All these criminals doing illegal things. The problem I see is in order of operations.
They go on their attention seeking, illogical, rampage. Do their damage, and then take their own lives.
This is completely backwards. If they started with killing themselves first, it's a net gain for humanity.
Besides, on the same day as the school shooting some one in china did the same thing with a knife.
And it could have been done with a baseball bat, a stone, a piece of rebar, some concrete, a pipe, an ice pick, a shovel, an automobile, the human body itself, the list of things we can use as a deadly weapon is massive. Peanut butter is on the list! The answer isn't to outlaw these things, I need to drive to get to and for work, not to mention I can enjoy a PB and J sandwich while I'm watching a baseball game. We seem to forget that it takes a will behind an action.
Punish the one with the will to commit atrocities, rather than trying to blame an inanimate object.
If a kid throws a rock and hits another kid who's using them as building blocks, who are you going to punish? The thrower, the rock, or the builder?
Also as for the armed security, it works great on airplanes. They're called Sky Marshals. It will work in schools too. You can call them School Marshals. It is their job to protect the kids, that's it. They don't report to school officials, if a kid wants to ditch a grab lunch off campus, go for it. They'll get a search done when they come back, but the kid won't get reported for ditching.
And diet sodas in general taste horrid. Come at me bro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, of course, wasn't alive in the sixties, but my old comrades ran a campaign for these guys under the slogan "Every dime buys a bullet!"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to Senator Feinstein, the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban led to a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders. Interestingly enough, there was a further 7.9% decrease in total gun murders from 2004-2011, a period in which "scary" semi-automatic rifles were more accessible and frequently purchased (2004 FBI Stats, 2011 FBI Stats).
Another interesting tid-bit of information: there was a 17.8% decrease in murders in which a rifle was used (this is ALL rifles—bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action, semi-automatic, and "scary" semi-automatic) during the same 2004-2011 period.
Furthermore, according to the 2011 FBI statistics, rifles only account for 2.5% of the murders, whereas "fists, hands, and feet" account for 5.7% of the murders and "knives or cutting instruments" account for 13.4% of the murders.
On a happy note, murders overall decreased by 10.3% from 2004 to 2011.
Now, I'm not saying that more accessibility to "scary" semi-automatic rifles and their high-capacity magazines since 2004 has lead to the decrease in these murders. I am merely pointing out the fact that the fear directed towards these "scary" semi-automatic rifles has no concrete foundation.
What is the concern with these types of rifles? Is it the concern that crime and murders will increase, even though the trend has shown quite the opposite? Is it the concern that some crazed lunatic might commit another shooting? To that, I wonder if any of these people are worried about getting killed by a drunk driver whenever they drive their car (you are far more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than you are by a crazed lunatic wielding a "scary" semi-automatic rifle).
Ultimately, the perceived threat whenever one of these tragic events occurs is far greater than any actual risk from that threat. Are there things that can be done to mitigate any tragedy that might occur from the use/misuse of a firearm? Absolutely.
- Emphasis on storage and safe-keeping of firearms
- Background checks for private-sale purchases
- Firearms training classes as a requirement for purchase
- Re-evaluation of the mental health care system (though I think all can agree that this is a much bigger issue than how it relates to guns)
- Mental health screening as a part of the background check
This question/argument is frustrating because it really isn't a valid argument: "I don't think there is a legitimate reason for you to have that, therefore we should make it illegal".
What legitimate reason do I need to own a "scary" semi-automatic rifle? What legitimate reason do I need to own ANY firearm? The reasons to own a "scary" semi-automatic rifle are the same reasons to own a handgun, shotgun, bolt-action rifle, or a semi-automatic rifle.
- Self-Defense: yes, it is a legitimate reason, otherwise there wouldn't be an exception for law-enforcement officers.
- Hunting: much to the chagrin of the pundits on the TV who think otherwise, yes you can legally hunt with a "scary" semi-automatic rifle.
