On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2013, 03:02 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
@Carlo, you assume that all of the prison population are violent. This is not even close to being true. A massive chuck of the prison population are non-violent drug offenders. Many others still are in prison for violating various types of fraud, con-men, theft (especially grand theft auto) and committing smaller violations habitually. When you also take into account the amount of violent people who have not yet been caught, or have yet to commit a crime I would think that number would still fall below the 1% line, at least for people who are willing to use firearms on innocents.

@ The Bearded Dude, yes I think the old man chose wisely (assuming the law enforcement was failing him) by choosing a non-lethal option, and like you I would like to see more stories that involved solutions like this. However I would still keep my shotgun or pistol loaded with lethal rounds in case of a situation that arose in which lethal force was necessary. If I feel no life-threatening situation exists, but there is something going on like what you described, then sure implement the non-lethal option, with the ability to make it lethal if things escalate. Rarely is that the case though. Usually when someone feels the need to pull a gun in defense it causes for lethal force. If I wake up to someone breaking a window to get in my home, I'm not going to be reaching for a tazer or rock salt, I'm going to be reaching for my pistol with 11 rounds of death waiting to be unleashed. I will not risk my life or the life of my family on the off chance that the people breaking in will not harm me, especially after I piss them off by putting holes in them. Furthermore I see no way you could force people to use non-lethal options from a legal standpoint, at least no good way. Also you must consider that the people being threatened are there, in the moment. They have a better understanding of what is happening. It is easy to use the historians fallacy and think the person in question was using bad judgement. Of course there is always the risk of people make bad decisions, but I think the reward outweighs the risk. People that use really bad judgement should be punished for their indiscretion. If that farmer had good reason to feel that the people approaching his property were armed and dangerous I would have no problem with him putting some slugs through their chest, though it doesn't sound like that was the case. Suffice it to say if someone breaks into my home, and I am there I will put holes in you without batting an eye. If I turned out you weren't armed afterward, tough fucking luck. As I said, when someone breaks into your home the wise decision is to assume they are willing to kill you. Sounds cruel, but I value my safety, and my families safety over that of a criminal.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 03:02 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  @Carlo, you assume that all of the prison population are violent. This is not even close to being true. A massive chuck of the prison population are non-violent drug offenders. Many others still are in prison for violating various types of fraud, con-men, theft (especially grand theft auto) and committing smaller violations habitually. When you also take into account the amount of violent people who have not yet been caught, or have yet to commit a crime I would think that number would still fall below the 1% line, at least for people who are willing to use firearms on innocents.

@ The Bearded Dude, yes I think the old man chose wisely (assuming the law enforcement was failing him) by choosing a non-lethal option, and like you I would like to see more stories that involved solutions like this. However I would still keep my shotgun or pistol loaded with lethal rounds in case of a situation that arose in which lethal force was necessary. If I feel no life-threatening situation exists, but there is something going on like what you described, then sure implement the non-lethal option, with the ability to make it lethal if things escalate. Rarely is that the case though. Usually when someone feels the need to pull a gun in defense it causes for lethal force. If I wake up to someone breaking a window to get in my home, I'm not going to be reaching for a tazer or rock salt, I'm going to be reaching for my pistol with 11 rounds of death waiting to be unleashed. I will not risk my life or the life of my family on the off chance that the people breaking in will not harm me, especially after I piss them off by putting holes in them. Furthermore I see no way you could force people to use non-lethal options from a legal standpoint, at least no good way. Also you must consider that the people being threatened are there, in the moment. They have a better understanding of what is happening. It is easy to use the historians fallacy and think the person in question was using bad judgement. Of course there is always the risk of people make bad decisions, but I think the reward outweighs the risk. People that use really bad judgement should be punished for their indiscretion. If that farmer had good reason to feel that the people approaching his property were armed and dangerous I would have no problem with him putting some slugs through their chest, though it doesn't sound like that was the case. Suffice it to say if someone breaks into my home, and I am there I will put holes in you without batting an eye. If I turned out you weren't armed afterward, tough fucking luck. As I said, when someone breaks into your home the wise decision is to assume they are willing to kill you. Sounds cruel, but I value my safety, and my families safety over that of a criminal.
What I am saying with the less-lethal option is that if our technology produces something that fully incapacitates someone without killing them, is that not preferable? Even if their intention is to harm? Especially because they may be deranged, deluded, high, psychotic, or ill in some other manner that is treatable? And even if they are of sound mind, we can learn from them if they are alive but gain nothing from them dead. So not just the idea of using rock salt instead of slugs but weaponry that immobilizes a person or renders them instantaneously unconscious? Something like that would negate the need for lethal options for defense as they are just as effective at stopping the attacker.

