the laws. If they were already capable of breaking into a house knowing that people are in it and they might have to use force, they aren't going to suddenly become more violent if they weren't already capable of it. They aren't change their MO from running if caught in the act to guns blazing all the sudden just because of gun laws.

The UK has an incredibly high rate of violent crimes at 2034/100,000 compared to the US which has 466/100,000. It is the highest out of all European countries while the US is even lower than that of all the countries on the list.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

I know jack s**t about how British society is like in terms of its social and economic climate, but I do know that Britain has a lot of nanny state laws and none of that s**t has had any effect on its social or economic issues. Could it possibly be because you're more likely to get shot for trying to pull some punk ass s**t on someone in the US so it acts as a deterrent? Not that I'm saying legal gun ownership has any correlation to firearm-related homicide. I actually would say that there is none since it is usually crooks murdering other crooks. But I have seen that legal gun ownership does have an effect on crime overall.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Quote:
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?


When it comes to drugs, it clearly doesn't work. People aren't addicted to guns though. Gun prohibition seems to work a whole lot better than drug prohibition. And even if that wasn't the case, the fact that law enforcement is not 100% effective in preventing crime doesn't mean that we should simply give up and decriminalize everything.
Once again, my chart shows that gun control does jack s**t when it comes to firearm-related homicides. So prove that there's a correlation between legal gun ownership and firearm-related deaths.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
I'm against drug prohibition for different reasons though. The government has no business dictating what I may ingest or otherwise inject into my body. It won't harm anyone but myself.
And likewise the Government has no business dictating what I "need" when it comes to a gun. I wouldn't get asked why I "need" a Murcielago or a Monte Carlo so there's no reason I should be asked why I "need" a certain gun.

Does this mean I think rocket launchers and grenades should be legal? No. Bullets are meant to kill people while explosives are meant to destroy things that bullets can't.

I haven't heard of rice burners being banned yet for looking like they have too much horsepower, so assault rifles shouldn't be banned just because they look too military. And if you think that's a strawman, look up the Brady Campaign. They literally propose banning "assault weapons" merely because of cosmetic features whether or not they have any functional features that would make the gun more "dangerous". I'm not even kidding, they want to ban them just because they look scary.

Dox47 wrote:
What is really needed is for the people who don't know what they're talking (or typing) about to sit on their hands.
I know! People really need to stay in their goddamn lanes. Upholding Humanistic ideals and how things ought to be seems to be more important to them than actually having knowledge on guns and a clear perception of human nature as it is. Not that I think knowing facts about guns is as cut and dried as human nature since human nature is a lot more subjective to interpretation, but it seems to me that they are more interested in mentally masturbating over lofty ideals than actually making thorough observations on things as they are.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 06 Mar 2012, 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Mar 2012, 10:53 am

Dox47 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
What's the we? You two are like talking to Sybil. Is there a third personality?


Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status. As an urban and urbane gun owner, I take umbrage to the stereotypes so commonly used on us, hence my shared annoyance. I think guns is possibly the only area of politics where Raptor and I tend to completely agree, he's more of a traditional conservative while I'm a non-orthodox libertarian.

Now if you'd care to bring an original argument to the gun debate you might get some more original responses; as I mentioned before I've fought this exact fight many times (as has Raptor), and both of us tend to have the same weariness towards debunking the same claims and the same hyperbole for the umpteenth time.


Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.

My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

06 Mar 2012, 11:47 am

What could go wrong. Ready, Fire, Aim. That's American politics today.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Mar 2012, 12:08 pm

simon_says wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
What's the we? You two are like talking to Sybil. Is there a third personality?


Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status. As an urban and urbane gun owner, I take umbrage to the stereotypes so commonly used on us, hence my shared annoyance. I think guns is possibly the only area of politics where Raptor and I tend to completely agree, he's more of a traditional conservative while I'm a non-orthodox libertarian.

Now if you'd care to bring an original argument to the gun debate you might get some more original responses; as I mentioned before I've fought this exact fight many times (as has Raptor), and both of us tend to have the same weariness towards debunking the same claims and the same hyperbole for the umpteenth time.


Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.

My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.


I can't see where I've done any whining. Insulting? Possibly if you're overly sensitive but you implying that legally armed citizens are inept and a danger to themselves and the public was insulting. I've objectively answered all these concerns in your "context" but all you've done is repeat yoursef ad nauseum.
Anyone who would disarm innocent citizens in the face of the threats they are arming themselves against IS an insult. There's no way I could top that.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

07 Mar 2012, 1:55 am

Raptor wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.

My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.