- Target Shooting: not taking into account the multitude of owners who go to ranges or empty fields to shoot at bottles and paper targets for fun, there are organized shooting matches with categories specifically for "scary" semi-automatic rifles.
- Because I Can: I don't need one of the above three mentioned reasons to own a handgun, shotgun, bolt-action rifle, or a semi-automatic rifle; why does a "scary" semi-automatic rifle have to be any different.
In the state I live in, I can buy a FULL-automatic—the kind that most people think the "scary" semi-automatic rifles are, but actually aren't—firearm, and I don't need a legitimate reason to do so. I just need to have enough money. (EDIT: there are a few requirements: background checks, submitting a photo, and other things in which I, personally, would not have any issues meeting. The only thing preventing me from owning a machinegun is the $$$.)
Finally, what legitimate reason is there to own a car that can go faster than 75 MPH? To the best of my knowledge, the fastest speed limit in the US is 75 MPH. Also, what legitimate reason is there to own a surplus WWII tank or a surplus Soviet Cold War-era jet fighter? I think in those cases "I can afford it" and "Because it's cool" are the likely reasons.
Regardless, I don't need to give you* any reason as to why I would want to purchase a "scary" semi-automatic rifle, and the fact that you* don't like them or can't, yourself, think of a reason to own one is not a viable position from which to make an argument.
* I am referring to "you" in the general sense—directed at those who hold the opinion, not at one single individual.
Besides, on the same day as the school shooting some one in china did the same thing with a knife.
You left out the part where no one died in the knife attack in China.
Why did you leave that part out?
Did you not know that no one died? If not, why did you interject it here? It doesn't strike you as irresponsible of you to suggest that the same thing happened in China without actually knowing that the same thing happened?
Did you think that people had died because someone told you that? If so, why did they lie to you? Will you continue to trust them in the future (and, if so, why?), or will you seek out more accurate, reliable channels for information?
Did you know that no one had died, but claimed they were the same thing anyway? If so, why are you omitting the single most important piece of information (which, coincidentally, is also the one that makes your entire argument worthless)? Are you posting in here to try and deceive people? Are you always intellectually dishonest, or are you only intellectually dishonest when defending a closely-held belief?
I'd really like to know the answers to these questions, ThunderMan.
This question/argument is frustrating because it really isn't a valid argument: "I don't think there is a legitimate reason for you to have that, therefore we should make it illegal".
That's only half the argument. You're leaving out the part that makes it legitimate.
The full argument is: "There is no legitimate reason for you to have that, and evidence demonstrates that people having that is dangerous, and that potential for misuse is high. Therefore, you should not have it."
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, it is the same essential argument behind why it is not legal for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapon.
What legitimate reason do I need to own a "scary" semi-automatic rifle? What legitimate reason do I need to own ANY firearm?
Do you need a legitimate reason to own a nuclear weapon?
If so, why do you need a legitimate reason for a nuclear weapon, but not for a firearm?
Finally, what legitimate reason is there to own a car that can go faster than 75 MPH? To the best of my knowledge, the fastest speed limit in the US is 75 MPH.
I think many of us would be okay with legislation that ensures that new motor vehicles have safeguards in place to prevent being driven in excess of a certain speed.
Importantly, however, we have an entire profession of trained patrol officers for whom a primary responsibility is actively ensuring that the speed limit is being observed, made possible because they have open access to all public roads.
|
|
That's only half the argument. You're leaving out the part that makes it legitimate.
The full argument is: "There is no legitimate reason for you to have that, and evidence demonstrates that people having that is dangerous, and that potential for misuse is high. Therefore, you should not have it."
That is the first time I have heard that point being put into that form, but it still a response based on emotion rather than fact. Any object may be dangerous if used in an improper manner. The fact that there are more murders committed with the use of hands and feet than there are with ANY type of rifle, supports this.
The evidence demonstrates that people can hijack an airplane and crash it into a building, and the potential for it happening again is high. The only way to ensure something like this doesn't happen with absolute certainty is to ground all aircraft indefinitely. I don't see anyone calling for the grounding of all aircraft.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, it is the same essential argument behind why it is not legal for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapon.
