Gun Control (v.2)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SaberGiiett7, Sep 9, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Why would anyone seek to limit a man's capacity to defend himself?

    Just remember, it's for the children... [face_laugh]
  2. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Let me explain this to you carefully so I don't sound like too much of a "gun nut"...

    Too late for that.
  3. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    From the Neocon thread:

    I don't belive what I'm hearing. Why the hell do you need civilian militia?

    In short, for protecting the people you care about from armed thugs who would bring them harm.

    What are cops for?

    Cops are for investigating crimes after they're committed. They have NO legal obligation to stop a crime in progress. In other words, someone could be gutting you like a fish, and a cop could be standing right there, and that cop could stand there and watch you die, with no legal repercussions to himself whatsoever. That's why it is up to YOU to provide for your own defense, and the defense of your loved ones.

    When me and my mates saw Bowling for Columbine we were all shocked

    So were me and my "mates"...shocked at how easily one man could make so many people believe his malicious lies.

    ...no wonder there's so much shooting in schools.

    Would there be so much shooting in schools if we armed the faculty?
  4. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Cops are for investigating crimes after they're committed. They have NO legal obligation to stop a crime in progress. In other words, someone could be gutting you like a fish, and a cop could be standing right there, and that cop could stand there and watch you die, with no legal repercussions to himself whatsoever. That's why it is up to YOU to provide for your own defense, and the defense of your loved ones.

    I would suggest you research that statement more thoroughly.

    You might feel strongly about the sentiment, but the factual basis is lacking.
  5. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    This book makes for a fascinating read...I strongly recommend it.
  6. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    OMG. I just read that link up the top of the page regarding nukes and private ownership. It confirms everything I thought about keepandbeararms.com. Loopy.

    I couldn't be arsed arguing with an idiot.

    Using a smiley face doesn't make your point any less irrelevant or inane.

    Let me explain this to you carefully so I don't sound like too much of a "gun nut"...Too late for that.


    Uruk-hai, why is it that you refuse to answer the important questions raised by myself and other pro-freedom posters in this thread? It seems that instead of actually debating, you only respond to the sections of our posts that you can turn into petty insults. Don't pull a Krash on us just because we're "nuts" 8-}
  7. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Ender_Sai

    The thing is, in this day and age, the most effective tool for use in self-defense is a gun.

    Furthermore, whatever happened to the fact that a man's house is his castle? If someone is in my house at 3 AM, and I know I did not invite that person in, it is pretty safe to assume that he's not there on a social visit.

    There are three basic problems I have had with gun control:

    1. It promotes the notion that a dead person who has been robbed and knifed to death is somehow morally superior to the living person who is explaining to the police how his attacker got a couple of bullet wounds.

    2. Gun control in effect is punishing me for the actions of others who have misused a tool. You can certainly understand where I come from on that basis.

    3. Listening to people like Dianne Feinstein, I feel like they are punishing me on a very slim basis that I might do something horrible. This feels a lot like the "Pre-Crime" concept of Minority Report.

    Those things just rub me the wrong way. And I am not the only one who feels that way.
  8. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Uruk-hai, why is it that you refuse to answer the important questions raised by myself and other pro-freedom posters in this thread? It seems that instead of actually debating, you only respond to the sections of our posts that you can turn into petty insults. Don't pull a Krash on us just because we're "nuts"

    It's nothing personal, I just get bored easily. Once an argument has gone around the same points three or four times, I realise there isn't much point.

    I've already answered the points you all bring up, you all argue against my answers, I argue, you bring up the same points, I argue again, you argue, you bring up the same points yet again and I get bored.

    Then I leave the thread until someone says something interesting I can respond to like Cops are for investigating crimes after they're committed. They have NO legal obligation to stop a crime in progress. In other words, someone could be gutting you like a fish, and a cop could be standing right there, and that cop could stand there and watch you die, with no legal repercussions to himself whatsoever.

    Police have a duty to uphold the rule of law and you know that. No cop is going to watch someone be assaulted and stand by doing nothing. Saying a cop won't help you in a crisis situation so you need a gun is such a totally nonsensical argument that it doesn't really bear discussion.

    As far as the argument of why you should be punished for other's behaviour also doesn't wash with me. I've never driven a car drunk and had an accident, but that doesn't mean I complain that it's illegal to do so. There are times I'd love to be able to drive home after a few drinks, but I can't and won't. I don't complain about how my rights have been infringed because a few drunken drivers have caused society to examine the result of such behaviour and decided it is in the best interests of the majority to make it illegal.
  9. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Police have a duty to uphold the rule of law and you know that. No cop is going to watch someone be assaulted and stand by doing nothing.

    That must be why the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)]. And why, in 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:

    "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882) See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].

    Saying a cop won't help you in a crisis situation so you need a gun is such a totally nonsensical argument that it doesn't really bear discussion.

    I provided this link earlier, and I suggest you get the book. It's quite an eye-opener, and it will definitely change the way you think of relying on the police to save you.

