On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 10:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  One last point too on ammunition for self-defense. Why do the bullets have to be hollow-points and other highly lethal versions? ( A buddy once showed me a type of bullet designed to generate a shock-wave upon striking the victim so as to cause the heart to stop, no matter where the impact occurred) Why not less-lethal versions for self-defense and lethal versions for hunting?

My sister-in-law told me a story once (this is TN) about her grandfather and his run-in with some teenage vagrants. They would come on to his farm at night and steal his gas. He has a right to protect his assets, no? Sure. He has a right to kill teenage boys over gasoline? I say hell no. Anyways, he hid outside one night and waited with his shotgun. They came along with their canisters and proceeded to fill-up (it was a farm and they had a private gasoline tank for farm use). He unloaded two rounds, one for each. Only he used rock salt instead of lethal shot (obviously even this can be deadly if used improperly). He aimed for their asses and hit his target both time. He knew exactly who they were the next day when he saw them at the local store, unable to sit down because of the pain from the rock salt.

In some ways this is still very cruel, but it does the job of self-defense and property defense without the need for lethal force. With medical care, there should be no lasting effects.

Why not implement more of the less-lethal variety of ammo types?

Why not invest in less-lethal weapon types for self-defense instead of guns anyways? And I don't just mean tasers and mace. Why not new technology that disables your assailant without the need for lethal force?


When phasers become available, I will get one. Until then, my .357 magnum will have to do.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 10:34 AM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 09:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The point is that guns were never designed for self-defense, they were designed to kill. You may use it for personal defense (within the limits of reason obviously) but that is not their designed purpose. It's like evolution. Your fingers did not evolve for typing, but you have adapted them for that purpose.

On to the more salient points raised. Guns may not kill people and spoons may not make people fat, but guns are designed to kill and make doing so that much easier. Why is attaining a gun easier and less time consuming than getting a freaking driver's license? Both can kill but only one is designed to do harm while the other is engineered to reduce harm in the event of an automobile accident.

Gun laws need to be amended. I don't necessarily think they should be banned (although I doubt I would shed a tear if they were) but if you are going to own one that is fully functional and operational, there should be

A) limits on what you can buy. The extreme example here has already been pointed out, aka that you can't own a nuclear weapon. What would be the most useful weapon for home self-defense? A shotgun or maybe a handgun. For self-defense when out of the home? A handgun (but I don't feel that this is really necessary). The shotgun is a fire and forget style weapon that has low penetration capability when coupled with the right shot. No need to worry about bullets traveling through walls injuring innocents. If you hunt then there are other weapons that one could argue for but why high-capacity magazines and anything other than a bolt-action rifle?

Anyone remember this?





B) Yearly renewal of your gun license. I realize you don't have to renew your driver's license every year, but it is not a weapon designed to kill. How often are cops required to redo their training with their weapon?

C) Fees. Gun tax. Bullet Tax. License tax. These taxes can go to good use for funding programs designed for gun safety education and funding the infrastructure to manage them. And for other crime related issues and perhaps police training. You have to pay to play.

D) Insurance. If you own a fully-functional one, you should have to have insurance to cover any damage or injury or loss of life from the aforementioned weapon. Your son gets it and uses it without your knowledge? You are still liable. It gets stolen and you don't report it? You are still liable. Rates vary depending on whether it is kept in your house or if you get insurance for use outside of the house (personal safety and hunting would also have different rates). You have to pay to play. You own a car and pay insurance, why not a gun?

E) Background checks. This goes along with insurance (they can choose not to insure you if you are deemed unfit) and your license (your license can be rejected). The background check does not just mean your criminal history, but your mental state too. You are required to take a psych eval every other year (except for those between the ages of 18-30 and it is every year, since this is the age range when must psych issues arise in people)

F) Requirements for buying ammunition mean presenting your insurance and license information and there are limits on the amount of ammunition that any given firearm you own can have within 50 ft of it at any given time. If you live in a house where you have a shed outside, you may be able to own more. If you are worried that restricting the amount of ammunition will inhibit your ability to stop the government whenever they are apparently going to come for you, we will be in full on war at that point and you won't have a hard time finding ammo anyways, so lighten up.

G) Membership to a firearm club required. The club will charge you some dues and it can use those as it sees fit (funding a firing range complete with ammo so you don't have to buy your own for instance). Membership rates can vary depending on the club and go from the basic membership needed where you go once a year for a re-up on your safety training, to more costly memberships where you get to use the firing range at any time with a monthly ammo allowance (rate varies depending on the amount of ammo you want to fire). You get the benefit of a group where you share common interests with members and it can host other functions too. For instance, it could have a Western themed movie month and show old John Wayne movies or someone purchases a new firearm and others want to try it out, they can. Or a sponsorship with a gun seller means they bring over a small collection of guns every month for members to try out.

