Printable View
<33Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
You = win.
Cloud No.9 - Don't kid yourself. What was he meant to do?
"Oi lads, 'scuse me, I'd rather you weren't stealin' me te*lly if that's alright with you?"
* Most sensible people would realize that he'd probably only get this far before being attacked himself.
I don't mean to give you the impression I'm singling you out - it's just that you tend to be the most vocal (and therefore, the best person to debate with). So, please keep that in mind. I'm not a bastard, honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
However, I disagree. I don't know the case in question. Somehow, I doubt that two men were entering their home to warn them that their sprinklers were on. These men had one thing in mind: force.
The purpose of any government is to protect individual rights, which is - to stop the use of force an another individual. People are fundamentally free - as the government itself is just a collection of individuals itself. Criminals may use force on another in many senses. Fraud, for example, is a use of force. For all of those who are enviornmentalist-minded, then randomly dumping your waste in the oceans is a use of force (not on "the enviornment", but on others) and therefore should be illegal. However, they should not make production illegal - which would solve the problem, but at what end? No production? This is the same with the gun control argument. Take away the individual's rights to own a handgun and properly protect their family, and certainly there would be less shootings. But at what cost? People will be ruled by criminals.
An individual is not allowed to issue retaliatory force in all cases; that would be anarchy. For example, if someone were to steal my wallet, well, I wouldn't be allowed to shoot them on sight and claim that they were using force on me. They were, and likewise should be dealt with. However, that's the government's job. Now, you might argue, "but that's exactly what happened!" But there is a key difference. This was done on his property and with his life at stake.
In the expediency of the moment the government might not be able to respond quickly enough. In that case, the man can and should be allowed to use his gun to protect his investments - his wife and children, his money, his car, etc. However, this is only legal in the sense that the criminal's purpose was to destroy the victim. If a man came into my room in order to steal my computer (and carried a weapon in order to disarm me or even kill me in case I resisted) I would have no moral issue with hiding behind my bed and killing him "in cold blood". That would not be a use of force on a criminal's base level; that's protecting my ultimate value: my life.
Do not explain what a gun does to argue the case. Yes, I'm fully aware that guns can kill people. But to be anti-weaponry is to be anti-technology, which is anti-progress, which is anti-mind. Which I guess, in a sense, is the anti-life. Weapons are tools, and can be used to protect.
If people want to argue whether a person should be allowed to carry a bazooka, I'm all for debate; this is a question where we have to consider. To say I am not allowed to have a small handgun on my bedside in case of criminals on the obvious basis that it "kills people and hurts them", that's ridiculous and to sanction evil - to allow criminals to exist, and to reward them.
I don't know the case so I can't really try to act as a mediator here :(.
As for gun fatality what I had read was.
1 in 3 gun suicides are fatal. Which is to be expected when the victim does not attempt any form of preservation then the rate will be higher.
1 in 7 or so(sources differed) of homicided committed with guns are fatal.
1 in 13 gun wounds where the shooter was not aiming to kill were fatal. that is the group I would be in(a 7.6% rate of death, knife wounds I hear are about 4%). The places I found seem to aggree but the above are not government statistics.
Also gun misfirings I believe was about 1 in 16(20? didn't pay any attention to this since I will make sure my gun isn't misfired).
I guess I could always use a sword/knife/bow to defend myself but the knife fatality was near guns, and the fatality of swords I have read is higher then knives.. maybe as high as guns.. bow(crossbow is what I was thinking of) are prolly pretty close to guns as well. However, with the above the chance of freinds/family/myself becoming injured are greater... well maybe not with the crossbow.. I don't know much about their protection abitilities.
Also according to an old FBI report I read a while ago the stoping power of a gun is actually quite low.. However the stoping power vs. the risk you take is much better for a gun then for any other weapon.. or so I have read and heard.
Any gun reasonably useful for self defense should be allowed to be bought... Bazookas and such I prolly wouldn't aggree with.. at close quarters(likely since we are talking robery) you would likely blow yourself up.. so kinda impratcial. but meh I also don't know much about bazookas.
as far as i was aware dum dum rounds had been banned at the same time flamethrowers were (some time after the seocnd world war). or maybe it was landmines?
gun suicide rate of death is lower than it should be because alot of the time the gun is placed against the temple.
tony martin wasn't protecting his home. the theives were leaving. at that point he choose to shoot them in vengence. he heimself was in no danger at the time. neither was anyone else. shooting someone for the sake of the love of money is a horrible thought.
Not if it was his money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Right, if someone took all your Credit cards, you Wallet IDs, most of your furniture, god knows whatever necessary legal documents, that you worked hard and sweat for, you wouldnt be going after the person that took them. -_-
i reckon anyone with a licence should be able to buy a gun.
no Licence no gun
what people are argueing over here is money over life.
i don't think there is anyway i could ever say that my money is more important than a man's life to such an extent i would kill purely for it.
it's a sad state of society when people view money as worth more than a human being.
Well I wouldn't purposefully kill someone for money, but I would try and stop them from comiting a crime. Also I would damn well shoot someone before they took my wallet. that has all my stuff in it(social security card, drivers licence, if I ever get a credit card there it would be, photos of freinds and family, posibly some who are deceased(I would fight for these alone.. I attach a lot of sentimental value to what pictures I do keep), etc. Idenity theft anyone?
True it wouldn't last long since I would do what I could to instantly nullify it.. but thanks to our red taped buerocracy it could take a day or two or more to nullify/replace everything... Alot can be done in that time.
My identity and whatever I have sentimental value on, I will do whatever it takes to secure.
Also most of us aren't shooting to kill.. but to stop them. and if my statistic is right you are only taking about a 3% chance more of killing them then if you use a knife. And neither have a large chance of killing to begin with.
Yeah =/ Why would we go out for murder? Our sole intent and purpose is protecting us and our things that shouldnt be stolen in either case. If you total up the guns this country has...(except military) most of us would rather defend ourselves with them than go out robbing...because otherwise our crime rate will be much higher.
Again, it's not just about money, it's about dignity. It's about saying "I'm not going to be walked all over by a common thug. I will stand and defend myself, my home, my loved ones, and my property."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Of course no one values money as worth more than life. That criminal was stealing from that man. He was stealing from that man's labor. He was stealing from that man's life. Property is the product of one's life; to let it go away to Hell is to claim that life is worth nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
If a man stole all of my posessions and attempted to walk away from my house... I mean, you understand what I am arguing, right? It's not "money vs. life" it's "force vs. life", which is, "stealing money, the product of your life".
And it's a sad state of society when need grants you a claim on someone else's life - which violates the idea of freedom. A poor person is free to ask/beg for money, but not to steal: claiming a right to another's life by force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Well, as a gun owner myself (I own 3 rifles, 2 pistols and 1 shotgun), I can give some good reasons for owning guns, aside from just personal protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
First of all, there's the grand sport of hunting. I buy a hunting license every year, and during the fall and winter I hunt squirrels, rabbits, pheasants, and deer. When I was stationed in San Diego during my Navy enlistment, I bought a Utah hunting license and hunted Gambell's Quail and Chukhars with my uncle. Of course, I don't always manage to bring any game back, but that's why they call it hunting.... you gotta hunt for it. I'm not a trophy hunter, either. I eat everything I kill, and in the case of the rabbits and squirrels, I try to save the tails for my dad, who uses the hairs for tying dry flies.
Second is the numerous target competitions, trap shoots, black powder rendezvous, and cowboy action shooting. All of these are great social events and, in the last two cases, a way of bringing history alive for the younger generation. My father, who only hunts with muzzle loading rifles and shotguns, used to go to local black powder rendezvous when I was young (most of the towns where I live pre-date both the American Revolution and the French and Indian War), and got me interested in colonial history and antique firearms. Many of the local trap-shooting competitions are for charity drives, and the registration fees are donated to local charities.
Finally, in the case of antique (and reproduction) guns, there is a historical interest. Two of my rifles, one a Marlin 336 lever action and the other a Nippur Lee-Enfield bolt action, have a marked historical interest (as well as being fine hunting rifles). The Nippur Lee-Enfield is the same design of the British Royal Army's first general use repeating rifle, but this one was made in 1967. In addition to that, it is chambered in 7.62mm NATO, rahther than .303 British. The reason is that when the United Kingdom switched to a 7.62mm NATO assault rifle in the early 1960's, India (which is still a British Commonwealth nation) could not afford enough of the new assault rifles for its army, so they used the Enfield manufacturing plant in Nippur to make a 7.62mm NATO No. 1 Enfield rifle.
The Marlin 336 Lever action is of interest due to the fact that it is the oldest continuosly produced rifle in the world. It's original designation was the Marlin 1893, but the design of the side-ejecting lever action mechanism (which set it apart from Winchester, Marlin's main competitor) is still almost identical to the original 1893 (the 336 was actually originally the designation for the Carbine version of the 1893 rifle, but the full-sized rifle was discontinued sometime in the 1960's).
Both of my are of historical interest. One is a reproduction of a cap and ball 1858 Remington Army model revolver in .44 caliber (although the bore diameter is actually .454" or the same as a .45 Colt Peacemaker), for which the originals saw a lot of service during the American Civil war. The Remington's design was sturdier and generally more reliable than the 1860 Colt Army and Navy series revolvers, and many officers purchased their own Remingtons during the war, with the result that almost as many Remingtons went to battle as Colts on the Union side. The second pistol has even deeper history, as well as some personal history. This pistol is a cap-lock .45 Kentucky muzzle loading pistol. This reproduction was made by my father when he was around 20, and about 10 years ago, he gave it to my Grandmother who, in turn, gave it to my Uncle (the one who I went bird hunting in Utah with), who gave it to me for Christmas last year.
Anyways, I think those are fairly good reasons for owning guns, myself. As for my views, anyone who is over 18, sane and has not commited any felonies should be allowed to own guns. The Clinton "Assautl Rifle" ban was a travesty, which I'm glad was reversed. That whole thing got through as a result of the oftentimes irresposible media misinforming people. You see all the assault weapons ban did was say, "Oh, that semi-auto AK-47 looks like a full auto AK-47, so it must be a bad gun! Oooh! I know! Let's BAN it!!!!11111one" Anybody who knows anything about guns or gun laws could tell you that full auto weapons have been strictly regulated for YEARS (you CAN own a full auto weapon, but you gotta get a special permit, and the only people I've ever heard of getting that permit are ex-military types who (a)were trained with machineguns and such in the military and (b)recieved an HONORABLE discharge). That's all I have to say on this subject.
claiming a pistol is used for sport or hunting it not really true. it's why the amish refuse them. they are low velocity, low accuracy, short distance guns. they were invented for self defence. first issued by the military purely for close quarters defence and are used anily for that reason. they are not good for shooting rabbits with. they are not a hunting weapon they were created with one person in mind. the death of a person.
people would a shoot a man over dignity? the death of a human being for that? a humam life is not what it achieves, not the riches it brings, not the social security number. it is a living breathing human being no more no less.
perhaps guns in america wouldn't be such a problem if it had a bbter society but it doesn't. it is greedy society in a nation of plenty. it is an aggressive society in a time of peace. it is a hateful society in a nation that supports justice. it is the worst society in the western world and that is the sole cause of it's crime rate, it's murder rate. adding the freedom to own a weapon to kill someone just exagerate a society which is flawed, dead and rotten.
on another note in light of recent rise in knife crime the government has banned the purchase and holding of all non cooking knifes. so stuff like machettees are now illegal, big pointy nasty things that you wouldn't be slicing your meat with all that kind of stuff is banned. they have no place int he home and have no purpose. there is no reason to have one and the government has seen this. the same should stand for guns.