Gun control

[bigred]

Well, although I don't golf, I could probably kill you with a #3 wood, but it would probably be easier with a #6 iron . . .

Handguns have a very definite niche in the history of the U.S. and is used in several sports enjoyed by responsible and mature citizens. Perhaps we should ban #6 irons in the hands of the "wrong person?"

lol - your argument has gone from weak to atrophy. You can't be serious. Do you seriously think these are even remotely valid comparisons?

Surprised you didn't pull out the old "well cars kill people too so should we ban cars" silliness.

 

[bigred]

I'll ask you...what other methods of self defense would you advocate to a person, that would be as effective as a handgun?

You missed (or ignored) the point entirely, ie the most effective way to defend one's self is far from the only consideration regarding to what degree handguns (or anything else) should or shouldn't be accessible. If that's all we cared about, then hey let's legalize (and make easier) the private ownership of uzis, chem warfare weaponry, tanks, etc etc etc.

 

[Mephisto]

lol - your argument has gone from weak to atrophy. You can't be serious. Do you seriously think these are even remotely valid comparisons?

Surprised you didn't pull out the old "well cars kill people too so should we ban cars" silliness.

That's already been done in this thread and it IS a valid argument since both an automobile and a firearm are tools.

How about kitchen knives? Do you know that steak knives play a big part in domestic violence (as many arguments happen at the dinner table), maybe we should ban steak knives?

And IF my argument has gone from weak to atrophied, where is YOUR argument? I don't see anything viable coming from you either.

 

[Mephisto]

You missed (or ignored) the point entirely, ie the most effective way to defend one's self is far from the only consideration regarding to what degree handguns (or anything else) should or shouldn't be accessible. If that's all we cared about, then hey let's legalize (and make easier) the private ownership of uzis, chem warfare weaponry, tanks, etc etc etc.

That's an excellent argument - going from one extreme to another. Hey, it works for me - I wouldn't mind owning an M-79 grenade launcher or maybe a Bradley with a .50 on top.

I suppose your idea of a utopian society is everyone running around armed to the teeth with salad and good intentions?

 

[bigred]

That's already been done in this thread and it IS a valid argument since both an automobile and a firearm are tools.

How about kitchen knives? Do you know that steak knives play a big part in domestic violence (as many arguments happen at the dinner table), maybe we should ban steak knives?

And IF my argument has gone from weak to atrophied, where is YOUR argument? I don't see anything viable coming from you either.

I've already made several, but you keep ignoring them and trying to draw me into this very old and very ridiculous "point" whose logic has holes big enough to drive a truck though - which I suspect you know anyway. Sorry not biting.

 

[Freakshow]

You missed (or ignored) the point entirely, ie the most effective way to defend one's self is far from the only consideration regarding to what degree handguns (or anything else) should or shouldn't be accessible.

Actually, it is the only thing I care about. Violent crimes rates can be handled in much more effective methods than banning guns.

If that's all we cared about, then hey let's legalize (and make easier) the private ownership of uzis, chem warfare weaponry, tanks, etc etc etc.

Strawman.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah I bet that happens a lot, given how often people advertise that they're armed and all.

When they do happen, they're unlikely to make the news, so the actual frequency is unknown.

This thread began with a report of one such incident.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't follow. When a woman wears a revealing dress, she also brings certain possible consequences into being, but no reasonable person would say that responsibility lies with her if she gets raped.

Except getting raped is not a reasonable consequence of wearing a revealing dress. Getting shot is a reasonable consequence of attacking someone.

A claim, I suppose. When you're dead you can never be happy again, whereas when you're a rape victim, it is merely harder to be happy. Therefore, death is worse.

When you're dead, all suffering has ended. When you're raped, suffering has just began.

 

[Freakshow]

When they do happen, they're unlikely to make the news, so the actual frequency is unknown.

This thread began with a report of one such incident.

I don't advertise that I'm armed, but I do advertise that I am a very poor choice of victim.