    Now, let's say that a bunch of gangsters are trying to kill me for my wallet, and by some miracle, a police officer with a gun happens to show up just in time to save the day. What if he decides he doesn't want to risk his neck trying to fend them off by himself? What if he thinks it would be better to wait for backup and leave me to my fate? When it comes to my well-being, I'm not taking chances.

    I've never driven a car drunk and had an accident, but that doesn't mean I complain that it's illegal to do so.

    I don't think anyone here would object to laws against drunk driving. You don't need to drink alcohol to stay alive. You don't even need to drive to stay alive. But sooner or later, you may have to use a gun to defend your own life from violent attack, and there is no reason to infringe upon an individual's right to do so.

    EDIT in response to Ender_Sai's paranoia:

    If everyone was armed, all it would take is a group of well-organised by insane right wingers your country produces from time to time to start hijacking planes themselves!!!

    A group of "well-organized but insane right wingers" could do that tomorrow if they wanted to. Laws prohibiting airline passengers from carrying arms do not have any effect on those who are determined to get weapons aboard anyway.

    Let's say people are carrying 9mm handguns... WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY MISS?!? The plane depressurises.

    Then why in the world are you in favor of putting armed sky marshalls on planes? They're just as likely to miss as anyone else! Besides, if terrorists attempt a hijacking and everyone is armed, there is a small chance that shots will be fired, a smaller chance that one of those shots will miss, and an even smaller chance that one of those missed shots will actually penetrate the hull. On the other hand, if terrorists successfully hijack a plane because everyone is unarmed, there is a 100% chance that you will die. Which would you prefer?

    People carrying guns on planes, other than sky marshalls, is a really, really ridiculous idea.

    When guns are outlawed, terrorists only need box cutters. [face_plain]
  10. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Man, the courts are saying that so people don't sue the police department for not protecting them when something happens and the cops can't do anything about it. It's ridiculous to say that cops wouldn't help a citizen in need. They go out of their way and put themselves at risk much of the time to help people. It's a false argument. They have a duty to uphold the law, that means preventing crimes as well as stopping them and investigating them after the fact. Why do you think police pull over suspicious vehicles, or stop and search people acting suspiciously.

    As far as the drink driving analogy goes, you say you don't NEED to drive a car, I beg to differ. I say I need to drive, I wouldn't get to work otherwise. I don't need a gun.

    But it doesn't matter if I need to drink drive or not. It's illegal to do so. Needs have nothing to do with it.
  11. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    I've never driven a car drunk and had an accident, but that doesn't mean I complain that it's illegal to do so.

    It's generally accepted that intoxication severely affects a person's ability to drive. We consider intoxicated people incapable of driving safely. However, where is the justification for considering people incapable of using guns safely?
  12. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5

    Probably the fact that the death rate due to guns isn't zero. That'd be it.
  13. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    MY paranoia?!? [face_laugh] Someone needs to smack you upside the head with a dictionary, so you stop throwing around inappropriate words. You're the paranoid right winger who doesn't trust the state... [face_laugh]

    Uruk, let's go get a beer.

    E_S
  14. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Man, the courts are saying that so people don't sue the police department for not protecting them when something happens and the cops can't do anything about it.

    You mean when the cops say they couldn't do anything about it.

    I say I need to drive, I wouldn't get to work otherwise. I don't need a gun.

    I don't see the point you're trying to make...are you saying that your fear of guns automatically makes it right to ban them from everyone else?

    Probably the fact that the death rate due to guns isn't zero. That'd be it.

    Banning guns hasn't lowered the death rate due to guns to zero. Why is that, do you think? Could it be because lowering the death rate to zero is impossible!

    MY paranoia?!?

    Forcibly disarming innocent airline passengers in the face of a terrorist threat sounds pretty paranoid to me.

    Someone needs to smack you upside the head with a dictionary, so you stop throwing around inappropriate words.

    Paranoia (n):

    1: A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

    2: Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

    I know you're not insane, so we'll throw out the first definition. But that second one fits you just right, E_S. You obviously don't trust the general population to keep and bear arms. Why not? You trust the police with guns, don't you? Does the average police officer have some superhuman coordination, heightened intellectual capacity, and infallible hand-eye coordination that the rest of us do not have?

    You're the paranoid right winger who doesn't trust the state...

    Why should I trust the state? Quite a few of my elected representatives have broken their oaths of office by infringing on my right to keep and bear arms. That doesn't really make them worthy of my trust or respect.
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Let's say people are carrying 9mm handguns... WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY MISS?!? The plane depressurises.

    I missed this before, only seeing Fred's reply, so I don't know the context of the original post, but this is actually a myth.

    There was a study conducted where a civilian airliner was pressurized to simulate differing altitudes, and a test gun (in the study, a 9mm Sig Sauer) was fired into the fuselage.

    At pressures simulating 30,000 ft, the handgun was fired 5ft away from the target:

    The first shot was into a window, and the actual window didn't even blow out.

    The second shot was into the fuelage beside the window, and the resulting tear didn't even generate enough force to disturb the seat next to the "exit wound."

    I even think there might have been multiple shots.

