Author Topic: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.  (Read 28295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callix

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Not cool enough for a custom title.
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2008, 08:22:54 PM »
im a liberal. im the most liberal / least psychotic person i know...

im pro just about everything...

guns, yip... guns are for shooting people and animals.

the animals your allowed to shoot is regulated so you exterminate a species.

the people your allowed to shoot is regulated to keep us from barbarism.

i dont really care who own a gun, i like the second amendment. training is optional.. if you dont know how to not shoot your self, fine.

criminals have the same right to guns as anyone else... we have invented restrictions on gun ownership by felons, but thats not the original intent of the second.

gun ownership is not just for the trained military. its for every citizen. and the second amendment is for keeping your government in check. thats how our system is supposed to work, checks and balances.. the check the the electoral system is violence, with guns.




I'm Australian. I don't really care about the Second Amendment - I honestly think things might be better in the States if it was removed, but whatever. I agree that criminals have the same right as ordinary people to guns. I just think that right should be small: if you can use it safely, keep it safely, it isn't designed to kill things quickly (automatic, semi-automatic), and you have a clear, non-criminal reason to have it (sport, hunting, you're a farmer, whatever), then I can accept that you ought to have it. But a gun is not a God-given right: it's a dangerous weapon that is easily applied to several serious crimes, and I have no compunction about making people explain why they want to have a weapon.

Several other countries maintain democracy without a constitutional right to deadly weapons. Usually, it is protected by political involvement, an awareness of the laws, and strong, politically independant electoral organisations. The USA appears to be lacking some of these aspects, which might explain why you keep your option to shoot 'em all open. Seriously, what benefit is there to letting the party in power in a state control the electoral boundaries and polling system? Even if you wanted to maintain the independance of the states, they could each maintain an electoral commision, as politically independant as its judiciary, that decided on the electoral map and polling methods. And that would stop things like Florida 2000, which I think everyone agrees was a disgrace.
I know gameology-fu.

jimmersault

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2008, 01:09:42 AM »
Um, just no.


/serious (cereal)
Actual table rule, we had to get Zeke to stop interfering [mock humping] with the person trying to take their turn.

jimmersault: Zeke is my new hero.

bhu

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
  • Convincing the rich whale fat enemas are healthy
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2008, 04:53:45 AM »
There are 2 problems with banning guns now Callix:

1: the country is saturated with them.  It would be decades before they were all given up, and if you tried doing it forcibly people would end up doing something stupid and become criminals when they didnt have to be.  There is a substantial minority here that believe the only thing that keeps them free men and not slaves to the government is gun ownership, and rounding them up would convince them their every paranoid fear was true (i.e. they'd start killing police when they showed up at the door).

2: Criminals don't purchase guns legally.  Legal guns have serial numebrs that can be traced, and are fired to provide ballistics before sale.  It's supposed to be about 7 or 10 years of changing hands before they become involved in a crime.  If I want an unregistered gun, there are criminals to get that from because thats their business.  They dont have a 7 day waiting period, a background check, mountains of paperwork, or government registration forms to fill out.  On the downside if I piss them off or do soemthing stupid that leads back to them I get put in the ground.

Banning guns would lead to an unarmed populace at the mercy of a fairly well armed group of orgnaized criminals and gangs.  It pretty much is that way already without the guns, it'll just be a lot worse, and there'll be more of us dead in the short term immediately after.  If you wanted to ban guns you'd have to go after organized crime. which makes a nice living getting illegal guns into and out of the country, and do it in an unconstitutional manner (i.e. say fuck due process and just start slaughtering them in the streets).  And since they've paid off quite a few people in law enforcement (and the public, not to mention the rest of the world,  would shit themselves and start screaming "monsters" when you started) thats not likely to happen either.


I'd like to not have to have one, but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize the crack heads I share this small town with would gut me like a fish if they weren't afraid of taking a few rounds from my shotgun trying to get in through the door. 

Callix

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Not cool enough for a custom title.
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2008, 08:09:59 AM »
I said that I thought America would be safer if we took guns out of circulation and out of the hands of people with no good reason to be armed. I wasn't saying it was practical to do so quickly; American gun culture is deeeply entrenched, and you'll need to be weaned off the gunpowder. I said I don't care about the Second Amendment, not that we must take all guns now.

