Vis Maior

Scopar wrote: Does that mean that citizens should then be allowed to carry RPGs, Tanks and other sophisticated weapons to keep up with the power of the state's armory?

Tanks are vehicles. You can already buy an RPG if you know the proper channels.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v358/ ... t=ar15.jpg

It's for home protection. I promise.

Scopar wrote:Whether having a gun really protects you from robberies, etc is up for debate.

What? 99% of the time crime is going to happen regardless. It's not as if most robbers inspect the front door for an NRA sticker and say 'well, fuck this'. Guns are not proactive solutions to crime in most cases. What guns protect you from is death, rape or mutilation. While carrying a weapon in public has dubious benefits, saying a weapon at home does not provide safety is just ignorant. What are you going to do when it takes police 20 minutes to get to your home?

Also, many people assume that the second amendment exists because of robberies or invasions or whatnot which is untrue. It can make little sense in the age of massive government, but at one point our government was actually accountable and very small. People were afraid of tyranny and by all rights still should be, though it's not going to come in the form of 'the terrible blackie' or another president. It's going to come in the form of massive reform after a major event, another war or disaster. It could be next year or in 150 years, who knows. The issue is that the government should fear the people, not vice versa. There's a reason why total gun control has never passed in the US, and it really isn't by lack of want, but lack of balls. The legislature A) wants to get reelected and B) wants to avoid a civil war. So it's still working to some degree at least.

Azurai wrote:What? 99% of the time crime is going to happen regardless. It's not as if most robbers inspect the front door for an NRA sticker and say 'well, fuck this'. Guns are not proactive solutions to crime in most cases. What guns protect you from is death, rape or mutilation. While carrying a weapon in public has dubious benefits, saying a weapon at home does not provide safety is just ignorant. What are you going to do when it takes police 20 minutes to get to your home?

You really don't have to try hard to come off as an asshole now do you? (Don't answer, rhetorical question) Did I ever say that it could not provide some measure of safety? You are looking at a micro level, I said on a macro level that it is debatable whether it provides any real security.

You cannot just say, "Well someone is breaking into my house and I have a gun so I'm safer". That is ignorant. In communities where guns are prevalent and the criminal mentality is widespread, having more weapons tends to raise the ante of violence. If you take a look at statistics for high violent crime cities around the world, the nature of the crime is raised with the higher proliferation of weapons. In other words, if a burglar knows that every house owner has a weapon, they are more likely to shoot first at the slightest flinch. In some extreme cases, having a legal firearm actually makes you a target.

Anyway all I said is that, in the long run, the net effect is no real increased safety over stricter gun control.

Scopar wants to steal my bikes without fear of a gun!

Statistics mean nothing when you're not part of the 98% that doesn't have a destitute crack-addled hippy break into your home.

Scopar wrote:

Azurai wrote: You cannot just say, "Well someone is breaking into my house and I have a gun so I'm safer". That is ignorant. In communities where guns are prevalent and the criminal mentality is widespread, having more weapons tends to raise the ante of violence. If you take a look at statistics for high violent crime cities around the world, the nature of the crime is raised with the higher proliferation of weapons. In other words, if a burglar knows that every house owner has a weapon, they are more likely to shoot first at the slightest flinch. In some extreme cases, having a legal firearm actually makes you a target.

Anyway all I said is that, in the long run, the net effect is no real increased safety over stricter gun control.

Except that's a ludicrous assertion.

Criminals are going to have guns or some type of weapon regardless of what the gun control laws are. More importantly, if you're female, old, or somehow less physically capable, that gun gives you a fighting chance even if you know the other guy has one too.

If you pull out a weapon and the other guy can react and 'make you a target', you're doing it wrong. It's easier to prey on the defenseless part of society, which is why there's so much violence crime at college campuses.

Azurai wrote:

Scopar wrote:Whether having a gun really protects you from robberies, etc is up for debate.

What? 99% of the time crime is going to happen regardless. It's not as if most robbers inspect the front door for an NRA sticker and say 'well, fuck this'. Guns are not proactive solutions to crime in most cases. What guns protect you from is death, rape or mutilation. While carrying a weapon in public has dubious benefits, saying a weapon at home does not provide safety is just ignorant. What are you going to do when it takes police 20 minutes to get to your home?

This, especially given that the police have no legal duty to protect you.

I didn't see this thread, so I'll just post that gun control's purpose is logically inconsistent. Put laws in place so people don't break other laws? That's fantastically sound!!!

Obviously this is simplifying the issue, but I think that the heart of this notion ultimately wins the day.

If you go back in history, you're in a time period when personal protection *and* hunting for your own food were equally relevant. In fact, a good weapon was probably used more often to provide food than it was for bringing down your enemy, and was often the most expensive thing a person owned. It's a tool. People lose sight of that, especially because of all the input we have from movies etc where the gun is involved in violent crime. How many crimes involving guns has the average person witnessed? Shit, how many people have even seen a gun drawn? Many cops doen't even fire their weapon in the line of duty during their entire career.

