Gun rights

[Hammy070]

Obama's voting record on anti-gun proposals would eventually make the U.S.A. akin to Hammy's Scotland. I don't ever want that. I just have the belief that a country could very well sink into tyranny (i.e., eventually[?]) without a 2nd Amendment.

Scotland is very liberal, democracy, fairness etc. is a Scottish legacy. Tyranny is simply uncharacteristic of Scotland. We have a parliament seperate from England, we have a referendum coming up for full independence, whether one agrees with it or not, it is all done without any arms whatsoever. We have a party in power, that governs this country, and the other day I bumped into our deputy leader (actually the leader in our parliament) on my way back from work and said hi, how are you etc. to her in the street as she was leaving. She is the deputy leader! Couldn't imagine that with Cheney, or soon Biden/Palin, infact, if I met Sarah Palin, I'd ask her what we should do about Russia first. :hairy:

I think you really need to have little faith in your culture and leadership to be afraid of tyranny. If you have that fear, then your government is not very connected to it's people. It is simply unimaginable for me to experience any form of tyranny here, and maybe that's why we don't have guns, and maybe America has this fear among others, and thats why they 'need' guns. Perhaps different laws in different places. I also think America being a newer country born of colonialism plays a part too, as nobody inherently 'owns' it, and therefore it was in an "up for grabs" environment for most of it's modern history, since 1492 anyway.

I don't think America will descend into classical tyranny. People thought tyrants were a thing of the past in monarchies, until Hitler was voted in. So I could be wrong, as long as the largest chunk of voters are not overtaken by a certain other chunk in prevalence or activism, then there's little to worry about. Besides, there's always a new Western frontier....Japan!.. :crazy:

 

[Hammy070]

The way I see it, the potential of civilian militias is an important counterbalance against extreme abuses of state power. I'm sure the Nazi party would have opted for a more peaceful solution to the Jewish problem if every German had the right to bear arms.

modern western democracies have moved well beyond that

the prospect of a violent government take over in the US, UK, Australia, Europe etc is Alex Jones material

They also said we had moved beyond financial crises, and look what just happened...

They always say that though. Markets move with sentiment.

Countries merely exist today as a form of economic diversification. That will change when human labour is no longer required, and computers+machines grow food and build stuff including computers+machines, self-improve products etc, with maximum efficiency. Work force will be reduced, value of everything will be in it's function and possessions hoarding will be seen as rather odd. Work itself and it's perception will be different.

That's my view anyway. Trends indicate increased convergence between man and machine, probably until the two no longer become distinguishable. But that's Kurzweil territory, and speculative, but possible, to varying extents.

 

[iamnaked]

They also said we had moved beyond financial crises, and look what just happened...

They always say that though. Markets move with sentiment.

Countries merely exist today as a form of economic diversification. That will change when human labour is no longer required, and computers+machines grow food and build stuff including computers+machines, self-improve products etc, with maximum efficiency. Work force will be reduced, value of everything will be in it's function and possessions hoarding will be seen as rather odd. Work itself and it's perception will be different.

That's my view anyway. Trends indicate increased convergence between man and machine, probably until the two no longer become distinguishable. But that's Kurzweil territory, and speculative, but possible, to varying extents.

I don't share your faith in this vision for the future. Considering the fuel shortages and climate problems that the world is likely to run into (on current projections), I find it much more likely that we will be fighting each other for survival, Mad Max style. Times of scarcity have always been good at breeding totalitarian, violent states, and there's no reason for believing why the next half century ought to be different. That, in a nutshell, is why I'd be happier if I had a gun.

 

[badasshairday III]

I don't share your faith in this vision for the future. Considering the fuel shortages and climate problems that the world is likely to run into (on current projections), I find it much more likely that we will be fighting each other for survival, Mad Max style. Times of scarcity have always been good at breeding totalitarian, violent states, and there's no reason for believing why the next half century ought to be different. That, in a nutshell, is why I'd be happier if I had a gun.

I subscribe to this school of thought as well.

Hammy's is possible, but I would think it would be farther down the future. Man vesus Machine. Sounds like the Terminator movies. :firing:

 

[s.a.f]

If we're really heading for post apocolyptic meltdown, I think I'd rather be one of the first to die. Owning a 9mm pistol wont give you much security if the world goes to hell.

 

[badasshairday III]

If we're really heading for post apocolyptic meltdown, I think I'd rather be one of the first to die. Owning a 9mm pistol wont give you much security if the world goes to hell.

Maybe. But I'd feel better with my 9.