Secondly, a little over ten years ago, Australia banned semi-automatic weapons, and restricted most other weapons. It turns out that having a gun at home is mediocre protection at best, which makes sense if you think about it. Guns raise the stakes. If someone breaks into your house, they'll take your stuff. It's scary, and you have to harass your insurance company to get it all back, and it takes ages. But if you've got a gun, then one of two things happen. They get the gun first, and suddenly your life, as well as your stuff, is in danger, or you get the gun, and they have two options: leave, or kill you first. Most will take the first option, but some people are desperate or high enough to take the second, and you can't know in advance.

As well as time, guns need hands to move through for them to fall off the radar. If anyone selling a semi-automatic pistol is breaking the law, then it's much harder for a once-legal weapon to fall into illegal hands. Yes, weapons can be imported illegally, but since, again, all weapons designed primarily to kill people (as opposed to sporting or hunting weapons, or a farmer's rifle or shotgun) are illegal, anyone found in posession of such a weapon can also be arrested and the weapon confiscated.

As for an unarmed populace at the mercy of well-armed gangs: that's how it is already. The gangs and syndicates have weaponry that would make mincemeat of a common citizen with a rifle. In fact, if they can count on ordinary people not shooting them, they tend to take a lot less notice of ordinary people. The city of Melbourne, where I live, recently had a bloody gangland war, with dozens of murders over a couple of years. Almost no-one who was not involved in Melbourne's drug trade was even injured. In short, if the criminals don't have to worry about vigilanteism, they keep their weapons for the cops and each other. People who pull their heads in don't get them blown off.

In short, a ban on guns can work. Implementing it might not be practicable in America today, and it does require some degree of trust in your police force, but if Australians can trust their police enough (and we're a nation of convicts at heart; the police are very much the other side), then anyone can, eventually.
I know gameology-fu.

bhu

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
  • Convincing the rich whale fat enemas are healthy
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2008, 10:20:50 AM »
My worry would be that home invasion crimes in the nearby cities aren't always about theft.  Usually they are, but more often lately they're about beating, killing, or torturing whoever is inside just for giggles.  My having a gun doesn't offset their advantage in numbers if they have them as well, but none of them will be in a hurry to be the first guy in.  Because he'll catch a bullet.  Sure his buddies will be able to rip me to pieces, but he'd rather someone else took the bullet so he could do the ripping himself.  Things aren't like they are in more liberal countries here.  If someone breaks into your house here, he knows you can identify him, which is reason enough to see you dead if he can pull it off without being caught.  And there are too many violence hungry people who get off on blood, specifically someone else's. 

And I can get whatever the local gangs are armed with.  If I'm willing to get a Class 3 Firearms sticker (which in Ohio means I pay an extra 300 bucks, fill out a ton of paperwork, and get the county sheriff to sign off on it) I can get a firearm with full auto, or even a silencer in some cases (or is it flash suppressor?  It's one of the two I always forget).  Thats assuming I'm willing to do it legally.  If I'm willing to go the other route, I can always just say I bought it off a private owner (which is sort of true) and pay far more money than I would otherwise.  Getting a gun isn't a matter of whether or not it's legal, it's about how much you're willing to pay to get one.  If I were a cop there are "rules of engagement" of a sort.  If I shot someone who pointed a gun at me, even in my own home, there would be a ton of review boards I have to go through.  I could lose my job even though I did the right thing and protected my family because the criminals lawyer may convince someone I used excessive force.  If I'm a private citizen, I can put several rounds in the guy and say "I was scared for my life your honor, I didn't know what to do", and probably get by with a slap on the wrist if I got punished at all (as long as he's dead, if he lives he can try to sue me).  Most criminals know this.  It makes some of them less likely to try going into a home because they know you can kill them with what they perceive to be relative impunity compared to an officer of the law. they can still wait for you to leave, but Ohio is also a concealed carry state now.  So there's nothing that doesn't say you still don't have a gun on you.


It's sad that it's come down to this.  Following rules or obeying authority of any sort is portrayed as such a weakness in our society it's come down to "obey the rules or I will put you in the ground" as a common defense.  It's almost a state of "You had the chance to steal and didn't take it?  Cool, if we need someone to harass and beat down you're it.  Puss."  And I don't live in one of the worst places (well for now anyway, drugs are rapidly destroying the town I live in to the point I'm thinking of moving, even if it sets me back).

