Second Amendment

[Skwim]

It's a predilection of the anti-gun crowd.....linking penises with guns.
Odd.

Not so much a predilection as the ability to see the forest for the trees. The primary asset is remaining detached from the compulsion.

Is there a presumption that only males like guns?

Not at all. Females with penis envy also covet guns. The rest are only manipulating guys by feigning an interest in them. But we know where their real interest lies . . . . . . . . don't we.

 

[esmith]

So that you can enjoy your toy, you are at the same time putting your family at risk, and the stats bear that out.

Be careful.

fini

I think, no I know that you have finally crossed the line.
First you do not have the right nor the information, nor experience to determine that if we have firearms in our home is putting either my wife or I at risk. We are both qualified to handle firearms and have gone through civilian training to insure that we are competent to handle firearms. I served 21 years in the armed forces of the United States and was qualified on various weapons. So let me make it perfectly clear to you..... Whether we do or do not have firearms in our home is absolutely no concern of yours so I suggest you keep your opinions of what we do to yourself. We do not need or want your opinion.
Second a firearm is not a "toy". You play with a toy you do not play with a firearm. Obviously that could be one of your problems....thinking a firearm is a toy.

Just remember the police are only there the majority of times to investigate the crime not prevent it.

 

[metis]

I've dealt with it too, & find that having a gun in my home poses less risk than being unarmed.
This is based upon using studies by both pro & anti gun types.
But for people who are untrained with poor storage means, it might be better to be unarmed.

Btw, if you tell someone you don't know that they're putting their family at risk by owning guns,
then you are indeed taking a "one size fits all" approach.

Because most people do not live in areas whereas the more sensible approach would be to have guns, such as in remote or high-crime areas whereas police protection is scant-- even in certain areas of Detroit, btw.

If you'd bother to read further back in this thread, I at least twice stated that "in some cases" it's better to have a gun available. Whether esmith "qualifies", I don't know, but I didn't see him claim as such. Did you?

And how exactly did you conclude that having a gun in your house makes you safer? What is this based on? Are you aware of the overwhelming stats that have concluded that accidental homicides and suicides tend to more than overwhelm burglars and potential murderers? With 30,000 gun related deaths per year here in the States, only a small percentage of those are actually criminals being killed by citizens in their homes.

So, is your "need" real or just imagined? Yes, it's your choice, and I would never try and force the issue to move one's legally-owned guns, but is it really smart to have a loaded gun? And which kind of gun is another matter. At least a couple of officers I brought in recommended not to have a handgun but a shotgun instead if one felt a must to have a gun available.

 

[metis]

I think, no I know that you have finally crossed the line.
First you do not have the right nor the information, nor experience to determine that if we have firearms in our home is putting either my wife or I at risk. We are both qualified to handle firearms and have gone through civilian training to insure that we are competent to handle firearms. I served 21 years in the armed forces of the United States and was qualified on various weapons. So let me make it perfectly clear to you..... Whether we do or do not have firearms in our home is absolutely no concern of yours so I suggest you keep your opinions of what we do to yourself. We do not need or want your opinion.
Second a firearm is not a "toy". You play with a toy you do not play with a firearm. Obviously that could be one of your problems....thinking a firearm is a toy.

Just remember the police are only there the majority of times to investigate the crime not prevent it.

Now it is you who have "crossed the line" since it is you who are trying to silence me and not the other way around. I have no ability nor willingness to try and control what you may have in your home, so all you've done with the above is to create another one of your strawmen. And it was you who talked about the beauty of these mechanisms in a previous post, btw, and it begs the question how an instrument made for killing can be beautiful as some sort of "work of art". Guns, unfortunately, may be necessary in the kind of environment we've created, but to refer to them as art?

But what you are ignoring what the police have told my students, plus what many of the scientific studies have shown. The issue is less whether you think you know how to handle a gun versus the reality of accidental shootings, homicides out of anger, and suicides. A trained person can still make mistakes, lose their temper, or have a gun that could be used either in their own suicide or someone else in the family.

So, I in no way take back what I said, and if you don't like it, that's your problem-- not mine.

 

[metis]

If having a gun makes the home more dangerous, then cops shouldn't have their guns with them off duty.
I don't think this makes sense.

Then this will blow your mind. One of my cousins that used to be a Detroit police officer (3rd precinct-- not the safest area in Detroit, let me tell ya) and who lived in Detroit (near 7 Mile Rd. just south of Eastland Mall), would come home and put his bullets in a safe and then lock his gun in a lock-box chained to a large book case. He refused to have a loaded gun in the house based on his many years of experience.

But I'm sure you think you know so much more than he does.