This position is completely absurd. This semi-automatic rifle is the same as this semi-automatic rifle. It is not even remotely equivalent to this.
A more realistic comparison would be that of semi-automatic firearms to fully-automatic firearms (which, again as I pointed out, are legal for a civilian to own).
I think many of us would be okay with legislation that ensures that new motor vehicles have safeguards in place to prevent being driven in excess of a certain speed.
Importantly, however, we have an entire profession of trained patrol officers for whom a primary responsibility is actively ensuring that the speed limit is being observed, made possible because they have open access to all public roads.
Interesting story as it relates to this point: a number of years ago, myself and a few others were at a friend's house discharging our firearms as we "crazy gun-nuts" are want to do. He had a nice open lot surrounded by wooded hills. His neighbor (not literally next door, but neighbor in a more rural way) called the Sheriff. Two officers showed up, recognized that we were not being irresponsible with our firearms (including a few "scary" semi-automatics), nor that we presented a danger to the public, and left.
EDIT: URL Tags
That is the first time I have heard that point being put into that form, but it still a response based on emotion rather than fact.
That doesn't sound like an emotional argument. The idea that scary-looking weapons should be banned because they are scary-looking is ridiculous, absolutely. Weapons should be restricted based on their destructive capabilities and the potential for their misuse. On that, we're agreed.
Any object may be dangerous if used in an improper manner. The fact that there are more murders committed with the use of hands and feet than there are with ANY type of rifle, supports this.
I'm not sure where you're getting this. Firearms are responsible for the majority of homicides in the United States. Homicide committed by an unarmed individual is, comparatively, rare.
The evidence demonstrates that people can hijack an airplane and crash it into a building, and the potential for it happening again is high. The only way to ensure something like this doesn't happen with absolute certainty is to ground all aircraft indefinitely. I don't see anyone calling for the grounding of all aircraft.
Because commercial air traffic serves a purpose that we have decided, as a society, is quite legitimate.
This position is completely absurd.
Not really.
This semi-automatic rifle is the same as this semi-automatic rifle. It is not even remotely equivalent to this.
No, you're right. They are very far apart in terms of destructive capability. But they are both weapons, and we see fit to restrict the use of one because of its high potential for mass casualty. It's simply a matter of where we draw the line - what level of potential destruction do we feel is acceptable to place in the hands of civilians?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's too bad Wilson didn't have access to drones.
Hey DA, speaking about indefinite detention and police states, today is the anniversary of Frank Steunenberg's murder. Thoughts?
Any object may be dangerous if used in an improper manner. The fact that there are more murders committed with the use of hands and feet than there are with ANY type of rifle, supports this.I'm not sure where you're getting this. Firearms are responsible for the majority of homicides in the United States. Homicide committed by an unarmed individual is, comparatively, rare.
He's talking about rifles specifically, not all firearms.
Besides, on the same day as the school shooting some one in china did the same thing with a knife.You left out the part where no one died in the knife attack in China.
Why did you leave that part out?
Did you not know that no one died? If not, why did you interject it here? It doesn't strike you as irresponsible of you to suggest that the same thing happened in China without actually knowing that the same thing happened?
Did you think that people had died because someone told you that? If so, why did they lie to you? Will you continue to trust them in the future (and, if so, why?), or will you seek out more accurate, reliable channels for information?
Did you know that no one had died, but claimed they were the same thing anyway? If so, why are you omitting the single most important piece of information (which, coincidentally, is also the one that makes your entire argument worthless)? Are you posting in here to try and deceive people? Are you always intellectually dishonest, or are you only intellectually dishonest when defending a closely-held belief?
I'd really like to know the answers to these questions, ThunderMan.
It was to illustrate that a sick individual can and will attack children. The presence of a gun is not needed for an attack to take place. Did you know that Scott betts? Or do you always jump to personal attacks without thinking of all possibilities when my argument was clearly holding the individual responsible?