Holy crap it's almost 9 am.  I gotta get some sleep if I wanna get to work.  Will chat later.

Johannixx

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #65 on: October 29, 2008, 02:00:51 AM »
Glad to see there are some people here who remember the real definition of 'liberal' (someone who believes in individual liberty).  The term has been fairly well corrupted by douchebags, as has 'conservative'.

One thing that's always bothered me about one of the major arguments against guns:  that they're designed to kill.  First of all, that's not always true.  And secondly, so what if it is true?  Sometimes being very effective at killing is a good thing.  If I have to deal with a home invasion of the type that's becoming increasingly common here in Arizona, why would I want a less effective killing implement?  The point is to neutralize the threat, and the easiest way to do that is to kill the person posing that threat.  If they break into my home, I have to assume they are not there for a social call.

Callix

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Not cool enough for a custom title.
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2008, 09:40:39 AM »
Johannixx: It's not just that they're desinged to kill. It's that they're designed to kill and are in general circulation. There are several things people use all the time that make effective weapons (wood axes, kitchen knives, steel rulers, etc), but people have other reasons to have them around. There are other things, like high-powered guns in many countries, that are designed to kill, but restricted to those who we trust with lethal force: the police, the armed services, and so on. But when you put something out there for the sole purpose of killing things, and put them in the hands of the general public, then don't you think they might just kill things? And might some of those things be people?

I'm aware of the definition of "liberal": the major Australian right-wing political organisation is the Liberal Party. And it was the Liberal Party that, after the worst mass shooting in history by a single civilian gunman (exactly the sort of thing I have shown concern about), decided that an individual's right to lethal weaponry was not inalienable. For the public good, automatic and semi-automatic weapons were heavily restricted, though licences were given for genuine sporting and professional uses of guns. And the last time someone in Australia took a gun into a public place and started shooting, only two people died, with the short available magazines a major factor in stopping him.

I don't need to tell you where the second and third worst single-civilian shooting spees were. I heard the response through the media: if the victims had guns, they could've taken out the shooter. Maybe, just maybe, if the guy had to reload every six or eight shots, one person couldn't kill twenty. And maybe if they had to go through a background check before they got the weapons, fewer people likely to just kill indiscriminately would have access to the best tools for the job.

I'm concerned about these home invasions. Have you considered a security alarm? But if you keep a rifle in the cupbard, and someone breaks into your house, what stops them looking in the cupboard? At which point, are you really safer for having the gun there, or is it just that the stakes are higher; the odds of both of you living to see the next dawn that much lower?
I know gameology-fu.

jimmersault

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2008, 09:52:48 AM »
Glad to see there are some people here who remember the real definition of 'liberal' (someone who believes in individual liberty).  The term has been fairly well corrupted by douchebags, as has 'conservative'.

One thing that's always bothered me about one of the major arguments against guns:  that they're designed to kill.  First of all, that's not always true.  And secondly, so what if it is true?  Sometimes being very effective at killing is a good thing.  If I have to deal with a home invasion of the type that's becoming increasingly common here in Arizona, why would I want a less effective killing implement?  The point is to neutralize the threat, and the easiest way to do that is to kill the person posing that threat.  If they break into my home, I have to assume they are not there for a social call.

I'm thinking that their idea is this:

If the state can't control every segment of the population, I'm scared.

Whereas, I think:

If the state can control every segment of the population, I'm more scared.

That's why the founding fathers understood and stated that this freedom thing only works with a moral people. To the extent that a people are no longer moral, no system with freedom will work. It's impossible. The enterprise in certain men will excel the system put in place by those men who wish to control others under any governing authority. But if the people are a moral one, that is checked by reason AND morality. Reason alone doesn't work. (Otherwise, there would be only one word for both sophists and philosophers.)

The point here is, that government doesn't have the right to take firearms under the constitution because it was seen as a threat even then. Also, these men were smarter than we are, just face that. They read 'The Prince' in which it is reasonably proven that disarming the populace is a good recipe to lose your state anyway, especially under tight (feudal) controls.

In reality here and now, though, somebody will eventually try an invasion of this country, probably the Chinese. Doesn't it seem prudent to be armed for that day? Doesn't the armed populace act as a deterrent?

