Guns

[ledhed]

This is not a hard subject . The basic right of an individual to defend themselves. Firearms are a tool. They truly make all men and women more equal . This is not a utopian society.
Police are basically the clean up crew available after your raped or murdered or assaulted and beaten into parallel universe.
Every person deserves the right of basic self defense. And in the USA that chance is provided by a right in the Constitution.
Its no guarantee of life or success at defense only a guaranteed of a chance.
The other purpose of the Right to bear arms is to serve as the Sword to preserve the words that form the bill of rights.
" A covenant without a sword is just words " .
The founders knew this from historical fact. So they armed the people . So that a government by and for the people would be viable.
Read their thoughts on the matter, the framers of the Constitution wrote extensively on the subject.
Its refered to in the SCOTUS decisions on the individual right to bear arms.
Its a fact of life in the USA. If your against the amendment then change it .
Good luck with that as you will not find many sheep to sign away the right of personal self defense unless you create a world were the strong will not prey on the weak.

 

[Zenith]

You're mixing the reasons stated in the Constitution and general reasons for self defense into an inconsistent argument.

 

[FoolKiller]

Illegal/legal is not the point. The point is judging purely on possibilities as opposed to realities.

I am probably failing to understand. It gets confusing when you keep comparing it to gadgets and beer.

Let's roll it back to the lowest common denominator. Of guns, just guns, what are the possibilities and realities that you see in purchasing decisions, and what is the problem you see in it?

I think anti-gun sentiments will be increasing rather than abating. Going by conversation in here (let alone what I'd find "out there"),

Judging American sentiment based on an international discussion topic?

the marketing by gun-rights people in general is stuck in the dark ages. "Kill them with kindness" as @Nicksfix put it for example is stuck in the dark ages.

And you think tactics like this, this, and these are progressive?

It pretty much requires "Stop arguiiiiiiiiing.... now!" But that's not going to happen. It's the established tension that gives perpetual motion, and the anti people hold the cards, it's just a matter of time. What "you" do in the face of that is the only variable. I've presented opinions on what resounds with me as a non-gun person, but that was immediately lost amidst presupposition. Not by you specifically.

If gun owners don't respond then wouldn't it appear as if the populace is accepting of the idea? What happens when they don't counter protest or show up at city council meetings?

I've already stated that I think nearly every anti-gun argument I've seen in here has been idiotic, and I stand by that.

About you think it is better than what you called stuck in the dark ages?

And look, my point is that you can claim to think both sides have issues with their arguments, but following it up with saying that the problem is the attitudes of the "shooters" doesn't make people take your ambivalent act seriously.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/eight-children-found-dead-home-cairns-australia-n271426

Turns out you do end up with mass-killings involving knives. Who would've guessed?

 

[Swagger897]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/eight-children-found-dead-home-cairns-australia-n271426

Turns out you do end up with mass-killings involving knives. Who would've guessed?

That's pretty sad stuff..

On another note from a different story, my local news channels have been making a big deal about a serial killer and the gun he uses. Of course, naturally, they are a bit clueless down here and all of them think they're the national news..

Anyways, it was a Taurus Judge and they were cracking down a lot on how it can use a shotgun shell as well, also saying "the most deadly of it's type"... Pretty much generalizing because all guns are deadly, depends whose hands it's in..

 

[Blood Eagle]

The Taurus Judge is a niche gun with a limited potential but that's none of my business.

 

[LeMansAid]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/eight-children-found-dead-home-cairns-australia-n271426

Turns out you do end up with mass-killings involving knives. Who would've guessed?

Fair's fair I suppose. With shootings, there's generally a heartless point scoring affair instigated by the anti gun crowd.

In more point scoring news, with the recent Sydney seige ( https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/hostage-drama-in-sydney.321119/ ) - there's been plenty of suggestion that the seige would not have happened at all in a place with looser gun regulations. However, reports suggested that snipers didn't take the guy out because there was concern that he may have had explosives on him. Given that it seems he had no intention of trying to make it out alive, it's hardly a far-flung reservation to hold, and hardly suggests that Monis would have refrained based on cafe-goers potentially being armed. So what of the average civilian with a handgun? Would Joe Blow have made it blow?