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, 03:16 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 02:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Pacifists are a kind of idealist. In an ideal sense, man can overcome their violent tendencies. It does not mean they have a warped view of reality, just a mentality of peace over violence. I don't agree with them in a perfect sense, but I would not be upset if their reality were to come to fruition.

And Carlin is amazing.

I don't think man has violent tendencies. I just say animals are irrational, and man is still just an animal.

Or rationality is more like a baseball bat. Every person could own a baseball bat, but still only few would play baseball and fewer would actually be good at it; which would just leave practice swinging, that could lead to busted out windows and broken kneecaps, to excel at with the bat. Maybe that's like wanting a gun, and not wanting to kill.

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, 03:20 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
And when an animal behaves irrationally, it behaves with emotion and in some situations will use that emotion to behave aggressively and violently. Either way we agree that man is logical and rational enough that we should be able to overcome it? (at least most of us anyways)

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, 03:41 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 03:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 03:02 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  @Carlo, you assume that all of the prison population are violent. This is not even close to being true. A massive chuck of the prison population are non-violent drug offenders. Many others still are in prison for violating various types of fraud, con-men, theft (especially grand theft auto) and committing smaller violations habitually. When you also take into account the amount of violent people who have not yet been caught, or have yet to commit a crime I would think that number would still fall below the 1% line, at least for people who are willing to use firearms on innocents.

@ The Bearded Dude, yes I think the old man chose wisely (assuming the law enforcement was failing him) by choosing a non-lethal option, and like you I would like to see more stories that involved solutions like this. However I would still keep my shotgun or pistol loaded with lethal rounds in case of a situation that arose in which lethal force was necessary. If I feel no life-threatening situation exists, but there is something going on like what you described, then sure implement the non-lethal option, with the ability to make it lethal if things escalate. Rarely is that the case though. Usually when someone feels the need to pull a gun in defense it causes for lethal force. If I wake up to someone breaking a window to get in my home, I'm not going to be reaching for a tazer or rock salt, I'm going to be reaching for my pistol with 11 rounds of death waiting to be unleashed. I will not risk my life or the life of my family on the off chance that the people breaking in will not harm me, especially after I piss them off by putting holes in them. Furthermore I see no way you could force people to use non-lethal options from a legal standpoint, at least no good way. Also you must consider that the people being threatened are there, in the moment. They have a better understanding of what is happening. It is easy to use the historians fallacy and think the person in question was using bad judgement. Of course there is always the risk of people make bad decisions, but I think the reward outweighs the risk. People that use really bad judgement should be punished for their indiscretion. If that farmer had good reason to feel that the people approaching his property were armed and dangerous I would have no problem with him putting some slugs through their chest, though it doesn't sound like that was the case. Suffice it to say if someone breaks into my home, and I am there I will put holes in you without batting an eye. If I turned out you weren't armed afterward, tough fucking luck. As I said, when someone breaks into your home the wise decision is to assume they are willing to kill you. Sounds cruel, but I value my safety, and my families safety over that of a criminal.
What I am saying with the less-lethal option is that if our technology produces something that fully incapacitates someone without killing them, is that not preferable? Even if their intention is to harm? Especially because they may be deranged, deluded, high, psychotic, or ill in some other manner that is treatable? And even if they are of sound mind, we can learn from them if they are alive but gain nothing from them dead. So not just the idea of using rock salt instead of slugs but weaponry that immobilizes a person or renders them instantaneously unconscious? Something like that would negate the need for lethal options for defense as they are just as effective at stopping the attacker.
Sure, I could go along with it, but we have no such technology yet, despite some valiant effort I might add. When such a technology becomes available, and practical (as in mobility, size, affordability, and availability) then I will be the first to advocate it. Until then though...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 03:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What I am saying with the less-lethal option is that if our technology produces something that fully incapacitates someone without killing them, is that not preferable? Even if their intention is to harm? Especially because they may be deranged, deluded, high, psychotic, or ill in some other manner that is treatable? And even if they are of sound mind, we can learn from them if they are alive but gain nothing from them dead. So not just the idea of using rock salt instead of slugs but weaponry that immobilizes a person or renders them instantaneously unconscious? Something like that would negate the need for lethal options for defense as they are just as effective at stopping the attacker.
Sure, I could go along with it, but we have no such technology yet, despite some valiant effort I might add. When such a technology becomes available, and practical (as in mobility, size, affordability, and availability) then I will be the first to advocate it. Until then though...
...we need better laws for the lethal instruments we currently have. I concur.