All that aside, people are divided on this issue. Some believe that the people make better decisions with their stuff than the government, some believe that people are too stupid to decide and, get this, that elected officials are smarter in this regard.

Ignoring my mid-post rant, that's how the issue seems divided in people's minds.
Actual table rule, we had to get Zeke to stop interfering [mock humping] with the person trying to take their turn.

jimmersault: Zeke is my new hero.

Callix

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Not cool enough for a custom title.
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #68 on: October 29, 2008, 10:04:27 AM »
The USA has nuclear weaponry. They have the ultimate deterrent to an invasion force: come here, and your home burns for decades. They really don't need an armed militia to keep everyone scared of them.

And I'm not asking for a government that can control everyone. I think that the government should control crime, and in order to do that, it needs to control the things that facilitate it. A gun is a great facilitator to murder, robbery, and many other crimes, and many guns are designed specifically for killing people, and serve few other useful purposes.

I've seen it put like this: the loss of liberty from the victim being killed greatly outweighs any pleasures from the perpetrators. Since we're trying to maintain liberty for all, we restrict the general liberties to stop gross specific loss of liberty; that's why liberals aren't anarchists. And it seems to me that gun law is a clear case: they facilitate the deprivation of liberty in many, many ways. Restricting access is a loss of liberty for us all, but it has its rewards in the freedom to relax in our own home, knowing armed people won't rush in and shoot us, and in the freedom to survive, as it is harder for people to kill us. It's not always the case that liberty should be traded for security, but neither is it never so.
I know gameology-fu.

jimmersault

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #69 on: October 29, 2008, 10:11:19 AM »
I'm concerned about these home invasions. Have you considered a security alarm?

You state that you are not American, so I'm believing you. Assuming that is true, this argument has been made, at length, time and time again. It doesn't get far here. Two things that my relative in Melbourne had to come to grips with when the American shot a few folks in downtown while I was there:

1. He was stunned that our family wasn't scared to go downtown after, what was to us, a mere crime of passion and no threat to the general public.

2. He came to the slow realization that Americans are fundamentally different people than the Aussies. His words: 'You Americans need guns because of the way your criminals are. People just don't think that way here.'

This country is very much a frontier country that had to win the west with grit and tenacity not found much in the age of reason.  Only a certain kind of people left Europe to do so and those people are the ancestors of what the world now calls Americans. We are different; nobody else in the age of reason dared to give the people so much freedom, and frankly, nobody has tried it since. I know these are my views only, but in dealing with those who don't live here, I''m finding that this is a crucial piece of the puzzle to trying to understand us. We are not Europeans; the social/cultural contract is just different here.

By the way, if one had access to a firearm that shot 6-8 rounds at a time, one could probably take out close to 20 people. one just needs to find the right weapon, right place and right people. Any man, with a mindset on destruction, who is not a complete imbecile, will effect that destruction; gun, bomb, poison in the school lunches, what have you.

I'm not talking down to you, I just think that there is a disconnect across the Pacific. That's not to say we are the better for it.
Actual table rule, we had to get Zeke to stop interfering [mock humping] with the person trying to take their turn.

jimmersault: Zeke is my new hero.

jimmersault

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #70 on: October 29, 2008, 10:14:25 AM »
The USA has nuclear weaponry. They have the ultimate deterrent to an invasion force: come here, and your home burns for decades. They really don't need an armed militia to keep everyone scared of them.

And I'm not asking for a government that can control everyone. I think that the government should control crime, and in order to do that, it needs to control the things that facilitate it. A gun is a great facilitator to murder, robbery, and many other crimes, and many guns are designed specifically for killing people, and serve few other useful purposes.

I've seen it put like this: the loss of liberty from the victim being killed greatly outweighs any pleasures from the perpetrators. Since we're trying to maintain liberty for all, we restrict the general liberties to stop gross specific loss of liberty; that's why liberals aren't anarchists. And it seems to me that gun law is a clear case: they facilitate the deprivation of liberty in many, many ways. Restricting access is a loss of liberty for us all, but it has its rewards in the freedom to relax in our own home, knowing armed people won't rush in and shoot us, and in the freedom to survive, as it is harder for people to kill us. It's not always the case that liberty should be traded for security, but neither is it never so.