 

[metis]

BTW, that is this time for sure my last post on this subject as I'm putting it on "unwatch".

Moving on...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because that is the most common time it matters, I could say we need all the guns we can get for the purpose of someday overthrowing a tyrannical government and be just as justified.

That's not the only time it matters.

Gun ownership matters when people are killed by accidental discharges. It matters when police officers are approaching a car they've pulled over and are assessing the risk of the people in the car. It matters when a concealed carry permit holder decides to unload at fleeing shoplifters in a Home Depot parking lot filled with shoppers. It matters when a gun owner has a suicidal thought that would have quickly left his mind if he didn't have an instantly lethal weapon.

Gun ownership matters every single time a person is killed or injured by a firearm. It matters every time a gun is fired in a public place or a home.

By any reasonable measure, just by sheer body count, the most common time gun ownership matters is when someone takes their own life with a handgun.

If you support successful bans on guns for personal defense you take active responsibility for every crime that could have been prevented if the victim had a gun.

Nonsense. The state does have a responsibility to prevent crime in a general sense, but this a separate issue.

They are somewhat so, but that was the point. Simplify it down to the essence, if a gun takes a life or I refuse to own one, I have the responsibility of the choice; if it is denied and needed it is the responsibility of the denier. If a law, the government, and, if a democracy, you and me.

And if the denial is justified, then the responsibility is satisfied.

Are guns like the ring of sauron now, that they effect others? Do they whisper of the dark lord's promises and convert good witches and wizards to dark arts? Guns don't effect people, people effect people. I feel like that is similar to something else I've heard...

More bad pro-gun arguments, maybe?

This is hypocritical on your part. The argument you've given so far hinges on the ability of others to take your life. Do you really think that a violent criminal coming at you with a gun is really no more dangerous than a criminal with empty hands?

How so?

Because the increase risk of suicide associated with firearms is well known and foreseeable. Those who arm the suicidal can reasonably expect that their actions will result in more deaths, so they share responsibility for their deaths.

I don't see how proposing that people are incapable of utilizing a necessary tool is the same as saying it isn't necessary.

"Necessary"? I notice a theme in your oversimplified hypotheticals: you assume these omniscient gun-owners who can tell with certainty when they will die if they don't act, and who are clairvoyent enough to look into the future and divine that the available options besides putting bullets into another living person won't be successful.

Do you think that ALL people are magic, or just gun-owners?

Back to your immediate point: even setting aside the ethical issues that would be there even if the gun-toter was perfectly trained and skilled, if the gun-toter isn't trained enough to reliably create the dubious "benefit" of killing the person who they feel threatened by, and if their lack of thorough training creates additional risks for themselves or bystanders, then this changes the balance of benefits and costs.

When deciding what the effects are of

That is an odd qualifier that was never discussed before and makes little sense.

I don't accept your assumption that these people carrying around deadly weapons and looking for a fight are "peaceful". Their behaviour seems contrary to the goal of peace.

None. If I am actively imperiling their lives? I'd say I can't think of one that I retain against their attempts to stop me.

How much risk constitutes being "actively imperiled"? If my neighbour carries a loaded gun when he's out and about in my neighbourhood, he's increased my level of risk. How much of an increase in risk would warrant me stopping him - or using the law to stop him - from doing this?

You've argued that actually pointing a gun at someone warrants taking a life; what does merely brandishing a gun without pointing it warrant? What about carrying it in a overt way? If our response is proportional to the level of risk, what do these actions warrant?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not so much a predilection as the ability to see the forest for the trees. The primary asset is remaining detached from the compulsion.

As Freud famously once said, sometimes a gun is just a gun.

Not at all. Females with penis envy also covet guns. The rest are only manipulating guys by feigning an interest in them. But we know where their real interest lies . . . . . . . . don't we.

Typically, a guy's interest in gals was never to get into their arsenal.
It seems that I might be more effective by teaching gun grabbers about the birds & the bees, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because most people do not live in areas whereas the more sensible approach would be to have guns, such as in remote or high-crime areas whereas police protection is scant-- even in certain areas of Detroit, btw.

If you'd bother to read further back in this thread, I at least twice stated that "in some cases" it's better to have a gun available. Whether esmith "qualifies", I don't know, but I didn't see him claim as such. Did you?

And how exactly did you conclude that having a gun in your house makes you safer? What is this based on? Are you aware of the overwhelming stats that have concluded that accidental homicides and suicides tend to more than overwhelm burglars and potential murderers? With 30,000 gun related deaths per year here in the States, only a small percentage of those are actually criminals being killed by citizens in their homes.