I walk confidently, with my head held high. I look around a lot, to pay attention to my surroundings. When I walk past a corner, I walk 6 or 7 feet away from it, and LOOK around the corner as I am walking past it. (When you are 6 or 7 feet away, someone hiding there can't spring out and grab you the way they could if you walk just 1 or 2 feet from the corner.) I pause and look around before getting into my car. I park my car in well-lit open areas. If I am parking in a garage, I park near the stairs or elevator, which is where lots of other people will be walking by. If someone happens to be walking behind me, I will glance behind and look right at them, to let them know that I know they are there.

Criminals are predators, just like animal predators. They look for easy victims. You ever watch these nature shows, that show the predators looking for the young/weak/sick/old prey? Criminal predators do the same thing.

 

[RandFan]

Except getting raped is not a reasonable consequence of wearing a revealing dress. Getting shot is a reasonable consequence of attacking someone.

I agree. Yes, there is an argument to be made about excessive force. However, the problem is that when one person is violently attacking another the ability to assess proportionality becomes difficult. Violent attacks routinely end in the death of the victim. A person who choses to violently attack another should reasonably consider the fact that the victim has a right to defend his or her life. When you add to that the inability to foretell the future then it is a reasonable conclusion that the peretrator could very well be shot to death if the victim has the means to do so.

 

[Mephisto]

Except getting raped is not a reasonable consequence of wearing a revealing dress. Getting shot is a reasonable consequence of attacking someone.



When you're dead, all suffering has ended. When you're raped, suffering has just began.

Excellent, EXCELLENT point, Mycroft and certainly brings to mind the young lady whose post-rape emotional/psychological trauma was so severe she became an eventual in-patient in the psych unit.

Rape should NEVER be belittled as its trauma is always deep and will remain throughout a lifetime. I can't even believe that we are having this argument - that a woman should suffer rape and all its long-term problems INSTEAD of simply using her right to self-defense!

Whatever side of the gun-control issue you stand on, you'll have to agree that knife-wielding criminals in New Mexican parking lots will think twice about attacking a woman. That incident alone is deterrent - and WITHOUT responsible (and legal) concealed carry gun owners having to announce that they're armed. It's called, uncertainty in the criminal mind.

 

[shecky]

You can count me as one of the few who don't have terribly strong position on gun rights. If all gun regulations were eliminated tomorrow, I don't think I'd mind too much. But I suspect things like full auto submachineguns would become the tool of choice for headline-grabbing crimes like drive-by shootings and such, prompting a backlash. There might even be a increase in violence overall, if the ease of getting bigger, cheaper weapons makes crime look like a better proposition than it appears to be right now. Who knows?

It seems to me that guns don't generally make societies safer, or more dangerous for that matter. Violent societies are violent with or without guns, and clearly, some nonviolent societies are nonviolent in spite of not having Sam Colt to make them all equal.

I have no problems with NFA arms being out of the reach of so many. Or with things like the assault weapons ban, which pretty much survives here in CA. Nor would I be broken up to see it go. I do understand, however, why such bans remain popular. And despite the whining and crying you might encounter on gun forums, the 2nd Amendment is not going away.

I'm curious about the original story. I wonder how a bunch of drunk rednecks deal with the aftermath of being pwn3d by some hippy faggots?

 

[Freakshow]

I agree. Yes, there is an argument to be made about excessive force. However, the problem is that when one person is violently attacking another the ability to assess proportionality becomes difficult. Violent attacks routinely end in the death of the victim. A person who choses to violently attack another should reasonably consider the fact that the victim has a right to defend his or her life. When you add to that the inability to foretell the future then it is a reasonable conclusion that the peretrator could very well be shot to death if the victim has the means to do so.

I was going to reply to add a point, until I saw that you already put it in. I have emphasized it in your quote. It is a critically important part, that people often miss when looking at self defense situations or police shootings in hindsight.

When attacked, one doesn't have a magical way of knowing the true and full intentions of the attacker.