The point is that the status quo is in serious need of change.
Your comment on guns being designed to kill. Yes they are. And if you are going to defend yourself using deadly force (which is legal if you fear for life and limb), you are going to use a means which will inflict grave bodily injury or death.

The legal term for shooting and killing an aggressor in a life threatening situation is the application of deadly force by shooting to stop.

Deadly force again is defined as any forced designed to inflict grave bodily injury or death.

Using firearms, deadly force involves aiming for a person's heart of central nervous system.

Shooting to stop is applying deadly force UNTIL THE THREAT IS NEUTRALIZED IE THE AGGRESSOR RETREATS, SUES FOR PEACE OR NO LONGER PRESENTS A THREAT.

Also (a little known fact) in certain situations, it is legal to kill someone but it is never legal to murder them. Look it up. So the idea that someone owns something specifically designed to kill is not alarming in and of itself.

On gun bans and certain weapons restrictions, I've never seen any evidence that this reduces crime. The example you posted of the North Hollywood Bank Robbery in, I think 1997 that was, those guys already broke the law by illegally possessing machine guns (restricted under the NFA or 1935). Even if they had semi-automatic clones of those guns (which they didn't - those were full autos) they would still be illegal under California's Roberto Rossi Assault Weapons Ban of 1989. In fact the Roberto Rossi Assault Weapons ban HURT THE COPS in that shootout, since they could not readily purchase rifle which could have defeated the body armor the robbers were wearing. As I recall, LAPD officers had to go into local gunshops and have the shops LOAN them rifles to take these guys out.

Insurance for guns? Not a bad idea.

As for the background checks and licenses, I think I covered that in my IPL post and my proposal would do a pretty good job of keeping guns away from high risk people or situations.

As for ammo restrictions, I fail to see what this will do except just be a pain for lawful gun owners. Also I don't see the need mandatory membership in a gun club. I require it for my IPL idea, mainly as a means of initial evaluation of the individual but past that, they've already proven themselves trustworthy with a gun.

Finally even the best efforts in controlling guns will not prevent gun murders and, in fact, gun murders are caused by a number of other sociological problems like drugs and gangs. Case in point is Latin America. Mexico has about 20 million guns (1/15 the number in the United States), tight gun control regulations, yet it has over 12,000 gun murders annually. Brazil has similar gun numbers and gun control measures and a whopping 36,000 gun murders annually*. If we really want to address the gun crime problem, we need to focus on the real causes of the crime, not the means the criminals use.

We may have to accept a certain number of gun murders annually as a negative byproduct of the 2nd Amendment and the benefits it brings.


*Source: Gunpolicy.org

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
31-01-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 10:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  One last point too on ammunition for self-defense. Why do the bullets have to be hollow-points and other highly lethal versions? ( A buddy once showed me a type of bullet designed to generate a shock-wave upon striking the victim so as to cause the heart to stop, no matter where the impact occurred) Why not less-lethal versions for self-defense and lethal versions for hunting?

My sister-in-law told me a story once (this is TN) about her grandfather and his run-in with some teenage vagrants. They would come on to his farm at night and steal his gas. He has a right to protect his assets, no? Sure. He has a right to kill teenage boys over gasoline? I say hell no. Anyways, he hid outside one night and waited with his shotgun. They came along with their canisters and proceeded to fill-up (it was a farm and they had a private gasoline tank for farm use). He unloaded two rounds, one for each. Only he used rock salt instead of lethal shot (obviously even this can be deadly if used improperly). He aimed for their asses and hit his target both time. He knew exactly who they were the next day when he saw them at the local store, unable to sit down because of the pain from the rock salt.

In some ways this is still very cruel, but it does the job of self-defense and property defense without the need for lethal force. With medical care, there should be no lasting effects.

Why not implement more of the less-lethal variety of ammo types?

Why not invest in less-lethal weapon types for self-defense instead of guns anyways? And I don't just mean tasers and mace. Why not new technology that disables your assailant without the need for lethal force?


When phasers become available, I will get one. Until then, my .357 magnum will have to do.
How awesome would phasers be? That is next-generation technology we need. We already have the touch-pad communication devices, where are the phasers and space travel to distant planets!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Also, I am not trying to imply that any of my suggestions would do anything to reduce crime (they should have an impact on gun crime but not crime rates or violent crime rates in general). The suggestions I gave do 2 things,

1) Implements multiple safety measures to potentially identify and stop those about to commit acts of violence that are not within the normal realm of violence (aka, mass shootings and planned violence)

2) It helps to change the gun nature of our country. Right now we have a significant portion of the country that views guns not as inanimate objects capable of mass death, but as something else. A member of the family almost in some cases. It actually implements the notion of the "guns don't kill people and spoons don't make people fat" attitude by holding people accountable and treating guns as inanimate objects.