 

[HughJass]

I just have to say this. This may not be completely relevant to this discussion, but arming a lot of people probably would cause crimes to stop because everyone would be too scared to f*ck with anyone.

there's never been more legal gun owners and guns in the US as there are now..... I don't see a crime free society there yet

On a grander scale, look at pakistan and India, two countries with bad blood since the British left. They have fought 3 wars since independence. Today, both are armed with nukes and the ability to launch them to each other countries. Do you think they are EVER going to have an all out full scale war again? They continue to have border skirmishes, but they will not have a full scale war, because that would basically mean nuclear annihilation. :shock:

kind of makes being nuclear armed rather pointless really

 

[Old Baldy]

All I can say is, if you are unfortunate enough to be confronted by a criminal intent on not leaving any witnesses, you're dead without a firearm IMHO.

It always amazes me when people talk about something, with such "knowledge", when they haven't experienced the very subject they are opining on.

Too much theory going on here. I'd bet most people who have had real world encounters, with armed criminals, wished they had a firearm to protect themselves. I don't care if the criminal had a knife or gun.

For someone to tell me I cannot own a firearm for self-defense is akin to tyranny IMHO.

 

[HughJass]

i don't see how having a gun pulled on you can make you anymore objective or well informed

if anything the opposite is often true.



just in the last week an 8 year old kid shot himself in the head with an uzi and 2 kids were killed at a university :roll:

 

[Old Baldy]

I give up Aussie. You just don't get it. No insult intended because you only want what you feel is best, but I knew you and Hammy would be unwilling to listen to anything reasonable. How you can discount a real world experience is way out there if you get my drift.

So you think because you haven't experienced violence you're in a better position to know the value or detriment of owning a firearm moreso than someone who has experienced life threatening violence?

I'm totally baffled.

Edit: I was being very objective. A firearm saved my life and the prosecutor agreed with me.

 

[Hammy070]

All I can say is, if you are unfortunate enough to be confronted by a criminal intent on not leaving any witnesses, you're dead without a firearm IMHO.

It always amazes me when people talk about something, with such "knowledge", when they haven't experienced the very subject they are opining on.

Too much theory going on here. I'd bet most people who have had real world encounters, with armed criminals, wished they had a firearm to protect themselves. I don't care if the criminal had a knife or gun.

For someone to tell me I cannot own a firearm for self-defense is akin to tyranny IMHO.

It amazes me why some people are almost entirely self-centric.

For someone who fails to see the reality. 90,000 children killed by guns in the last 100 years in your country. More people murdered by firearms situation by other Americans in the last 100 years, than in EVERY American war during that period COMBINED.

To me, you simply value whatever you want, and screw the rest. Society to you does not exist. I personally live in a country with banned guns, there is no tyranny, every shooting with a gun is a national headline and is seen as something that must not and should never happen. in America, it would be a headline and a shock, if there WASN'T a gun incident for a single day.

THAT IS A PROBLEM! If you can't even remotely comprehend that in your self-centric fantasy of State versus Citizen then fine. If it costs 3000 people a year, I guess your willing to pay that price for your own security. Some think the Gov itself paid with that for some other purpose... :whistle: But seriously, it's harder for many people to doubt a conspiracy like that if they come across actual Americans indirectly admitting, without much remorse or regret or sadness, that the price above is what it takes. It doesn't take a giant leap for the rest of mankind

 

[Old Baldy]

Firearms save lives. Been known for a long time. Do your research Hammy if you're going to debate.

In 1994, the National Police Foundation determined a firearm was used for self-defense purposes over 2 million times annually. So who really cares about society more Hammy?

No Hammy, it ain't all about me for Godsakes. It always amazes me how anti-gunners throw out insults and make judgments in such harsh terms when someone disagrees with them. It's a form of tyranny IMHO. Shout your opponent down, despite the fact that you are cherry picking statistics to only bolster your argument.

Try to stay away from childish, uninformed insults Hammy. You lose credibility when you do that IMHO.

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF- ... 1&.intl=us

 

[HughJass]

I give up Aussie. You just don't get it. No insult intended because you only want what you feel is best, but I knew you and Hammy would be unwilling to listen to anything reasonable. How you can discount a real world experience is way out there if you get my drift.

I'm not discounting it, but you view the entire issue of gun rights through the eye of your own experience, without any consideration for all the gun crime that certain laws have enabled

Someone shot at you, and you're only alive because you were able to shoot back. Understandable how you would get defensive if your right to protect yourself again was being threatened. It's a matter of survival. But the issue is more complicated than that, ie How did it get to the point where you had to defend yourself against an armed robber in the first place? And is the chance of you having to go through that again being increased by certain gun ownership policies?