 

[UserGoogol]

What a ridiculous assertion! The person making the initial choice of aggression determines what happens next and will suffer the consequences if his prey is armed.

As for the last assertion in your first paragraph, you're pretty off the mark there! I worked in a hospital emergency room for nine years and I've seen several rape victims come in with everything from defensive knife wounds to internal injuries from bludgeoning to SEVERE emotional/psychologial trauma. How would you feel if that were your sister, or mother, or wife? I'll bet that you (just like all the victim's fathers, mothers, brothers, husbands, etc.) would be calling for the blood of the rapist/s.

Probably. But in such a condition I would be very biased, and my opinions with not be of much merit. You have to weigh things fairly, with everyone's emotions counting equally. Surely you must agree that there is such a thing as going too far when dealing with criminals. Is it right to perform ocular rape on people who shoplift? Assuming you say no, then you must agree that there is a line between appropriate and inappropriate punishment, and that people do not give up absolutely all rights when they commit a crime. The question is merely where to draw the line. Perhaps rapists should be killed, perhaps they shouldn't. I don't know. Rape is very very bad, and I admit I have understated this badness tremendously, but you can't dismiss the question out of hand simply because they "initiated aggression."

 

[Freakshow]

You have to weigh things fairly, with everyone's emotions counting equally.

No, you do not.

Deserve: To acquire as a result of one's behavior or effort.
http://www.answers.com/topic/deserve

Everyone's emotions do not count equally. It is a person's own choices and actions that determine this.

What we are seeing here is a great illustration of the worthlessness of moral relatavism. You have difficultying determing if a rapist's or rape victim's emotions are more important in the consideration of moral decisions. The inability to make that determination is stunning.

 

[Freakshow]

...and that people do not give up absolutely all rights when they commit a crime...

Actually, people accept the risk that they may give up absolutely all their rights (including the right to life) when the choose to attempt to rape someone. Read my "s*** happens" post again. And again. And again.

 

[UserGoogol]

I'm not a moral relativist, I'm a utilitarian. Right and wrong exist, but you have to be skeptical of morals until you can show to your satisfaction that they are correct.

Actually, people accept the risk that they may give up absolutely all their rights (including the right to life) when the choose to attempt to rape someone. Read my "s*** happens" post again. And again. And again.

WHY!? All you are saying is that rape is very very very bad, and that as a result people who do it deserve whatever the potential victim does in self defense. But "very very very" is a matter of degree, thus at some point between "very very very bad" and "not bad at all" where on one side of the point it's okay to kill the criminal, and on the other side it is not.

 

[Freakshow]

WHY!?

Because humans are sentient, and are capable of making choices and thinking about the consequences of those choices. That includes rapists.

All you are saying is that rape is very very very bad, and that as a result people who do it deserve whatever the potential victim does in self defense.

That is not what I am saying at all. For example, I would be opposed to hunting the rapist down a month later, and killing him in his own house. But what I am talking about is the victim, AT THE MOMENT OF THE CRIME, being morally allowed to do ANYTHING that is NECESSARY to STOP THE CRIME IN PROGRESS.

See the difference?

 

[shecky]

That is not what I am saying at all. For example, I would be opposed to hunting the rapist down a month later, and killing him in his own house.

Why would this be bad on a small scale (victim vs rapist) and not bad on a large scale (war on terror)?

 

[Freakshow]

Why would this be bad on a small scale (victim vs rapist) and not bad on a large scale (war on terror)?

A number of differences. One is the people and processes that are being followed. For example, although I would be opposed to the victim going into the rapists house and killing him, I would not be opposed to the police going into the rapists house and arresting him. And if found guilty, I wouldn't be opposed to a very long prison sentance.

Another difference is the severity. As bad of a crime as it is to rape a woman, it is not as bad as someone murdering/ordering the murder of dozens, hundreds, or thousands. More severe crimes call for more severe measures and punishments.