I can't see where I've done any whining. Insulting? Possibly if you're overly sensitive but you implying that legally armed citizens are inept and a danger to themselves and the public was insulting. I've objectively answered all these concerns in your "context" but all you've done is repeat yoursef ad nauseum.
Anyone who would disarm innocent citizens in the face of the threats they are arming themselves against IS an insult. There's no way I could top that.



Hi Raptar, Dox47, AceOfSpades,

"In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death:

Suicide 16,883;
Homicide 12,791;
Accident 642;
Legal Intervention 360;
Undetermined 220.

This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S."

"The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S."

The justifiable homicide by weapon weilding private citizens against felons in 2006 was 238, of which 192 "defended" themselves with firearms.

The "16,100%-against-ONE" odds make expanding the notions of any increased defense of availability, through firearms, of "justifiable homicide by firearm weilding private citizen" being promoted as something completely sound, and the better use of logic, seem like nonsense propagated through the blatherings of individuals who are very inept, and dangerous to themselves and the public in general, with their faulty logic decisions, to take any action involving weighted judgments in actually utilizing firearms.

Tadzio

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_15.html



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Mar 2012, 7:35 pm

Tadzio wrote:
Raptor wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.

My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.


I can't see where I've done any whining. Insulting? Possibly if you're overly sensitive but you implying that legally armed citizens are inept and a danger to themselves and the public was insulting. I've objectively answered all these concerns in your "context" but all you've done is repeat yoursef ad nauseum.
Anyone who would disarm innocent citizens in the face of the threats they are arming themselves against IS an insult. There's no way I could top that.



Hi Raptar, Dox47, AceOfSpades,

"In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death:

Suicide 16,883;
Homicide 12,791;
Accident 642;
Legal Intervention 360;
Undetermined 220.

This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S."

"The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S."

The justifiable homicide by weapon weilding private citizens against felons in 2006 was 238, of which 192 "defended" themselves with firearms.

The "16,100%-against-ONE" odds make expanding the notions of any increased defense of availability, through firearms, of "justifiable homicide by firearm weilding private citizen" being promoted as something completely sound, and the better use of logic, seem like nonsense propagated through the blatherings of individuals who are very inept, and dangerous to themselves and the public in general, with their faulty logic decisions, to take any action involving weighted judgments in actually utilizing firearms.

Tadzio

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_15.html



I don’t know why I’m doing this, but………..

So what do those statistics tell us?
This is assuming that these statistics are accurate but they seem a bit embellished to me. I’ve done my own research on this and other highly controversial topics before and have never gotten consistent figures.
Even the #1 cause of death in general, aside from natural causes, can vary significantly from one study to another. One thing for certain is that the #1 cause is NEVER gun related.
I can pretty much find statistics to support anything I want and so can you.

For the purpose of this debate let’s call these figures accurate, anyway:

Suicide16,883 : These are in a class by themselves. This is self-inflicted so it shouldn’t even be under consideration. If I purposely drive a nail into one of my tires I don’t count that as being caused by nails or any other road hazard. I’m not totally without some experience on the suicide topic.

Homicide 12,791: That’s pretty much as self-defeating as can be if you’re arguing against *armed citizens. If homicide is that much of an issue then it stands to reason that there needs to be more armed citizens to counter a homicide attempt against them.

Accident 642: Not really that bad of a number considering the population and all the other causes. This could be cut down significantly by familiarization, preferably at an early age. Gun related accidents, like most accidents, are caused by lack of knowledge and/or carelessness. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone, usually a mother, vow that her kids are NEVER going to touch a gun so therefor have no need for any kind of firearms safety training / familiarization. They must be planning on riding herd on their kids 100 % for the rest of their lives or they’re just grossly negligent. I can’t help but wonder how many accidental firearms deaths and injuries this head in the sand approach has caused. This state requires firearms safety training prior to issuance of carry licenses.

Legal Intervention 360: A good portion of these interventions are de-escalated without shots fired when the would be victim presents his/her firearm in an aggressive manner. I have a little experience with this, too.
A lot of these close call cases go totally unreported for one reason or another.

*Armed citizen being defined as a law abiding citizen armed for the sole purpose of lawful self-defense against assault which could result in death or serious injury.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

07 Mar 2012, 7:44 pm

One also has to guard against raptors, who might attempt to scratch one's eyes.


_________________
hyperlexian: "WP is not society"


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

07 Mar 2012, 8:08 pm

Whether it's legal or not people are going to shoot each other for stupid reasons anyway.

I don't really see the issue with letting me defend myself.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

07 Mar 2012, 8:13 pm

People will always shoot for stupid reasons, but if they do they should go to jail rather than be freed because they "defended themselves" by shooting the suspicious Latino delivering pizza in the house next door.


_________________
.