Interested to get your thoughts on this @prisonermonkeys.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

"Plenty of suggestion"?

Please, I have heard it from two people in twenty-four million. One of them blatantly misrepresented the opinions of many people for the sake of telling FOX News what they wanted to hear (that guns are good). The other is a senator from a micro-party who has a share of the balance of power in an extremely hostile senate, so I suspect it's a bargaining tactic.

The reality is that Australia has never had much of a gun culture. We do not have a right to bear arms, and the Port Arthur Massacre penetrated the national consciousness like never before (at least until the Martin Place Siege). Gun ownership is possible, but acquiring a gun licence is notoriously difficult. And while there are high (by national standards) rates of gun crime in Sydney, most of the trafficking and use of illegal weapons is limited to biker gangs and small crime syndicates. They mostly keep to themselves, and only pose a danger to the public because they aren't very good shots.

To my mind, changing gun laws in the wake of the Martin Place Siege is a case of treating symptoms, rather than a disease. Monis likely would have found a way to do what he did regardless of the law.

 

[LeMansAid]

@prisonermonkeys With plenty o', I wasn't just talking about Aussies.

I tagged you since you seemed to closely follow the Monis situation, and are a libertarian. For me, I can see how the situation could have actually been a lot worse with Joe Blow's gun in play.

I have no interest in our laws being changed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You could say I "closely followed" it - one of my closest friends works within two hundred metres of Martin Place.

I wouldn't exactly describe myself as libertarian. I'm progressive, and I look towards libertarians on some subjects, but I'm centre-left on the political spectrum.

 

[LeMansAid]

I wouldn't exactly describe myself as libertarian.

I'll happily describe myself as libertarian, though not to extremes (and not when it comes to fiscal policy). While conservatism has its place, I have often found it to be out-dated and unwilling to accept new ideas. And I have never been comfortable with the idea of a natural hierarchy in society, usually because it favours people who had the good fortune to be born into the right family. Maybe it's because I live in a country where political ideology gets exaggerated and it's becoming more and more about personality and less and less about policy.

That's what I was going on.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

See the "not to extremes" part? I've since decided that I don't quite qualify for the title of libertarian. I'm probably a step or two down.

 

[LeMansAid]

No worries.

@a6m5, @LMSCorvetteGT2, @Badasp5.0, @Keef et al. It seems like quite a conundrum to me. Faced with people that are willing and even wanting to die in the name of a cause, civilians with guns could quickly go from hero to villain. Ignore the issue of the volatile burgeoning belts, and we may well get some deadly fireworks. Recognise and publicise the danger of such explosive outerwear, and criminals will naturally think that fake explosives strapped to them + maybe a headband with Arabic writing on it will give them impunity somewhat. Thoughts?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No worries.

@a6m5, @LMSCorvetteGT2, @Badasp5.0, @Keef et al. It seems like quite a conundrum to me. Faced with people that are willing and even wanting to die in the name of a cause, civilians with guns could quickly go from hero to villain. Ignore the issue of the volatile burgeoning belts, and we may well get some deadly fireworks. Recognise and publicise the danger of such explosive outerwear, and criminals will naturally think that fake explosives strapped to them + maybe a headband with Arabic writing on it will give them impunity somewhat. Thoughts?

Okay, your point? Or do you feel that the obvious non-argument PM is giving you is cause to bring others into an argument they have already had and don't wish to go in circles with you again on? Actually that's rhetorical because me answering you in any length is just fodder for you to push forward your agenda, so in closing thanks for the acknowledgement but no thanks on the needless battle. If you want a refresher look back through the 106 pages provided and just fantasize how you'd recounter those points. Have a good day.