Or that I didn't mention it because I thought every one was well informed, or would look up the information if they wanted to know more? I also didn't mention any killings in the shooting either. Did you know that Scott betts? Or that there were other school knifings where there were fatalities.
Well, I said come at me bro, and you did scott betts. Very commendable of you. But you didn't counter my argument, you started with personal attacks saying I was being dishonest. I was completely truthful in my post. The attacker should kill themselves before they go and try gunning some one down, or stabbing them, cutting them or whatever other sick thing they have in their head. Just because in one, children died doesn't make the other better. In both we have very traumatized children and families.
Do you always jump to personal attacks against people that disagree with your deeply held beliefs Scott betts?
It was to illustrate that a sick individual can and will attack children. The presence of a gun is not needed for an attack to take place. Did you know that Scott betts? Or do you always jump to personal attacks without thinking of all possibilities when my argument was clearly holding the individual responsible?
Or that I didn't mention it because I thought every one was well informed, or would look up the information if they wanted to know more? I also didn't mention any killings in the shooting either. Did you know that Scott betts? Or that there were other school knifings where there were fatalities.
Well, I said come at me bro, and you did scott betts. Very commendable of you. But you didn't counter my argument, you started with personal attacks saying I was being dishonest. I was completely truthful...
So you don't think it was important to mention that the most significant difference between the knife attack in China and the mass shooting in Connecticut was that no one died in the knife attack?
Of course the individual bears responsibility for the act. That doesn't mean the proliferation of guns is blameless. The proliferation of guns meant the difference between four kids sent to the hospital, and twenty dead school children.
I really just want to know why you didn't mention that. Could you answer that?
That's only half the argument. You're leaving out the part that makes it legitimate.
The full argument is: "There is no legitimate reason for you to have that, and evidence demonstrates that people having that is dangerous, and that potential for misuse is high. Therefore, you should not have it."
That is the first time I have heard that point being put into that form, but it still a response based on emotion rather than fact. Any object may be dangerous if used in an improper manner. The fact that there are more murders committed with the use of hands and feet than there are with ANY type of rifle, supports this.
The evidence demonstrates that people can hijack an airplane and crash it into a building, and the potential for it happening again is high. The only way to ensure something like this doesn't happen with absolute certainty is to ground all aircraft indefinitely. I don't see anyone calling for the grounding of all aircraft.
I've asked the question "what's the point of a gun?" many times whenever you compare them to other things, like cars, airplanes and ladders.
Yes, you can die or kill others using a car, airplane or ladder. But I can think of a beneficial use that does not involve harming a person or animal with those three things.
Can you name me one utilitarian use for a gun that does not involve harming a person or animal, or threatening to harm them?
By the way, I am pro-hunting rights. But hunting is still harming an animal, I'm just okay with deciding that it's a legitimate activity. Though I think hunting should always take a back seat to conservation and primarily be used for population control.
No you can not name one utilitarian use for a firearm that doesnt ultimately lead to harming something. But then, the same can be said of governments of any style. By the way, I am pro-having a government. But governments still ultimately operate solely by doing harm, Im just ok because they are legitimate. Because sometimes, harming something is the best option that there is.
Scott, first sentence of the first paragraph of my last post. Pay attention and you'll see your answer. Even if its not the one you want.
Scott, first sentence of the first paragraph of my last post. Pay attention and you'll see your answer. Even if its not the one you want.
Yes, sick individuals can and will attack children, on occasion. We all know that. So we should do what we can to ensure that - when that happens - the tools they have at their disposal do not enable them to massacre 20 kids.
Again: Why did you choose not to mention the fact that no one died in the Chinese attack? You said someone did the "same thing" with a knife. Someone with no knowledge of the event would assume that the knife attack resulted in the death of many children, and that would be incorrect. So why did you leave that out? I really want to know. Did you feel it was unimportant? That's a pretty critical piece of information, especially as it concerns this debate. Did you not know? If so, why not? Did you know, and withhold it because it doesn't support your position as well if he didn't kill anyone?