    The rationale turned out to be because planes aren't really "pressurized." They have outlet valves and such that result more in a condition of stasis, a few holes don't affect it either way.

    The only time the plane actually decompressed was when a shaped charge was placed on the hull, and an approx. 5ft diameter hole was blown in the side.

    I don't know off-hand who commissioned the test, but I'll poke around and see if I can find a link to the actual footage, it's pretty cool to watch.


  16. All_Powerful_Jedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2003
    star 4
    Then why in the world are you in favor of putting armed sky marshalls on planes? They're just as likely to miss as anyone else! Besides, if terrorists attempt a hijacking and everyone is armed, there is a small chance that shots will be fired, a smaller chance that one of those shots will miss, and an even smaller chance that one of those missed shots will actually penetrate the hull. On the other hand, if terrorists successfully hijack a plane because everyone is unarmed, there is a 100% chance that you will die. Which would you prefer?

    You're making the flawed assumption that everyone is going to be armed if it is legal to carry a gun. It's almost as if your argument has changed from "Everyone has the right to bear arms" to "Everyone should be required to bear arms." Of course, I know that's not what you mean.

    With airlines being commercially-owned, they do have the right to lay down the law on their own property. If they feel guns should not be allowed on their flights, then that is their right. It's their airline and you are paying for the privledge of using it.

    When guns are outlawed, terrorists only need box cutters.

    When it comes to a confined method of commercial transportation, such as a plane, the best method of defense against terrorism is preventative on the ground, before anyone gets on. Yes, it is not 100% guaranteed to work, which is why I do support the idea of Federal Air Marshalls. It's more reassuring than pointing SAM missiles at commercial airlines, as we have done in recent years.

    If someone has a bomb or has enough leverage to crash the plane, no gun in the world is going to save you. Your chances of survival don't increase.



    I think everyone should maintain the right to keep and bear arms, and freely purchase handguns, rifles, and other assorted firearms to defend themselves. I have no problem with the condition of waiting for background checks to find past offenders.

    I also believe that those who have shown themselves irresponsible with guns do waive certain rights (ie people convicted of murder, attempted murder, and/or manslaughter).

    Keep the guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, but do what you can to keep them out of the hands of criminals.
  17. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Fred, if you miss the point why I brought up the analogy of drink driving, then I can't help you. I couldn't be bothered going over it again.

    Banning guns hasn't lowered the death rate due to guns to zero. Why is that, do you think? Could it be because lowering the death rate to zero is impossible!

    True, the death rate due to guns in Australia isn't zero after the recent - and I mean recent - banning of guns, but oooh look, it's halved the the death rate. Think of what the rate will be in 20 to 30 years time when more guns are removed from the system.


    Ender make mine a James Squire, mate!
  18. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    Fred, if you miss the point why I brought up the analogy of drink driving, then I can't help you.

    Maybe I missed it, too. You see, drinking impairs judgement. Does picking up a gun do the same? Is a gun intoxicating?
  19. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    I'm not going to argue with you about the ethics of drink driving. The argument is about complaints of personal freedoms being restricted due to the government banning an activity. The gun lobbiests here keep saying "don't infringe on my liberties because the odd few have done the wrong thing". Well, the odd few have done the wrong thing drink driving and that got banned. It is possible to drink drive without causing injury to person or property (I've been in many a car where the driver was over the limit). It's also possible to own a gun without killing someone. That doesn't mean we should accept both and not do something about preventing them from doing so.

    To draw another comparison, because I know you are going to concentrate on anything but the issue, fireworks for personal use is illegal here now too. Fireworks were banned because a few kids had their eyes blown out playing around with them. Not every kid got hurt by them, but they are now illegal except under certain circumstances. This is perfectly acceptable. An activity was deemed as dangerous by the community and it was decided that it should be illegal to continue with it. No-one bleated about having their rights infringed. Same deal here.
  20. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Uruk, you might have a point, but here is one instant where you are going to have to open your international eyes to other alternatives.

    You see, gun ownership is a right, contained in the Constitution, which our country was formed on.

    Now, it has been pointed out that other countries do not view firearms as a right, but as a privlege.

    This is fine. However, any statement along these lines has to be viewed in the context that they exist in.

    It's only fair.
  21. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    A constitution is only a piece of paper. It can be changed.
  22. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I guess you missed the whole point of my post..

  23. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Maybe I did. Are you saying that because gun ownership is written into the constitution, that gun control is worse in the USA than anywhere else?
  24. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Not at all..

    I'm saying you have to put yourself into the shoes of the people who it applies to.

    The Constitution is not simply a "piece of paper," it represents the entire spirit of our country.

    I guess the closest institution to compare would be how the British Monarch represents the entire customs and traditions (the very fiber) of the Kingdom.

    As such, any freedoms contained within the Constitution are really one step away from whatever diety you happen to believe in.

    And also as such, when one freedom is eroded, they all are.

  25. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Ok, I get it. It's scary though, the fact that Americans deify their Constitution. I believe a Constitution should be a living, working ideal that can adapt and change with the times.

    I have no problem changing ours for the common good. It's probably a conversation for a different thread.

    I get ya though.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.