 

[LeMansAid]

I quite like the idea of having no issue with guns in society, but I'm not going in to that blindly. When I come across an awkward fit with gun freedom I probe it. I've read quite a lot of the 106 pages, but don't recall anything touching on this particular tangent.

Sorry I tapped on your can Oscar.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I quite like the idea of having no issue with guns in society, but I'm not going in to that blindly. When I come across an awkward fit with gun freedom I probe it. I've read quite a lot of the 106 pages, but don't recall anything touching on this particular tangent.

Sorry I tapped on your can Oscar.

No worries at all, and next time send a carrier pigeon instead they tend to not tap so loud on my tin can . Also I'm sure if you dig hard enough you can piece together the answers to this tangent, since would be shooters with a cause that is against the law is no different than the bank robber killing the bank teller on the way out with the money that isn't his. Anyways, as I said before good day and good luck.

 

[a6m5]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what the question is. Like LMS stated though, I think the position by the Pro-Second Amendment type's been pretty well established in this thread? It also doesn't help that I haven't really followed the hostage crisis, except of what I read in couple of news articles.

It's pretty late here, too. If I'm missing something obvious, I do apologize!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Or do you feel that the obvious non-argument PM is giving you is cause to bring others into an argument they have already had and don't wish to go in circles with you again on?

It's a non-argument because there is no national discussion of it. It was talked about by a handful of people for all of five minutes, then it was forgotten and we moved on.

 

[Keef]

No worries.

@a6m5, @LMSCorvetteGT2, @Badasp5.0, @Keef et al. It seems like quite a conundrum to me. Faced with people that are willing and even wanting to die in the name of a cause, civilians with guns could quickly go from hero to villain. Ignore the issue of the volatile burgeoning belts, and we may well get some deadly fireworks. Recognise and publicise the danger of such explosive outerwear, and criminals will naturally think that fake explosives strapped to them + maybe a headband with Arabic writing on it will give them impunity somewhat. Thoughts?

There is an obvious benefit to not only everyone being allowed to carry guns but even moreso to knowing that everyone is carrying a gun. Here is a news story from the other day which took place at my local mall, about two miles from my house in near Dayton.

http://wdtn.com/2014/12/22/mall-shooting-over-athletic-shoes/

The kid didn't expect retaliation. He expected the person to surrender and give up the merchandise. Do you think that if he knew the robbery victim had a gun also and would protect himself that he still would have attempted the robbery?

When two people have the same ability to kill each other there is no room for conflict. You either be friendly or you walk the other way. Whether a bad person thinks real or fake guns, real or fake bombs are a good idea, if they knew every single person around them was indeed holding real weapons and had been trained to defend themselves if they felt they or anybody else were in danger, instigating a situation suddenly doesn't seem quite as beneficial.

And no, I don't think it's a fragile peace, either. It's not like the Cold War. There are so many individuals interacting in so many ways in modern society that a person being interested in screwing it up is extremely rare. And if everyone had guns it would be even more rare. There is too much interest in working peacefully with others to conduct your business without issue. In a world where everyone is trained to defend themselves with firearms, everyone is aware of the negative consequences and will work with others to avoid them.

 

[Lizard]

The issue is that for guns to work you have to know you can shoot each other, kill them and that someone else will shoot you back and kill you as a guarantee. Do you really expect that 90 year old pensioner to be able to respond like someone who just got out the military? No. Do you let everyone shoot others because they shot someone else? No you call the police and then they get someone arrested and it just isn't the same response. Hence an uneasy peace.

For the fear to be there you need everyone to be equally able to hit each other which you won't have unless everyone is the same age and has the same gun and the same training and you forget the police. A bit like nuclear weapons. The very reason there was a treaty limiting not the nuclear weapons but the weapon defences as for the peace you had to know the other side couldn't defend itself from your strike and likewise you couldn't defend yourself from their strike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
When you have people able to defend themselves against your strike or possibly suffer a lot less injury you create uncertainty problems.