I really would like you to tell me which of those three it is. There really aren't any other options. You either felt it wasn't important, you didn't know, or you withheld it in an intellectually dishonest fashion. So what was it?
No you can not name one utilitarian use for a firearm that doesnt ultimately lead to harming something. But then, the same can be said of governments of any style. By the way, I am pro-having a government. But governments still ultimately operate solely by doing harm, Im just ok because they are legitimate. Because sometimes, harming something is the best option that there is.
So it is your opinion, then, that we ought to monitor who is able to wield the power and responsibility of a firearm with the same level of attention and care as we monitor who wields the power and responsibility of running our government, yes?
Regardless, your comparison isn't worth much. The design and manufacture of firearms is a process focused almost entirely on improving the firearm's ability to kill in as effective a manner as possible. The process through which we refine and improve our government is a process focused almost entirely on bettering the lives of its citizens.
It's not one of those. Some sick person attacked children. In either case, no matter how you want to try and spin it. It is the same thing. It's pretty basic, I'm not going into end results, I'm stating in both cases some one attacked a bunch of kids. What I'm not understanding is why you think it was ever more than that?
It's not one of those.
It is one of those. You're now telling me that you thought it wasn't important or relevant enough for you to mention.
Some sick person attacked children. In either case, no matter how you want to try and spin it. It is the same thing. It's pretty basic, I'm not going into end results, I'm stating in both cases some one attacked a bunch of kids. What I'm not understanding is why you think it was ever more than that?
In your very first post here you said that the "same thing" happened in China. You then went on, immediately, to use that to illustrate that people kill people with all sorts of things (you listed baseball bats, stones, and concrete, among other things). You then went on to say that because of this, we shouldn't outlaw guns.
The problem, of course, is that guns enable the difference between four injured children, and 20 dead children. Leaving that out completely makes your point seem almost reasonable - after all, if knives kill people just as easily as guns kill people, why outlaw guns but not knives (which is itself a poor argument, but better than nothing)? In fact, guns kill people way more easily and more prolifically than knives. And baseball bats. And stones. And concrete. And every other weapon. Combined. Removing guns from the equation can mean the difference between a few injured children and an entire class of dead children.
So I'll ask again: why did you think that was unimportant?
Understand that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - if I had to guess, I'd guess that you were completely aware that no one died in the Chinese attack, but chose not to mention it because it hurt your argument (and figured that none of us were aware of the Chinese attack). But for the purpose of this discussion, we'll assume that you honestly thought it wasn't relevant (as incredible as I find that to believe).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No you can not name one utilitarian use for a firearm that doesnt ultimately lead to harming something. But then, the same can be said of governments of any style. By the way, I am pro-having a government. But governments still ultimately operate solely by doing harm, Im just ok because they are legitimate. Because sometimes, harming something is the best option that there is.
Government harm can be subjective. Like a guy loses a logging job because the government decides to protect a forest, but that forest is the only source in North America for a mushroom that can be used to cure a lot of chemical and biological weapons attacks.
More generally, I think a major problem in our country is that we keep seeing the government as some sort of 'other' to be resisted and blamed. Government is how we make decisions as a society and decide what is important. It's a reflection of who we are and what we think should be done, but we're not taking enough responsibility with it and abdicating that responsibility to others.
|
It's not one of those. Some sick person attacked children. In either case, no matter how you want to try and spin it. It is the same thing. It's pretty basic, I'm not going into end results, I'm stating in both cases some one attacked a bunch of kids. What I'm not understanding is why you think it was ever more than that?
In the same way that the Titanic and Flight 1594 were both catastrophic accidents involving passenger liners, the two attacks were the same. If you don't see why the end result matters to your argument, nothing will change your mind about it.
No you can not name one utilitarian use for a firearm that doesnt ultimately lead to harming something. But then, the same can be said of governments of any style. By the way, I am pro-having a government. But governments still ultimately operate solely by doing harm, Im just ok because they are legitimate. Because sometimes, harming something is the best option that there is.
Wuh?