I'm telling you, when you use that argument, the response that is coming is that of restricting people to drive only slow cars for the same reasons. Highway deaths outpace gun deaths by a ton. That's the argument that will come next.
Actual table rule, we had to get Zeke to stop interfering [mock humping] with the person trying to take their turn.

jimmersault: Zeke is my new hero.

Callix

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Not cool enough for a custom title.
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #71 on: October 29, 2008, 06:11:06 PM »
I'm telling you, when you use that argument, the response that is coming is that of restricting people to drive only slow cars for the same reasons. Highway deaths outpace gun deaths by a ton. That's the argument that will come next.
No; there are lots of legitimate reasons for people to have cars, and for them to have fast cars. While fast cars facilitate speeding, they also facilitate transport industries, accident avoidance in certain circumstances, and long holidays. So there are general, legitimate reasons for having a car with high top speed and acceleration that don't involve restricting others. With guns, there are only specific reasons, so those with such reasons can demonstrate them before they get a gun.
I know gameology-fu.

Straw_Man

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
    • Email
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #72 on: October 29, 2008, 06:23:45 PM »
man, if i could vote against someone that would be great...

Seriously,

I'm pretty frustrated on the right that I HAVE to vote against the opposition. Bush wasn't even the best choice, but after Clinton I would take anything. I just want a REAL Conservative to go against a REAL Liberal and have the arguement out in this country once and for all. This half-loaf crap is slowly pulling this country in two directions, left and right. The country is going to have to choose left, right or split. Frankly, I'd take two of the three. I have to believe (except my preference) that you on the left agree and want this final showdown as badly.

Thoughts? (throw in a smily, if you are just being silly)

Amen brother. Amen. I .... I want the frigging conservatives to remember what the word means and stop being capitalisms bitch and soap opera alter ego. I want the liberals to frigging be liberal instead of a liberal glazing over a conservative hardroll.
"No, no, don't think, Maya." Ritsuko chided. "We will not gattai the Evas or their pilots.

Such thoughts lead inevitably to transformation sequences."

Johannixx

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #73 on: October 30, 2008, 02:04:29 AM »
I'm concerned about these home invasions. Have you considered a security alarm? But if you keep a rifle in the cupbard, and someone breaks into your house, what stops them looking in the cupboard? At which point, are you really safer for having the gun there, or is it just that the stakes are higher; the odds of both of you living to see the next dawn that much lower?

Leaving a weapon unsecured in the home is just plain stupid.  It shouldn't be sitting in a cabinet, it should be sitting in a safe, or under your direct control.  Otherwise, it can be easily found by burglars, children, etc.  My weapons are not unsecured, but they are quickly accessible for those authorized to use them, i.e. myself and my wife.

As for a security alarm, that's generally pointless.  By the time the cops arrive, the situation is likely over one way or the other.  Cops do the best they can, but they are overworked and underpaid.  They generally track down and solve crimes; they don't prevent them.  The only way they could reliably prevent crime is to have unfettered access to surveillance on everyone, and nobody wants that.  Part of being a free person is taking responsibility for one's own personal safety.  The state is there to do what the individual cannot.  That's why we have armies, road construction, diplomats, etc.  The day the state can defend my personal safety better than I can myself is a sad day indeed.

You referenced the Port Arthur massacre.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only legally-obtained weapon the gunman had was a .22 rifle that he never even fired.  The rest were obtained illegally.  Similarly, the Columbine shooters did not acquire most of their weapons legally (being under 21, they could not legally purchase handguns), and the VA Tech shooter should have been barred from buying weapons due to his mental health issues, but the state did not properly record or transmit those records to the NICS database.

And let's not forget, the largest mass murder in US history wasn't even committed with firearms.  It was committed with box cutters and airliners.  If you get rid of guns, people will still find ways to kill large numbers of other people.  They're not going to be limited to ball bats and knives.  They'll brew up some explosives in their sinks.  They'll crash cars, planes, trains, etc into things.  Mass murder has a long history, far longer than the gun. 

Callix

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Not cool enough for a custom title.
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #74 on: October 30, 2008, 07:54:12 AM »
I'm not saying that restricting guns will stop mass murder. It will make it harder, and this is a good thing. People who are willing to die will still kill, but perhaps fewer of them will kill as many. Not everyone has either the ingenuity or the forward planning to make bombs or hijack planes; pretty much anyone can pick up a gun and pull the trigger.