So, is your "need" real or just imagined? Yes, it's your choice, and I would never try and force the issue to move one's legally-owned guns, but is it really smart to have a loaded gun? And which kind of gun is another matter. At least a couple of officers I brought in recommended not to have a handgun but a shotgun instead if one felt a must to have a gun available.

My need is both real & imagined.
Such is the nature of low risk.

The choice of handgun v shotgun is a personal one.
In my case, the former is much better.
But I've recommended the latter to others.

I am aware of the many accidental homicides.
Are you aware of the many instances where guns are used in self defense.
(I've posted the pro & anti stats before. Based upon even the anti numbers, it greatly exceeds accidental deaths & murders.)

Your avatar keeps throwing me......I see a cheerful little hippy giving me flowers.
At least you won't have to put one in the barrel of my gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then this will blow your mind. One of my cousins that used to be a Detroit police officer (3rd precinct-- not the safest area in Detroit, let me tell ya) and who lived in Detroit (near 7 Mile Rd. just south of Eastland Mall), would come home and put his bullets in a safe and then lock his gun in a lock-box chained to a large book case. He refused to have a loaded gun in the house based on his many years of experience.

But I'm sure you think you know so much more than he does.

It's quite likely that I do know more than he.
Cops aren't known for being the sharpest tools in the shed.
(Departments will famously reject the more intelligent applicants, fearing that they won't be satisfied with the job.)
But of all the cops I know, they keep their guns loaded & safely stowed when home.
Your cousin might have unusual circumstances, eg, suicidal tendencies, lack of anger control.
Mine is in a hidden safe.
I say that's a reasonable way to secure it, your cousins fears notwithstanding.

Statistics can tell us things about the general case for the populations & conditions studied.
But one must recognize individual variation, & causes behind effects.
Without this, one might conclude that we should avoid being near our own homes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...ents-happen-a-mile-from-home-survey-says.html

 

[Mister Emu]

That's not the only time it matters.

Gun ownership

The right to own a gun.

Nonsense.

Balderdash. If you ban chemotherapy, you are responsible for all of the cancer deaths where chemotherapy could have saved someone. If you ban guns, you are responsible for any death where a gun could have saved someone. If you authoritatively make decisions for someone, you are responsible for the consequences of those decisions.

And if the denial is justified, then the responsibility is satisfied.

I'm not sure what you mean by "satisfied". My war was justified, ergo my responsibility to the innocents dead and harmed is satisfied?

This is hypocritical on your part. The argument you've given so far hinges on the ability of others to take your life. Do you really think that a violent criminal coming at you with a gun is really no more dangerous than a criminal with empty hands?

You somehow missed the operative connection in your own statement. The criminal is more dangerous. It takes a criminal, negligent, or self-harm element to catalyze. A gun even loaded and on the coffee table doesn't have an effect on anyone by itself.

Because the increase risk of suicide associated with firearms is well known and foreseeable.

That explained nothing.

Those who arm the suicidal can reasonably expect that their actions will result in more deaths, so they share responsibility for their deaths.

If I am justified, the responsibility is satisfied. Is that how you said it?

"Necessary"? I notice a theme in your oversimplified hypotheticals: you assume these omniscient gun-owners who can tell with certainty when they will die if they don't act, and who are clairvoyent enough to look into the future and divine that the available options besides putting bullets into another living person won't be successful.

Do you think that ALL people are magic, or just gun-owners?

Bwahaha. Unlike your previous attempt to claim that there is a way around needing a gun if you just plan far enough ahead and know everything that is going to happen, which streets to avoid, and where the criminals are, right?

I'll repeat the assumption:
There is someone at sometime and place that will have taken precautions so that they have a better chance of not using a gun and still find themselves in a situation where without a gun they will face death or serious bodily harm that owning a gun could have prevented.

Do you deny this assumption?

I don't accept your assumption that these people carrying around deadly weapons and looking for a fight are "peaceful".

Glad to know that if gun owners aren't omniscient, you are.

How much risk constitutes being "actively imperiled"?

Is it the active part that is the issue in understanding? As in they are actively threatening your life, they are actively punching you in the head, they are actively surrounding you and your wife and talking about what they are going to do.

If our response is proportional to the level of risk, what do these actions warrant?

It isn't. It is a threshold, wherein if they aren't threatening someone, their gun is none of your business.

 

[Underhill]

Some of them really do.

Perhaps. On the other hand, nobody is talking about an outright ban on firearms. My 12 gauge, among the best defensive weapons around, will likely be legal as a hunting gun for the next half century at least (who can say beyond that?)

Wow, people disagree with you. As it happens, 5 of them are on the Supreme Court and have decided that the militia cause explains the necessity not limits the right.