Oh, I see, you're extending the word "harm" to mean "not let anyone do whatever they want".Explain how governments operate solely on doing harm? When the government paves the road, in what way does it do harm?
In some way, in some interpretation, everything everyone does harms someone. But if you have to broaden the definition of harm that far it loses all meaning.
No, firearms purpose is to kill things (usually people). Every other possible use is peripheral, and (usually) less efficient than something else. To wit, I can use a pistol as a light switch, a can opener, a nutcracker, or a TV remote, but other items are more effective and efficient.
Government's purpose is to provide a mechanism for managing the needs and wants of its citizens (or the very least those in power).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's too bad Wilson didn't have access to drones.Hey DA, speaking about indefinite detention and police states, today is the anniversary of Frank Steunenberg's murder. Thoughts?
IIRC, when Big Bill Haywood was on the stand he was asked if he killed Steunenberg, he replied "I didn't kill him, but I wish I did."
Vive le Galt!
Wuh?
Oh, I see, you're extending the word "harm" to mean "not let anyone do whatever they want".Explain how governments operate solely on doing harm? When the government paves the road, in what way does it do harm?
In some way, in some interpretation, everything everyone does harms someone. But if you have to broaden the definition of harm that far it loses all meaning.
No, firearms purpose is to kill things (usually people). Every other possible use is peripheral, and (usually) less efficient than something else. To wit, I can use a pistol as a light switch, a can opener, a nutcracker, or a TV remote, but other items are more effective and efficient.
Government's purpose is to provide a mechanism for managing the needs and wants of its citizens (or the very least those in power).
When the government paves the road, the pavers need paid. The money must come from somewhere, and where it comes from is paid under threat of violence. Thats what government is: the monopoly of violence! Im not saying thats a bad thing, it just is. Same with firearms, they operate solely by harming others. Sometimes that harm is a net good. Sometimes not. Just like governments.
It's too bad Wilson didn't have access to drones.Hey DA, speaking about indefinite detention and police states, today is the anniversary of Frank Steunenberg's murder. Thoughts?IIRC, when Big Bill Haywood was on the stand he was asked if he killed Steunenberg, he replied "I didn't kill him, but I wish I did."
Vive le Galt!
I just stumbled over that article while viewing my newsfeed on the book-of-faces. The whole thing is a great story, and I had never heard of any of it, before. Awesome.
Yes, it is an awesome story and if I seemed blase, it's just my affected online persona.
I think it was during that very trial that Haywood, legendary leader of the Western Federation of Miners and, later, the Industrial Workers of the World, was approached by a journalist.
He was wearing his Sunday best and smoking a fat cigar provided by his attorney Clarence Darrow (of Scopes Monkey Trial and Leopold and Loeb fame) when the newsie came up to him.
"Big Bill, what are you doing wearing a three-piece suit and smoking a $3 cigar?" he asked, to which Bill replied,
"Nothing's too good for the working class."
But, seriously, if there's one point I really want you all to take away from my gibberish it is this:
For Comrade Dwarf and Mr. Shifty: It even has some Australians in it.
In honor of Christoph Waltz's character, I'll link this.
When the government paves the road, the pavers need paid. The money must come from somewhere, and where it comes from is paid under threat of violence. Thats what government is: the monopoly of violence! Im not saying thats a bad thing, it just is. Same with firearms, they operate solely by harming others. Sometimes that harm is a net good. Sometimes not. Just like governments.
Not to split hairs, and sorry if I am coming off as snide (apparently that's a capitol offense to some people around here, not you) but the thread of violence=/=violence.
I get what you're saying, but I assure you that many many people refuse to pay their taxes every year without being murdered by the state. Those bastards get away with it. In fact, even if they were caught they wouldn't be beaten, but thrown in jail. And even that's a maybe, and only in particularly egregious cases. At least when the system functions right.Which all agrees with your statement...if you expand the meaning of harm to mean "supression of one's natural right of freedom of movement" or some such. Which isn't unreasonable, but it's a very different definition than actual physical damage.