 

[Swagger897]

There is an obvious benefit to not only everyone being allowed to carry guns but even moreso to knowing that everyone is carrying a gun. Here is a news story from the other day which took place at my local mall, about two miles from my house in near Dayton.

http://wdtn.com/2014/12/22/mall-shooting-over-athletic-shoes/

The kid didn't expect retaliation. He expected the person to surrender and give up the merchandise. Do you think that if he knew the robbery victim had a gun also and would protect himself that he still would have attempted the robbery?

When two people have the same ability to kill each other there is no room for conflict. You either be friendly or you walk the other way. Whether a bad person thinks real or fake guns, real or fake bombs are a good idea, if they knew every single person around them was indeed holding real weapons and had been trained to defend themselves if they felt they or anybody else were in danger, instigating a situation suddenly doesn't seem quite as beneficial.

And no, I don't think it's a fragile peace, either. It's not like the Cold War. There are so many individuals interacting in so many ways in modern society that a person being interested in screwing it up is extremely rare. And if everyone had guns it would be even more rare. There is too much interest in working peacefully with others to conduct your business without issue. In a world where everyone is trained to defend themselves with firearms, everyone is aware of the negative consequences and will work with others to avoid them.

Good find. Glad to see that news station not have any bias unlike mine...

The issue is that for guns to work you have to know you can shoot each other, kill them and that someone else will shoot you back and kill you as a guarantee.

Not exactly...
Whether or not the kid could get a shot off or not, that's a bit of a factor. If you use a gun for self defense, the basic rule is to not say anything. If you pull it out, the gun is gonna do the job, not your mouth.

The kid was using the gun as a fear tactic, and there's no way possible he could expect no one else to have one. That's near impossible to think you're the only one with a gun.

However, since my cousins and aunts live in Ohio, I know how strict their gun rights are in comparison to Georgia's. The kid had the gun illegally, the other man didn't. It wasn't the kid's day to go to the store, cut through, and attempt to rob the man. He got shot for his choices, a fair punishment when you pull a gun on a defenseless person, regardless of strength.

Instilling fear into everyone by having the same of everything is ridiculous too, a tactic which I think wont work, even with the treaty you linked. One still can be crazy enough to do it. Even with that treaty, that only has two variables. You can't expect a treaty/agreement between 7 billion people to work either...

 

[ClydeYellow]

Define "moderate control".

I think owning guns should require a permit, and to acquire such permit one should first present a certificate of mental health and a gun handling certificate, at the very least.

I also think people shouldn't be met with very strict limits on what kind and quantity of guns can they own (although I support limitations on the number of ammunition that could legally be owned at the same time) and that shooting guns with professional oversight shouldn't require a permit.

Would that be "moderate" control?

 

[LeMansAid]

http://wdtn.com/2014/12/22/mall-shooting-over-athletic-shoes/

The kid didn't expect retaliation. He expected the person to surrender and give up the merchandise. Do you think that if he knew the robbery victim had a gun also and would protect himself that he still would have attempted the robbery?

The thing that turns it upside down is when someone expects to die during their adventure, not just "do a runner" with some runners. The average person surely can't be expected to determine whether or not the bad guy has real explosives or fake explosives on them. Do you say "shoot and hope"?, "don't shoot, just in case"? When the logic of one protecting their own life is gone, all power is wrested away from the civilian with a gun, and actually makes them potentially a great danger to all in the vicinity.

If everyone adhered to the logic of protecting their own life, it would be a non-issue, but that's not the world we live in.

 

[FoolKiller]

The thing that turns it upside down is when someone expects to die during their adventure,

That turns every scenario on its head. It's the exception to the rule. The extreme. It is no win in every situation.

It is not an argument for or against any policy.it It is like saying a military strategy fails when the opposing force plans to blow a nuke no matter what.

 

[LeMansAid]

That turns every scenario on its head.

I agree.

It's the exception to the rule. The extreme. It is no win in every situation.

I agree. Though we really don't know how common place it could become, but it's also a question of whether we end up going from bad to worse. There's no win, but potentially also a greater loss.