Wouldn't be the first time. The problem with their logic, and yours, is one of limits. For our 'rights' to actually be effective against the US military, we would need tanks in our driveways and anti-aircraft batteries in the garden.

Or now. Or 2000 years in the future. Maybe it is part of how we keep a stable democratic government.

Clearly. I mean the only time our countries soverenty was at serious risk was when a third of the country picked up their guns and demanded to be there own nation of slave owning douche bags. How did that work out for us? 1.1 million casualties.... over 600,000 dead. Personally I prefer our differences be worked out in the voting booth.

 

[Revoltingest]

For our 'rights' to actually be effective against the US military, we would need tanks in our driveways and anti-aircraft batteries in the garden.

This presumes direct confrontation.
That's not a realistic scenario.
More likely, there would be increasing guerrilla skirmishes in areas not conducive to military strikes.
As the military ramped up its efforts, soldiers would be reluctant to war against their fellows.

Clearly. I mean the only time our countries soverenty was at serious risk was when a third of the country picked up their guns and demanded to be there own nation of slave owning douche bags. How did that work out for us? 1.1 million casualties.... over 600,000 dead. Personally I prefer our differences be worked out in the voting booth.

Think of armed resistance as "Plan B", for when voting fails.

 

[Mister Emu]

Perhaps. On the other hand, nobody is talking about an outright ban on firearms. My 12 gauge, among the best defensive weapons around, will likely be legal as a hunting gun for the next half century at least (who can say beyond that?)

A 12 gauge is a great home defense weapon, but not suitable for every situation.

Wouldn't be the first time. The problem with their logic, and yours, is one of limits. For our 'rights' to actually be effective against the US military, we would need tanks in our driveways and anti-aircraft batteries in the garden.

We wouldn't need them in our driveways and gardens per se, but we would need them, yes. I think under strict regulation that they should be available.

Personally I prefer our differences be worked out in the voting booth.

You mean when much of the South's democratically elected representation voted to secede?

 

[Underhill]

This presumes direct confrontation.
That's not a realistic scenario.
More likely, there would be increasing guerrilla skirmishes in areas not conducive to military strikes.
As the military ramped up its efforts, soldiers would be reluctant to war against their fellows.

Think of armed resistance as "Plan B", for when voting fails.

Yeah sorry, not a big fan of that plan. So it should be policy that if people don't like the way the vote goes that they start shooting? Isn't that how the terrorist justify their actions? Or how Oklahoma City happened?

If you don't like how the vote goes, voice your opinion and wait for next time. Or move.

 

[Underhill]

A 12 gauge is a great home defense weapon, but not suitable for every situation.

Of course not. If you want to invade a small African nation you need something more.

We wouldn't need them in our driveways and gardens per se, but we would need them, yes. I think under strict regulation that they should be available.

Wow. I can only imagine what a pissed off McVeigh or Kaczynski could pull off with those kinds of armaments.

You mean when much of the South's democratically elected representation voted to secede?

Valid point. But they did so knowing they had the guns of the populace behind them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah sorry, not a big fan of that plan.

Neither am I.
"Plan B" is a last resort which might never be employed.

So it should be policy that if people don't like the way the vote goes that they start shooting?

To say "don't like" doesn't reflect the kind of severe oppression which would inspire citizens to take the "Plan B" approach.

Isn't that how the terrorist justify their actions? Or how Oklahoma City happened?

Terrorism is different from revolution, although the former might be part of the latter.
And there is indeed irony that some terrorism is viewed favorably (Israeli terrorism against the British) while other terrorism is condemned.
The same is true of revolution.....I'm glad for the Americastanian revolultion, but not for the Russian revolution.
Irony does not mean we should eschew violence to fight oppression.
Moral relativism does not mean we should not act.

If you don't like how the vote goes, voice your opinion and wait for next time. Or move.

The old "America....love it or leave it" command, eh?
Well, the counter is that if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, then repeal it or emigrate.

It seems that you believe I'm advocating violence at every occasion I don't get my way.
I don't see anyone advocating the trigger happy attitude you criticize.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Geneva convention.

If I'm killed by home invaders because I wasn't allowed to mine my yard, you're responsible. The blood of all those who died for want of a blinding laser weapon is on your hands.

 

[esmith]

Ever notice how posters tend to go to the extreme example of weapons when their anti-gun arguments runs into a argument that is hard to dispute.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ever notice how posters tend to go to the extreme example of weapons when their anti-gun arguments runs into a argument that is hard to dispute.

It's hard to keep the discussion from heading towards penises, grenades, suicide & nuclear missiles.
Is it sexist that they don't mention vaginas? Women like guns too.