I know, my point is pedantic. Your point is taken, and I'm being nitpicky, but I see my government do lots of things every day without managing to harm people (in the same manner a gun harms people). So, "solely" by doing harm is grossly overstating.
As to the exceptions to this rule, like use of police and military violence, I needn't remind you we're on the same side of the argument on those things.
Not to split hairs, and sorry if I am coming off as snide (apparently that's a capitol offense to some people around here, not you) but the thread of violence=/=violence.
I get what you're saying, but I assure you that many many people refuse to pay their taxes every year without being murdered by the state. Those bastards get away with it. In fact, even if they were caught they wouldn't be beaten, but thrown in jail. And even that's a maybe, and only in particularly egregious cases. At least when the system functions right.Which all agrees with your statement...if you expand the meaning of harm to mean "supression of one's natural right of freedom of movement" or some such. Which isn't unreasonable, but it's a very different definition than actual physical damage.
I know, my point is pedantic. Your point is taken, and I'm being nitpicky, but I see my government do lots of things every day without managing to harm people (in the same manner a gun harms people). So, "solely" by doing harm is grossly overstating.
As to the exceptions to this rule, like use of police and military violence, I needn't remind you we're on the same side of the argument on those things.
Well, my retort would then have to be: If a government's threat of violence does not count, then a firearm could be used nonviolently just by its presence. ex: a guy tries to rob me, I pull out a pistol without firing and he runs away or surrenders. or ex2: A guy thinks about punching me and kidnapping my child, but notices the bulge on my inner thigh and isnt sure what Im packing (ha, no seriously its a gun 8( )and decides not to do anything.
Edit- and also not to get nitpicky, but the threat of killing you is the only coercion that a government has (again not saying this is bad). If I dont pay my taxes and the police come to take me away, what happens if I refuse to go, even non violently? Eventually once you boil it down to the ultimate conclusion, if you refuse to do what the state wants, it kills you.
Do you, Guy? If someone tries to kill me, I can call the police and have them held accountable. If a government tries to kill me, how do I hold them accountable?
But regardless, I think I made my point that it really doesnt matter that the only function of firearms is to do harm to something else. Because sometimes harming something else is the best option.
Edit- and also not to get nitpicky, but the threat of killing you is the only coercion that a government has (again not saying this is bad). If I dont pay my taxes and the police come to take me away, what happens if I refuse to go, even non violently? Eventually once you boil it down to the ultimate conclusion, if you refuse to do what the state wants, it kills you.There are plenty of examples of what happens when you refuse to go, even non-violently. Very few (none?) of them involve them killing you.
What they will do is physically haul you away. Possibly first cutting you away from what you chained yourself to.If it's tax refusal, they'll probably just issue you a summons. If you don't show to the hearing, you'll be dragged in. They may also just dock your wages.
No where in here are they killing you or even threatening to kill you. Unless you consider an armed policeman without his gun drawn asking you to come with him to be a death threat.Now, if you violently resist, that may change depending on the degree of force you use.
Once again, keep nonviolently resisting and it happens. They cut my chains so I run away. Again, Im nonviolently resisting. What happens next? The threat of violence is literally all that a state has.
Everyday I try to escape. Eventually I escape or am shot while trying. If I do escape, what happens next?
Youre not going to win this one, thejeff. Thats what states are: A monopoly on violence. Once you boil it down to its ultimate conclusion, thats it.
Do you, Guy? If someone tries to kill me, I can call the police and have them held accountable. If a government tries to kill me, how do I hold them accountable?
By exercising your ability (and the ability of others) to decide who governs you.
But regardless, I think I made my point that it really doesnt matter that the only function of firearms is to do harm to something else. Because sometimes harming something else is the best option.
While true, that doesn't mean that widespread private ownership of guns is the best option.
Which wasnt what was asserted was it?
Everyday I try to escape. Eventually I escape or am shot while trying. If I do escape, what happens next?
Youre not going to win this one, thejeff. Thats what states are: A monopoly on violence. Once you boil it down to its ultimate conclusion, thats it.