It is not an argument for or against any policy.it It is like saying a military strategy fails when the opposing force plans to blow a nuke no matter what.

It's a little different. It's more like the US training and arming another country's militants to fight against a common enemy, only to have those same militants ultimately fighting against the US. It's when your own weapon is used against you, and not just when your weapons and strategy could not contend with madness.

I call it madness, but who's to say really? People from different cultures value individual lives to different degrees. For cultures that venerate the people over the individual, and the cause over the people, maybe it's equal to "our" form of logic.

Interrogating the idea of "we are safer with guns", one has to take the the good with the bad, the effective with the ineffective/counter-effective. When David Leyonhjelm (who I'm assuming is the Australian libertarian politician you pointed to in the America thread a while back) stated that the recent Sydney seige would not have happened in a place with greater gun freedom, my first reaction was "maybe he's right", but I then tempered that with realisation that the concept is at the mercy of the human condition and it's current and future permutations.

Maybe Australia would be safer with more guns in the hands of good people, but regardless, I don't believe it's a universal or timeless principle.

 

[FoolKiller]

Whether you think more guns are safer or not doesn't change the fact that crazy is unpredictable and no amount of banning will stop them, as seen in Oklahoma City and the Boston Marathon. Those were home goods that anyone can find and learn how to turn into a bomb.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Guns, guns, guns and guns.
Americans love to kill things, and seem to think it is a god given right. Whats funny is their is no writings stating god believes in an Americans right to own a 50 calibre sniper that can kill from up to a mile away.
Nor does it state in the constitution that the regular every day citizen can own a gun.
It says a well regulated militia. We have that, it is called the National Guard. So why would a non National Guard citizen require to own a AK47, or any similar rifle?
The urbanization of the cities we have today could be a reason, putting more people in close proximity of each other, raising the factors of theft and robbery and even murder, but we've already passed that by now with how easy it is to acquire a gun.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Guns, guns, guns and guns.
Americans love to kill things, and seem to think it is a god given right. Whats funny is their is no writings stating god believes in an Americans right to own a 50 calibre sniper that can kill from up to a mile away.
Nor does it state in the constitution that the regular every day citizen can own a gun.
It says a well regulated militia. We have that, it is called the National Guard. So why would a non National Guard citizen require to own a AK47, or any similar rifle?
The urbanization of the cities we have today could be a reason, putting more people in close proximity of each other, raising the factors of theft and robbery and even murder, but we've already passed that by now with how easy it is to acquire a gun.

That's not funny, what's funny is people still believe in a Abrahamic God as a useful basis for an argument. Now if you want to argue god and better yet why any celestial being of higher power would delve in the personal bs of people, we can in the god thread. As for the constitution it's been explained on here, and if you like to read only the first part, it also says the right of people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed. There has also been historical evidence given to show they did mean people as the individual and not a group as well. And the simple fact that people having individual ownership is what helped them combat the empire...that's why it was imposed to some extent it could be said.

If you agree with the idea that's a different thing, the idea may never be used nor help with the technology a government now posses.

 

[a6m5]

Alcohol, alcohol, alcohol and alcohol.

Americans love to drink, and they seem to think it's their god given right. What's funny is that there is nothing in writing indicating that god believe in the right of the Americans to party so loud it could be heard from a mile away. Nor does it state in the Constitution that the regular everyday citizen could party. Ads say drink responsibly. We have that. They are called Kobe Beef. So why would Non-Kobe Beef be required to drink beer? The urbanization in the cities we have today puts more people in close proximity of each other, causing the drunks to raise the factors of hit & run, abuse, rape and even murder, but we already established that by now by making alcohold accessible to Non-Kobe Beef. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Joel]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for .50BMG rifles that can shoot a mile. .458 Winchester mag is OK"

Didn't you guys read the constitution?

In all seriousness has a .50BMG rifle ever been used in a murder/public shooting/assassination in the US? I guess we have a new low hanging fruit after assault weapons became passé.