So you think because you haven't experienced violence you're in a better position to know the value or detriment of owning a firearm moreso than someone who has experienced life threatening violence?

How often do people who have had guns pulled on them become blinded by their emotions- fear of it happening again, insecurity, desire for revenge etc fear can make people do whatever they have to in order to ensure their own protection regardless of how that might be affecting other people around them.

In 1994, the National Police Foundation determined a firearm was used for self-defense purposes over 2 million times annually. So who really cares about society more Hammy?

the last set of stats i saw showed that only a mere fraction of cases where a gun was used in self defence could be considered legally legitimate.

Firearms save lives

They also take them.

The issue is not weather having a gun at the time you were being threatened was a bad a thing, it's weather or not legal ownership is actually worth the cost of massive proliferation of guns to criminals, which inevitably makes for a less safe community.

 

[Old Baldy]

That's a logical argument. I disagree but it's logical. You could be correct but I worry that criminals will always get their weapons.

Maybe your taser example will take hold as time goes on. Or maybe, other less lethal technology will come about?

I would imagine this will happen eventually. And that's a good thing overall IMHO. Firearms are powerful and very deadly, I can't argue with you on that one.

 

[optimus prime]

Firearms save lives. Been known for a long time. Do your research Hammy if you're going to debate.

[attachment=0:21rp5ha5]stats.JPG[/attachment:21rp5ha5]

The countries that stand out to me are, USA, Finland and Switzerland. All gun countries.

 

[badasshairday III]

I thought this was a great quote from another thread.

The problem of America will be solved when the largest chunk of voters see other human beings in other countries as equal in rights. In fact, ask an American pro-gun constitution-centric Republican Bush-voter whether they believe in the 2nd amendment and gun ownership for whatever reason (protection against invaders, criminals etc.) then ask him if an Iraqi should have that "universal" right. If they say no, they don't see other people as similar in basic rights. After all, 2nd amendment wouldnt be 2nd if it wasn't baisc.
If they yes, they find themselves on the side of the Iraqi insurgent and virtually at odds with almost all their political representatives. Some people simply do not have the mental resources for cognitive dissonance. I've stopped trying to move people who are unable to shift.

Now you guys said earlier it may be silly to think that arming citizens for national defence would do anything. If Iraqi's had a the right to bear arms under Saddam, I'm damn sure that the US would have had a lot tougher time in the country. Insurgents (AKA normal people with guns) have been giving the US army problems... so imagine multiplying the number of insurgents by a lot... does that paint a picture? Remember arming civillians in Afghanistan in the 80s resulted in the Russians giving up their invasion?

Sure the US has military might right now, but as we have seen historically, coutries go through cycles. At one point China was a great empire, then went down the shitter, and now they are back on the upslope. Who is to say the US won't go down that road? And when we are out of luck and weakened, I'll be happy we have enough "insurgents" to thwart off and attack by an aggressive country.

 

[JayBear]

I thought this was a great quote from another thread.

The problem of America will be solved when the largest chunk of voters see other human beings in other countries as equal in rights. In fact, ask an American pro-gun constitution-centric Republican Bush-voter whether they believe in the 2nd amendment and gun ownership for whatever reason (protection against invaders, criminals etc.) then ask him if an Iraqi should have that "universal" right. If they say no, they don't see other people as similar in basic rights. After all, 2nd amendment wouldnt be 2nd if it wasn't baisc.
If they yes, they find themselves on the side of the Iraqi insurgent and virtually at odds with almost all their political representatives. Some people simply do not have the mental resources for cognitive dissonance. I've stopped trying to move people who are unable to shift.

Now you guys said earlier it may be silly to think that arming citizens for national defence would do anything. If Iraqi's had a the right to bear arms under Saddam, I'm damn sure that the US would have had a lot tougher time in the country. Insurgents (AKA normal people with guns) have been giving the US army problems... so imagine multiplying the number of insurgents by a lot... does that paint a picture? Remember arming civillians in Afghanistan in the 80s resulted in the Russians giving up their invasion?

Sure the US has military might right now, but as we have seen historically, coutries go through cycles. At one point China was a great empire, then went down the shitter, and now they are back on the upslope. Who is to say the US won't go down that road? And when we are out of luck and weakened, I'll be happy we have enough "insurgents" to thwart off and attack by an aggressive country.