I disagree, a state is not a monopoly on violence. First, it holds no such monopoly. Even in North Korea, the state does not hold a monopoly on violence. Since violence occurs against the states wishes, you can't consider it to be a monopoly. Second, governments use many means to try and enforce it's will, many of which do not include violence.
Third, this presupposes the concept of government as being some sort of "other", instead of the government being a representation of our will. The government is always powered by the people. A lone dictator does not enslave a nation, he needs an army and bureaucracy to do so.
Nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent resistance in forcing change on a government. That means when dealing with a government, nonviolence is more effective than violence, which suggests to me that a government is not an inherently violent organization, because otherwise violence would be the most effective means of change.
Also, guns aren't comparable to government. Government serves a purpose outside of harming. A community getting together and adopting a decision making process is a government, and many do so without violence or threat of violence. Since the purpose of doing so is usually to not do harm, but to actually solve problems within the community, government serves a utilitarian purpose other than causing harm.
You can't even compare a gun to something like heroine. Because heroine comes from opium, which is also used to make effective pain control medicines which are useful for doctors.
Guns can't be compared to explosives. Explosives are useful as a construction and demolition tool.
Nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent resistance in forcing change on a government. That means when dealing with a government, nonviolence is more effective than violence, which suggests to me that a government is not an inherently violent organization, because otherwise violence would be the most effective means of change.
Tell it to NATO and Africom.
Thank you, Citizen Humual.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, guns were built and designed to more efficiently kill human beings (efficient in that a soldier didn't have to be trained to the levels as a bowman did-those original guns were not really that reliable).
The current national debate revolves around "scary" semi-automatic rifles and whether or not they should be allowed for civilian ownership. It is a dishonest debate that supposes one type of semi-automatic rifle is more dangerous than another type of semi-automatic rifle. Those who wish to implement a ban use confusing and dishonest terms like "military-style", "assault weapon", or "high-powered" to make these rifles seem like they are more than what they are. Furthermore, news organizations, to show the "how dangerous" these "scary" semi-automatic rifles are, use demonstrations of FULLY-AUTOMATIC weapons while talking about the dangers of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons. The dishonesty on the part of the politicians and lobby groups are deliberate. The dishonesty on the part of the news might be deliberate, but might be out of sheer ignorance.
Let me make this point perfectly clear, and whether you agree that weapons should be banned or not, I hope you will at least understand this: there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the functionality or lethality of semi-automatic rifles that ARE on the original AWB list and semi-automatic rifles that ARE NOT on the original AWB list. The weapons on the list are on the list due to their cosmetic features. Really? A rifle with a pistol grip, collapsible stock, and a flash hider is more dangerous than a rifle with traditional wooden furniture? If you honestly think this is true, I question whether or not you have ever fired a gun before. And "high-capacity magazines"? Do you honestly think that an AR-15 with a 30-round mag is more dangerous than an M1 Garand with its 8-round clip? If you honestly think that is true, then you have either never fired an M1 Garand before or are outright lying to yourself.
The M1 Garand is not even on the radar. The rifle is lauded for its accuracy and reliability as a target and hunting rifle. It has a "legitimate" purpose, whereas the AR-15, with it's pistol grip and 30-round magazine, apparently does not. No matter that you can legally hunt with an AR-15, and that it is a popular firearm used in shooting competitions, but apparently those reasons aren't good enough. The AR-15 doesn't have a "legitimate" reason because it is based off of the rifle used by the US military. Oh by the way, the M1 Garand was the rifle used by (not based off of, it was used by) the US Military in WWII and Korea.
So, you may not like guns, and I can understand and respect that. At least understand that if you feel that "scary" semi-automatic rifles should be banned because "they are more dangerous and the potential for misuse is high", that is an opinion based on dishonest propaganda.
Now, all that being said, I do think it would be important to reevaluate the firearms procurement process. But the actual banning of a gun that is no more dangerous than one that isn't going to be banned? Not so much.
EDIT: clarity in the second-to-last paragraph.
Are e-mails letters?