And as for the handgun issue, I agree. I was getting more at guns in general. The handgun is obviously more useful for personal protection. Getting at the heart of the 2nd ammendment, I think, nowadays at least, you need an assault rifle to protect yourself from the government, should we ever have to. Of course that requires a good deal more care, maintainance, practice and skill to use. Not to mention money and the fact that it's hard to bring up the fact that you own one in casual conversation without sounding like a nutjob. But I also live in the heart of blue-state country, so that doesn't help. Anyway, gotta run to my Arian Brotherhood sponsered local militia meeting ;)

I was anti-gun myself for a long time, so I see where you're coming from Aus. And also, I get that the point of this was about the original article. About that, I agree that paying citizens to report on each other is bad. How does Sally Q homeowner know that her neighbour's firearm is illegal? As to the gun debate in general, I think a lot has changed in this country as to the perception of firearms. I mean, in my Dad's generation, kids had .22s growing up. There was a marksmanship merit badge. It was just something kids had. Dads took their sons shooting, without it being a 2nd ammendment issue. There were gun ads in the back of Boy's Life (the Boy Scout magazine, for the uninitiated). This harkens back to the "Be Prepared" self-reliant model that has always been regarded as central to the American ideology, at least how we see it looking back. I think that whole culture has largely disappeared, at least in certain parts of the country. Nothing has replaced that kind of "normal" exposure to guns, so most people form opinions on the issue with little to no personal experience with the topic. If it is a sign of our times, so be it, but it is at least interesting how radically the perception of firearms has changed in a relatively short period of time.

Xizorz wrote: Except that's a ludicrous assertion.

Criminals are going to have guns or some type of weapon regardless of what the gun control laws are. More importantly, if you're female, old, or somehow less physically capable, that gun gives you a fighting chance even if you know the other guy has one too.

If you pull out a weapon and the other guy can react and 'make you a target', you're doing it wrong. It's easier to prey on the defenseless part of society, which is why there's so much violence crime at college campuses.

It's not an assertion, it's a fact in some cases. The benefit the States has is that the majority of its communities do not have a sense of lawlessness and the types of social issues that degenerate the situation into excessive violence; there are crime hotspots but it is generally concentrated to certain areas. However gun proliferation in other countries has been affected by gun laws in the states. The exportation of legal firearms from the US to Latin America and the Caribbean is a HUGE issue and also relates to the drug trade.

And again the examples you cite are on a micro level, that's an easy one. But you have to consider the long term consequences of everyone owning a gun when there's a high crime rate. And since most of the states isn't in this type of situation, why do you need a gun to protect yourself if the threat isn't imminent?

It's fairly similar to the benefits of a weapons shield and denying the exist of a possible arms race as a result.

greekrefugee wrote:Getting at the heart of the 2nd ammendment, I think, nowadays at least, you need an assault rifle to protect yourself from the government, should we ever have to.

It truly is sad that in America people can even fathom letting the government keep us from having firearms ^_^

Raeus and Ashra wrote:I believe he mentions only once that he's talking about people with illegal firearms. I am sure many will gloss over that and just start calling in people who have guns hoping to receive a thousand dollars (if convicted). "Thanks for your free tips on where to find armed citizens well within their rights."

Its not like they really need help finding people with legal firearms, since they need a permit to have one, don't they?

Scopar wrote: And again the examples you cite are on a micro level, that's an easy one. But you have to consider the long term consequences of everyone owning a gun when there's a high crime rate. And since most of the states isn't in this type of situation, why do you need a gun to protect yourself if the threat isn't imminent?

It's fairly similar to the benefits of a weapons shield and denying the exist of a possible arms race as a result.

The kids at VA tech on 4/15/2001 thought a threat wasn't imminent.

The United States on 9/10/2001 thought a threat wasn't imminent.

You can dismiss 'micro' level crime all you want, but it compromises 99.9% of all criminal activity.

Now you're just being ridiculous...

Xizorz wrote:The kids at VA tech on 4/15/2001 thought a threat wasn't imminent.

Actually if the family and school had followed the warning signs, there's a chance that it wouldn't have happened. It was an imminent threat, just nobody looked at the warning signs that there was a psychopath left untreated in a college.

The United States on 9/10/2001 thought a threat wasn't imminent.

The 9/11 commission already concluded that the threat was imminent and it was a failure of bureaucracy that allowed the attack to happen.

The first case has something to do with gun control, but more to do with people not following warning signs. The second is 100% unrelated.

You really aren't providing very much logic, only emotion, which counts for diddly squat to anyone you're trying to convince... or at least a rational person like me.