Yes, I was referencing Port Arthur. And part of my point stands even if the guns were illegal: with effort from law enforcement, we can impede the illegal movement of weapons, too.

Laws break down when people believe that they should be broken. If everyone believes that personal safety is a personal responsibility, rather than a right, then it doesn't surprise me that people violate others' security. Also, the day your state protects your safety more than you do is the day it spends millions of dollars locking up serial killers and psychopaths, maintains an army to prevent foreign invasion. provides disaster planning and support though multiple federal agencies, and guarantees your welfare and medical care, along with those of your family. That day is, oh, every day of your life. We live in a mass society; what we do for oueselves is miniscule compared to what others do for us. We do a lot in return, but we don't actually get our own food, our own homes, or our own security; we trade our specialty for these things.
I know gameology-fu.

jimmersault

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #75 on: October 30, 2008, 01:31:26 PM »
My goodness, what a scary worldview. How scared you must be all the time. I pity you.
Actual table rule, we had to get Zeke to stop interfering [mock humping] with the person trying to take their turn.

jimmersault: Zeke is my new hero.

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #76 on: October 30, 2008, 01:49:34 PM »
My goodness, what a naive worldview. How ignorant you must be all the time. I pity you.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

j0lt

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Browncoat
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #77 on: October 30, 2008, 02:28:47 PM »
Guns as a viable tool for self defense? :rolleyes In movies, sure, but no armed criminal is gonna wait around for you to pull a weapon without just shooting you outright.  Then again, I also feel the same way about pepper spray, knives, or any other weapon you have to carry.  In a self defense situation in which you need that much force, by the time you realize you need it, it's too late to pull it out.

That being said, I'm kinda in the middle of the gun debate.  While I think that RESPONSIBLE firearm use and ownership is something that is good, there's too much IRRESPONSIBLE use going around, particularly in the US.
PbP Games
The Artifact (prologue) as Dr. Henry Loder, Mayan archaeologist


altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #78 on: October 30, 2008, 03:55:18 PM »
my goodness how this thread has come to give me a headache..

1. in confrontations under 30ft, its been pretty well demonstrated that hands are better than pistols. watch some Philippine police training tapes.. basically, action is faster than reaction.. IF, you know what your doing... the gun is worthless..  otherwise a gun is a handy thing to have in a less than professional situation..

2. there are a buttload of statistics that show that guns are very good for defense.

c. the american fascination with guns, and personal ownership is a fundamental part of our system.

personal ownership of firearms has nothing at all to do with defense from criminals, or anything of that sort. guns = freedom. specifically freedom from tyrannical government and public defense.

also, consider here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html (generally says unless your a part of the regular military/guard or under/over aged your part of the militia..)


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy

ya, i know i hand picked my quotes... there are lots of eloquent quotes that defend the opposite argument..

a gun can be the tool of a murderer.. but the same is true of a car or hand..

the base purpose for a gun in the hands of an american citizen is defense of the public from all threats foreign and domestic.

The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.


Johannixx

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: I've been sorting Republican mail for 9 hours. Some observations.
« Reply #79 on: October 30, 2008, 05:22:30 PM »
Guns as a viable tool for self defense? :rolleyes In movies, sure, but no armed criminal is gonna wait around for you to pull a weapon without just shooting you outright.  Then again, I also feel the same way about pepper spray, knives, or any other weapon you have to carry.  In a self defense situation in which you need that much force, by the time you realize you need it, it's too late to pull it out.

Then we might as well not give guns to cops, eh?  If the gun is so worthless, why should they need them?

The gun is not everything.  It will not magically make you invincible.  It requires training, knowledge of tactics, and refined skill in order to be used effectively.  It also requires situational awareness.  If you go through life in Condition White, the gun will be of little use to you.  If you go through life in Condition Yellow, then it may be of great use to you, and you may very well avoid some situations entirely through your awareness.  But if you can't avoid them, at least you can prepare for them with some small measure of forewarning.

If you're so blind that the bad guy gets right up to you without your knowledge, then you may be better served with a form of unarmed martial art.  It's something worth training anyway, as another tool in your box.  But unarmed martial arts won't help you past a certain distance.  Use the right tool for the right job.  The gun is a useful tool, not the only tool.