This is actually at the heart of the issue. The second amendment clearly states that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, assuming that a "well-regulated" militia is a necessary part of our national security. It isn't, at all. And the state of foreign affairs being what they are, there is no foreseeable lessening of American military might that would make a ground invasion remotely likely. Therefore, there is no constitutional right for any American citizen to have a firearm. Heller was a poor judgement.

Now, I personally support the outcome of another well-known case that was based on a poor judgment, so I understand how gun-rights proliferation supporters feel about Heller. Here is my problem with the NRA: single-issue advocacy groups, especially well-funded ones, often work under the assumption that ANY restriction is the inevitable first step to COMPLETE restriction. There is no reason for normal citizens to carry semi-automatic weapons, unless they are attempting to kill someone. End of story.

 

[iamnaked]

[quote="Old Baldy":2avifit0]Firearms save lives. Been known for a long time. Do your research Hammy if you're going to debate.

The countries that stand out to me are, USA, Finland and Switzerland. All gun countries.[/quote:2avifit0]

Doesn't really disprove his point because we don't know what the figures are for peoples' whose lives were saved by gun ownership. (e.g. A vigilante taking out a psychopathic gunman on the loose)

 

[Hammy070]

Firearms save lives. Been known for a long time. Do your research Hammy if you're going to debate.

In 1994, the National Police Foundation determined a firearm was used for self-defense purposes over 2 million times annually. So who really cares about society more Hammy?

No Hammy, it ain't all about me for Godsakes. It always amazes me how anti-gunners throw out insults and make judgments in such harsh terms when someone disagrees with them. It's a form of tyranny IMHO. Shout your opponent down, despite the fact that you are cherry picking statistics to only bolster your argument.

Try to stay away from childish, uninformed insults Hammy. You lose credibility when you do that IMHO.

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF- ... 1&.intl=us

I'm an analyst. I love statistics, they're funny, you can say what you want with them and it will make sense usually. :woot:

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

The survey in question used a sample of around 10,000 people as far as I know. Of which 1.44% of the respondants replied with affirmation of using a gun in a self-defense manner. In my work, if I extrapolated that to say MILLIONS among the population used guns in self-defense annually, it just wouldn't be acceptable:

1) Which surveys were state or national? If so, which states?
2) What proportion of respondents came from states with certain control laws.
3) How were the surveys distributed, were they sent in gun magazines as brochures, were they sent to licensed gun shops? or sent specifically to certain people? Were they given completely randomly?
4) Does the survey take into consideration the persons likely to respond?
5) Did the survey clearly define "SELF-DEFENSE". Come on, Bush said invading Iraq was self-defense, millions of Americans believe that, I would then doubt severely the extent to which "self-defense" is understood by millions in your country.
6) Does the survey clearly define "protection"? And list acceptable and unnacceptable scenarios for self-defense? Is shooting one's wife because she threw plates at you self-defense?
7) The organizations conducting the surveys, details of funding and political representation are necessary.

Those are just some very basic concerns I have.

BUT the fact remains even without answering the above. The removal of all guns, solves self-defense from other gun owners. The problem is man and violence, the solution is not dangerous weapons, that infact is fuel. You forgot to mention that the same survey highlighted MOST gun owners had guns for RECREATION. Not for self-defense.

You either admit one thing of two. You admit your society is horribly violent, far more than 25 other industrialized nations COMBINED. Or admit your society may be more violent than average, and so dangerous firearms laws should be changed appropriately. Why not give everyone RPGs? They don't kill anyone, people do. Imagine the success rate in catching criminals in a getaway car with an RPG! Nobody with an ounce of sense would deny that if all guns disappeared in America right now, thousands of people would be alive by the end of the year. Including hundreds of children, and I don't think the children were shot at in self-defense.

PS: I robbed a liquor store. There was a cop outside as I ran out and he was reaching for his gun, I pointed mine first and told him to drop it, I kicked it away and ran away.

I responded to a survey later that year. I told them I've used a gun in self-defense.

Who am I?

Answer: Defender of the Second Amendment :firing:

 

[Hammy070]

[quote="Old Baldy":3d5mxv1t]Firearms save lives. Been known for a long time. Do your research Hammy if you're going to debate.

The countries that stand out to me are, USA, Finland and Switzerland. All gun countries.

Doesn't really disprove his point because we don't know what the figures are for peoples' whose lives were saved by gun ownership. (e.g. A vigilante taking out a psychopathic gunman on the loose)[/quote:3d5mxv1t]

A gun owning hero taking out a gun owning psycho?

See the common denominator? Gun.