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, 04:26 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 04:30 PM by Dark Light.)
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 03:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Sure, I could go along with it, but we have no such technology yet, despite some valiant effort I might add. When such a technology becomes available, and practical (as in mobility, size, affordability, and availability) then I will be the first to advocate it. Until then though...
...we need better laws for the lethal instruments we currently have. I concur.
I might be persuaded to agree with some legislation, some regulation, but your idea to just tax the shit out of everything isn't a good solution in my opinion. The tax money collected in this hypothetical would be largely wasted and misappropriated. Furthermore it makes it more difficult for poor people to defend themselves and hunt for food to supplement the food they cannot afford to buy in the grocery store. You are from Tennessee, you should know better than most that these folks suffer under this type of 'solution'. I have family on my mothers side that would go to bed hungry many nights if this was implemented. Besides it may end up actually costing the government money to pay the bureaucrats to fuck up file the paperwork, hire people to give the training, etc when they could otherwise be employed producing something or solving problems. Don't even think of using a variation of the broken window fallacy to respond...

In this case I think we are just better off accepting the (small) risk associated with guns until we can develop better technology as you last suggested. Personally I think most gun measures should be done at the local level to deal with the problems that affect their community/town/city. We are way to diverse to implement a blanket solution. Large cities are impacted very differently than small towns, and towns in New New Jersey are affected much differently than towns in Alaska.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2013, 05:46 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic...ia_members

And the data isn't meaningless when there is more than one data point. If you just take from the 80's onward, there were 8 incidents before the ban and no gun-related incidents since.
Can you define those mass shootings in Australia? Near as I can find there was only one.

Also the Wilkpedia article is for Switzerland, not Australia

"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
01-02-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(01-02-2013 05:46 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic...ia_members

And the data isn't meaningless when there is more than one data point. If you just take from the 80's onward, there were 8 incidents before the ban and no gun-related incidents since.
Can you define those mass shootings in Australia? Near as I can find there was only one.

Also the Wilkpedia article is for Switzerland, not Australia
The wikipedia article for Switzerland was for the ammunition supplied by the government. I realize they can still have personal ammo but the fact that the government recognizes the need to control ammunition is a good thing.

As for Australia's shooting incidents, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_...ass_deaths

Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years.


To the point on my "tax the hell out of them" solution, I did not say tax everything into oblivion. That does not mean a bullet should be taxed at $10 per but maybe an increase of 50 cents per or a dollar per and guns get taxed differently depending on its use. Ergo, rifles for hunting are considered luxury since you don't need to hunt (very few do and they could get an exemption based on income) and are at a higher rate than those bought for defense.

And you are making an assumption that the government will just misuse or screw-up the taxation because you don't like the government charging more taxes. The solution to our problems is not to get rid of government, nor is it to blindly trust it. But it certainly isn't to just assume that all government is bad and inefficient.

I am well aware of just how poor most of Tennessee is (heck, I ain't feeding towards the top of the barrel either) but places like that arguably need guns for self-defense the least as rural areas have lower crime rates. I know how much some of them spend on guns and ammunition and taxing it would not break them (like my brother). Additional taxes for his hobby is not adding any real burden. Now, the people who don't make as much and spend more on their guns? Yea. They are going to have to get a new hobby besides their death machine.

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
01-02-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(01-02-2013 09:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-02-2013 05:46 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Can you define those mass shootings in Australia? Near as I can find there was only one.

Also the Wilkpedia article is for Switzerland, not Australia
The wikipedia article for Switzerland was for the ammunition supplied by the government. I realize they can still have personal ammo but the fact that the government recognizes the need to control ammunition is a good thing.

As for Australia's shooting incidents, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_...ass_deaths

Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years.


To the point on my "tax the hell out of them" solution, I did not say tax everything into oblivion. That does not mean a bullet should be taxed at $10 per but maybe an increase of 50 cents per or a dollar per and guns get taxed differently depending on its use. Ergo, rifles for hunting are considered luxury since you don't need to hunt (very few do and they could get an exemption based on income) and are at a higher rate than those bought for defense.

And you are making an assumption that the government will just misuse or screw-up the taxation because you don't like the government charging more taxes. The solution to our problems is not to get rid of government, nor is it to blindly trust it. But it certainly isn't to just assume that all government is bad and inefficient.

I am well aware of just how poor most of Tennessee is (heck, I ain't feeding towards the top of the barrel either) but places like that arguably need guns for self-defense the least as rural areas have lower crime rates. I know how much some of them spend on guns and ammunition and taxing it would not break them (like my brother). Additional taxes for his hobby is not adding any real burden. Now, the people who don't make as much and spend more on their guns? Yea. They are going to have to get a new hobby besides their death machine.



What is the tax for? Is it merely punitive? A sin tax? Taxation for social engineering?

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
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 1,447 31-05-2014 03:26 PM
Last Post: Metazoa Zeke
  Guns. Yee haw! Drunkin Druid 64 1,030 26-05-2014 04:09 PM
Last Post: Anjele
  The problem with storing guns/ammo at a range Phaedrus 2 62 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: