Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Gallstones]

I don't feel trapped Jim.
I don't even have to lock my doors, I can walk any street anytime of day or night.
We have a very low incidence of violent crime with a high gun ownership. We have some of the least restrictive gun laws of all the states. My state is reacting to preempt and deny increased federal restrictions and these bills are passing with an easy majority of both parties.

I have guns because it pleases me to have them.

And the high gun ownership in the US in general has ensured that criminals have guns. Insofar as that is the case, any gun owner is contributing to that problem. That's where the trap lies, whether or not you, GS, personally feel it.

Again with this bullshit?
Every car owner is contributing to the problem of impaired driving.

There is no trap.
It's a Right. A choice to exercise or not.

[Gallstones]

Other western nations can do as they please, but if they would impose their elitist catholicism on us they can fuck off.

Actually, the majority of Americans want stronger gun control.
The only thing stopping people like Obama providing the majority with what they want is the tyranny of the minority. In this case, the NRA and its allies, who have politicians in their back pocket.

The fact that the USA is apparently unable to provide the stronger gun control most Americans want is a result of the political corruption that permeates your sorry country.

Again with the majority think bullshit.

It doesn't matter what the majority think. Most of the majority are too ignorant to know what that even means and too lazy to do the work of getting informed and then doing some thinking. They prefer sound bites and expect to be spoon fed and led by rings in their noses.

We do have a process of law in this country that prevents the President from enacting any damn thing s/he wants.

And you damn well better believe that those of us who will not willingly reliquish our Rights will be as aggressive as necessary to prevent the President and the majority from infringing. We see the Rights Infringers and gun grabbers as the tyrrany, because they are. We are the preservers.

You may temporarily get some restrictions before the nation moves further to the right in two years and you lose those restrictions again. We may even become more libertarian.

[Gallstones]

Wisconsin Marine Corps Veteran, Draws Gun On Suspect In Beating

[Blind groper]

We are the preservers.

Any minority who use lethal force to prevent a majority from getting their wishes in a democracy are not preservers. The term I use is murdering assholes.

[orpheus]

I don't feel trapped Jim.
I don't even have to lock my doors, I can walk any street anytime of day or night.
We have a very low incidence of violent crime with a high gun ownership.  We have some of the least restrictive gun laws of all the states. My state is reacting to preempt and deny increased federal restrictions and these bills are passing with an easy majority of both parties.

I have guns because it pleases me to have them.

And the high gun ownership in the US in general has ensured that criminals have guns. Insofar as that is the case, any gun owner is contributing to that problem. That's where the trap lies, whether or not you, GS, personally feel it.

Again with this bullshit?
Every car owner is contributing to the problem of impaired driving.

Well, every car owner is contributing to many of the problems a huge number of cars brings to society: accidents, pollution, etc. That is certainly true, and it's one reason I choose not to own a car.

It's a cost/benefit analysis, you see, whether you like it or not. Society as a whole has ended up with lots of cars because individuals place more importance on the benefits of cars than the costs (to the environment, to human life, etc.) Many may not have consciously thought of it in this way, but that's the result. 

Now, saturating a society with guns also has benefits and costs. The benefits are few, as we've been discussing. The costs are significant. One of these costs is that criminals will have a steady supply of them. (That's not the only cost, of course; there are other horrific ones. But it's the one under discussion now.) You deem the benefits to outweigh the costs. Fine. I disagree with you, and because I see the terrible cost to American society I will continue to fight for gun control. But the cost/benefit analysis is there, whether or not you acknowledge it. 

Incidentally, to pursue your car analogy: we do have restrictions in place to mitigate the societal costs: one must pass tests to be able to drive a car; there are laws restricting what one can do with a car; one is penalized for breaking those laws (from minor fines up to permanently losing the right to drive, as well as imprisonment). We have required safety behaviors (e.g., mandatory seatbelts, speed limits). One must carry insurance. The car itself must pass repeated safety inspections. All cars and drivers must be registered. If ownership of a car changes hands, the legal title and responsibility for it does too. Etc. 

There is no trap.
It's a Right. A choice to exercise or not.

By choosing to exercise the right to own guns - multiplied by many people (thus many guns in the country), we have accepted the concomitant costs. We cannot have all those guns without paying the price. That's what we have trapped ourselves into. And it's made worse by pretending that there are no costs. 

[Jason]

Always with the criminals getting guns. The vast majority of criminals do not go through legal channels to obtain guns.



Stricter gun control will do little to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

[Seth]

Noticeable that most of those 30 examples are not clear cut in any way. In other words, someone felt threatened and used the feeling as reason to kill someone. Probably valid some of the time, but certainly not all the time.

That's a matter for the DA, judge and jury to determine. It is logical fallacy to suggest that because there may be ambiguity in the propriety of shooting an attacker that everyone ought therefore to be barred from shooting anyone ever.

I am aware that Gallstones and Seth have made claims that they would shoot and kill someone on the basis that the person they shoot made them feel threatened. I hope those claims were pure bluster, because, as I said earlier, anyone who kills another human to avoid a possible risk to themselves is a coward, unless the threat is almost certain. A courageous person will accept a small risk to his/her own life to avoid a killing.

Actually, they are not bluster. The law is quite specific. In order to be authorized to use deadly physical force I must reasonably believe that I or another person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and I must reasonably believe that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate to prevent the harm. That's a very strict standard that goes far beyond "avoiding a possible risk," as you put it. You're creating mendacious strawmen again because I have repeatedly, in this thread, cited you to the exact language of the law, along with detailed analyses of sample situations that illustrate the falsity of your claim that "possible risk" is any sort of legal metric for the use of deadly force. It's not, and you know it. The level of risk is quite high, and any person who exercises the right of lethal self defense will be judged according to the requirements of the law.

This is not, at this time, an accusation that Seth or Gallstones are cowards, since to my knowledge, neither has killed another human to avoid a small risk to his or her own life. However, if they did kill, to avoid a small personal risk, I would have no qualms whatever about accusing them of arrant, lily livered despicable cowardice.

Again, you are spouting mendacious strawman drivel, as you usually do when you've been ass-kicked into the ditch because your ignorant arguments can't withstand the simplest of logical and rational scrutiny.

[Gallstones]

We are the preservers.

Any minority majority who use lethal force to prevent a majority minority from getting enjoying and exercising their wishes Rights in a democracy are not preservers are tyrranical, AKA The term I use is murdering violent assholes.

3%Fought.jpg (179.85 KiB) Viewed 335 times

[Seth]

So you approve of McVeigh's actions?

No, I most certainly do not approve of his actions. He was a criminal and a terrorist and he got what he deserved. I was merely pointing out how and why his actions came to pass.

If guns aren't enough you're in favor of people stockpiling enough other weapons such as explosives to try to stand down the gov't?

Yes, of course it's necessary for the People to be so armed in order to "stand down" a tyrannical or despotic government should such a thing come to pass, and to be able to defeat any enemy of the United States, foreign or domestic, in military combat should it be necessary to do so. So did Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin et al. That's one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

(I still think that impossible, but that's beside the point.) And since y'all would have to be organized (and it's already been hinted that gun owners are), you're in favor of a widespread network/organization of citizens stockpiling guns and explosives to do the sort of thing McVeigh did if they think it right?

No. I favor the government being forbidden from infringing upon our right to stockpile arms and explosives and "keep and bear" them in a peaceable manner unless and until it becomes necessary to use them in defense of the individual, the Constitution or the People against any enemy foreign or domestic, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The mere possession of arms does not infer that I favor using them defensively (or offensively) in anything but the most extreme of necessities or that I advocate the unlawful use of any weapon.

Just want to understand where you stand here, Seth.

No you don't, you just want to try to elicit statements from me that could be construed as unlawful, probably so that you can harass me by reporting them to the FBI.

Sorry, but I am not, and never have, and never will advocate violent overthrow of the duly-constituted and elected US government. I'm only talking about lawful defense of the nation against its enemies foreign and domestic and the capability of the People to respond to such threats effectively by being well-armed at all times, and I'm advocating that the government remain carefully within its Constitutional authority by not infringing on the peaceable exercise of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as the Founders explicitly said.[/quote]

[Coito ergo sum]

I think that some of the anti-gun arguments are emotional. The fact that the anti-gun folks here on this thread are completely unconcerned with the details -- the actual language - of the Colorado laws at issue is a testament to that. Just because one is anti-gun in general does not mean that one is in favor of ever law or regulation put on the books about them.

Even in anti-gun countries, like the UK and such, it is still lawful to own guns, particularly for hunting and such. So, obviously, they don't just make them all illegal or pass reams of ill-conceived and overly broad laws, such as Colorado's "flypaper" laws on guns. Thought is put into it, such that the legal regime makes sense in light of the overall goals.

The emotional bit comes into it when gun-opponents lead with arguments accusing pro-gun folks of being "nuts," paranoid, psychos, or otherwise crazy. When the reaction is akin to "good - I hope that innocent people are swept up in these flypaper laws and I hope they are chased out of Colorado and crowded into one state so they can all be kept better track of..." etc. etc. -- well, that kind of mindset or approach to an issue is silly. It's like the school the other day that did its part in the anti-gun crusade by making a little boy take his little green army men off of the cupcakes that he brought into school. All in the name of "guns r bad, mmmkay...." so whatever we do that irks a pro-gunner psycho is good.

That isn't to say that all anti-gun arguments are emotional or emotion driven. There is such a thing as sensible gun control, and there are many different legal regimes that could be characterized as sensible.

Of course, when the first reaction to Gallstone's opening post was "well...if they'd only do the sensible thing..." -- as if the sensible thing has to be what a Yerpeein, Ozzie or Canadian is used to -- is both insulting and emotion driven.

Banning guns or making them all but inaccessible (legally) except to the very rich and State functionaries is not the only "sensible" thing that can be done about guns, particularly in a country that already has a high rate of private gun ownership.

[Seth]

What gets me is US gun proponents acting as if their vision of guns and freedom intertwined is some sort of universal, rather that the oddball position of a single country, one whose violent death statistics are rather striking...

Other relatively prosperous countries under the rule of law, including most of western Europe, Australia, NZ and the developed Asian countries (Japan, SK etc.) have strict gun laws, and the populace feels no need to go about armed, either to defend against criminals or against some paranoid fear of governmental tyranny...

American exceptionalism indeed...

There's no accounting for the abject stupidity of "most of western Europe, Australia, NZ and the developed Asian countries (Japan, SK etc.)."

Just ask the Jews of Germany and Europe how smart it was to surrender their arms to Hitler for all the proof that's needed regarding the stupidity of allowing one's government to forbid arms to the people.

After all, in Australia people didn't VOLUNTARILY turn in their guns, they did so only on pain of draconian criminal penalties. If what you say were true, there would be NO NEED for gun laws or gun bans, because people would simply not choose to own firearms in the first place. But this is obviously not true, because in EVERY place where gun ownership is prohibited or severely restricted, it's done so by LAW, on pain of severe criminal penalties. These are decisions made by those in power, not necessarily the will of the people who are under the thumb of those bureaucrats.

And in places with draconian anti-gun laws where enforcement is spotty, like Russia, anybody who thinks they can get away with having a gun for personal protection without getting caught usually has no trouble getting one. In the UK, this class consists mostly of criminals who, by their nature, scoff at laws that constrain their behavior. If they want a gun, they can get one any time they please, even in London. That they may choose not to do so is irrelevant to the availability of guns to criminals anywhere in the world.

[Rum]

To suggest that gun ownership or lack of it would have prevented the holocaust is one of the stupidest things I have read. You ignore history and context and the realities of the situation at the time.

Keep your fucking guns to yourselves.

[Seth]

I want to be unfettered.

Liberty is not being permitted to play with lethal toys. Liberty has a number of facets, and that is not one.

Actually, you're very wrong.

Liberty is freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to engage in pursuits that do not harm others, freedom of thought, freedom to access information without hindrance. And so on.

The keeping and bearing of arms does not harm anyone. It is the unlawful or careless use of those arms that harms people, and we have adequate mechanisms in place to deal with individual instances of unlawful or improper behavior, including more than 50,000 individual laws constraining the improper use of arms.

But simply possessing arms in a peaceable manner harms absolutely no one, which is why your argument is fallacious.

Liberty is not being allowed to drive drunk, or play with loaded guns, or any other activity that results in a high risk of killing other people.

Driving drunk carries a high risk of injuring others because of impaired judgment and abilities. Possessing a firearm while drunk is a crime in every single jurisdiction in the United States for the same reason. However, it is fallacy to conflate drunk driving with lawful, peaceable and proper ownership and use of firearms.

The other western and developed and wealthy nations that do not permit any old idiot or criminal to own and use loaded firearms are free because they do not restrain the things that matter.

Nor does the United States. Criminals are explicitly forbidden to possess so much as a single round of ammunition, much less a firearm, and the same is true of "idiots" old or young. The difference is that we have a strict definition of what an "idiot" is, and it doesn't include ordinary, non-criminal adults (or young persons) who are capable of safely possessing and using firearms.

So yet again you construct bullshit strawman arguments filled with mendacious lies and fallacies because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To a historian, this is rather funny.

[Coito ergo sum]

To suggest that gun ownership or lack of it would have prevented the holocaust is one of the stupidest things I have read. You ignore history and context and the realities of the situation at the time.

Keep your fucking guns to yourselves.

It is very likely that the Nazis would not have been able to maintain the power of their State for as long as they did and as steadfastly as they did if the German people had broad access to private ownership of firearms. Whether it would have prevented the holocaust will always be an open question, but good people opposing the Nazis, one guerrilla action at a time, can certainly have a huge impact, even limited to small arms.