Take Australia for example. They changed their gun laws in the late 90's and while they have seen a drop in crime over that time, it is similar to that seen in places like the US over the same time interval. But they have not had a single mass shooting in over 10 years. Gun laws will not affect crime because guns are an instrument of criminals, not the cause of criminal behavior, but gun laws do change the nature of guns and how guns are viewed and any change that can keep us from hearing about an Alabama man taking a kid hostage and shooting a bus driver, or someone luring firemen to their death, or the shooting of a congresswoman, is fine by me.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Quote: 1) Implements multiple safety measures to potentially identify and stop
those about to commit acts of violence that are not within the normal
realm of violence (aka, mass shootings and planned violence)
You want Minority Report?




"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Also, I think the insurance idea is one of my best. If nothing else, it insures the gun holder in the event of the illegal use of their weapon by themselves or someone else and will provide them with a policy to pay out money to the victim in an effort to avoid financial loss on their part.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:44 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
I've never seen that movie, but I am not talking about reading minds or an invasion of privacy, but if coots like the 70 year old guy holding that kid hostage were required to take psych evals and renew their licenses, he might get his guns (or rights to purchase and own ammo) taken away. That would prevent acts of violence in an indirect sense without jailing anyone as if they are about to commit some crime. Or not even take them away but disable them until they his license and insurance are renewed.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:46 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
And especially in cases like that where he is currently awaiting trial for allegedly shooting at his neighbors. If you are under investigation for illegal use a firearm, you should not be able to own and operate a working firearm until either A) the case is cleared or B) the judge revokes that particular action because of the nature of the misuse of the firearm.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 11:00 AM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2013 08:43 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 05:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Question.

The 2nd amendment says "government can't stop you from owning arms".
But is a nuclear warhead not considered arms..?
So the argument of the 2nd amendment says this that and the other is flawed, because in that line of argument I should be able to own a nuclear warhead.

The point is that you do draw the line of what firearms citizens can and cannot have. It's really not that big of a leap to simple shift that line. But to say that there isn't a line, which preaching the 2nd amendment is doing, is wrong.

Unless I'm missing something.

Which is why it's kind of hard to show up to the conversation.

This is the one that got me:

Quote:The Second Amendment was written to arm the public with weapons designed for military purposes. Though our Founders were armed with muskets and cannons and could not imagine the military machinations we have today, it's clear that they wanted the public armed with weapons which can be used for military purposes to serve as a bulwark against government tyranny.

Their knowledge, intellect and foresight was limited in quite a unique way.

You would know they wouldn't have been able to envision that a species who spent majority of it's time on planet earth inventing tools to kill shit, ultimately each other and definitely for majority of their lifetimes, could possibly have devolved any more tools, more powerful, and more capable of inflicting mass casualties, than what they had.

And also, they sure as hell weren't intelligent enough to be specific.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Quote: Take Australia for example. They changed their gun laws in the late 90's
and while they have seen a drop in crime over that time, it is similar
to that seen in places like the US over the same time interval. But they
have not had a single mass shooting in over 10 years. Gun laws will not
affect crime because guns are an instrument of criminals,
No, Australia never really did see reductions in gun homicide rates as a result of gun control. If you go back to even before those laws went into effect, you would see that they never really had a gun crime problem to begin with. The fact that they only had one mass shooting in the entire history of the country really is not a measure of success for gun control laws. 20-30 shootings a year, then gun control, then none thereafter, I'd say yes.

As I pointed out, Brazil has tough gun control laws but still has 36,000 gun murders annually. So gun laws are really not gun crime prevention yardsticks. Again is Germany vs Switzerland. Germany has strict gun control, the Swiss do not, but gun murder rates are very similar.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Do guns cause Rape? What do you think is the leading cause of rape? LostandInsecure 96 1,448 31-05-2014 03:26 PM
Last Post: Metazoa Zeke
  Guns. Yee haw! Drunkin Druid 64 1,031 26-05-2014 04:09 PM
Last Post: Anjele
  The problem with storing guns/ammo at a range Phaedrus 2 63 28-04-2014 06:25 PM
Last Post: Phaedrus
  Polite discussion on guns itsnotmeitsyou 10 199 24-04-2014 11:26 AM
Last Post: itsnotmeitsyou
  Kids and Guns Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver 6 265 13-02-2014 10:01 AM
Last Post: Unknown
  Anarchists, Guns, and 3D Printing houseofcantor 43 2,350 16-11-2013 09:31 AM
Last Post: Chas
  Boys Expelled From School for Toy Guns at their Home Dark Light 18 800 26-09-2013 06:36 PM
Last Post: I Am
Forum Jump: