[QUOTE=BFG9000;40271083]There are so many luxuries that people in this country don't need but have, and guns are one of these more humble luxuries, assuming that "we don't need" them. (Which we do, since at the moment firearms are an effective means of self defense)[/quote]
also, as has been shown in this thread, a fairly effective means of getting yourself or others killed. regardless, I was saying "private citizens don't need firearms for a successful revolution." Yes, there are plenty of things people don't need. I was talking about firearms in the context of a revolution.
[quote]In the end it doesn't matter whether the process is the same or not, because if you really think that people don't need firearms, you're talking about stripping rights from a very large amount of people who own or want to own guns in the future for legitimate purposes, and who have done nothing wrong to deserve this punishment.
And going back to the "process being the same";[/QUOTE]
They're not being punished. And you're right, I can't see into the future. That's why I looked at a recent example. I did mention the Arab Spring a couple times somewhere in there.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40271229]also, as has been shown in this thread, a fairly effective means of getting yourself or others killed. regardless, I was saying "private citizens don't need firearms for a successful revolution." Yes, there are plenty of things people don't need. I was talking about firearms in the context of a revolution.
They're not being punished. And you're right, I can't see into the future. That's why I looked at a recent example. I did mention the Arab Spring a couple times somewhere in there.[/QUOTE]
But even then that's still not the future. It's the recent past, and I don't think there is an effective way to calculate how a revolution would happen.
MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
[url]https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/[/url]
This is one of the best pro-gun arguments out there. I feel its worth posting here because many miss pass the point of arming oneself. A person should not be arming themselves to get into conflict but to avoid it entirely. And when all else fails has a means to protect themselves and the ones they care about.
Arming yourself doesn't prevent conflict, it merely provokes an arms race.
This has happened everywhere. If you arm yourself with a gun, the criminals are just going to start using guns too.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40284181]Arming yourself doesn't prevent conflict, it merely provokes an arms race.
This has happened everywhere. If you arm yourself with a gun, the criminals are just going to start using guns too.[/QUOTE]
so? It's unavoidable. Deal with it. Citizens and police would react the same way.
i wish i could just say deal with it regarding anything that affected hundreds of millions of people
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40284743]i wish i could just say deal with it regarding anything that affected hundreds of millions of people[/QUOTE]
har har
you missed the part where I said that citizens and police react the same way. If you heard on the news that gun crime in your area has risen 10 percent, you would probably arm yourself, too.
i didnt miss anything, you just admitted it was an arms race and then said deal with it.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40284716]Citizens and police would react the same way.[/QUOTE]
as in, "criminals arm themselves because citizens are armed, but if criminals were armed first, citizens would react the same way." you conceded that criminals arm themselves as a reaction to their victims being armed. but screw that notion; you're gonna have to deal with it!!
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40284865]i didnt miss anything, you just admitted it was an arms race and then said deal with it.
as in, "criminals arm themselves because citizens are armed, but if criminals were armed first, citizens would react the same way." you conceded that criminals arm themselves as a reaction to their victims being armed. but screw that notion; you're gonna have to deal with it!![/QUOTE]
Fine, do you want me to say, "assuming it is an arms race, it would be inevitable for citizens to react the same way" instead?
nitpicking at its finest
no because you're still admitting there that criminals have guns because citizens have guns, and the logical reverse of that would be that if citizens didn't have any guns then criminals wouldn't enter into an arms race
i'm not nitpicking i just want a consistent and logical pathway to whatever point you're trying to make here because right now there really isn't one
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40285039]no because you're still admitting there that criminals have guns because citizens have guns, and the logical reverse of that would be that if citizens didn't have any guns then criminals wouldn't enter into an arms race
i'm not nitpicking i just want a consistent and logical pathway to whatever point you're trying to make here because right now there really isn't one[/QUOTE]
What I was trying to say was that there would be an arms race and that criminals wouldn't stop the race if citizens did, so why should citizens be forced out of this "race"? I think this whole arms race notion actually has some weight to it but (and I vaguely remember talking about this before) it comes to a certain threshhold where civilians and criminals would be pretty much evenly matched, since people aren't going to bother to get a fully automatic rifle in response to the opposition having an AR15. In fact it appears that this threshhold has already been reached; criminals have had and still have pistols and handguns as their favorite weapons to use; this hasn't changed for some time now. But I think what Sobotnik is getting at here is that since criminals will get weapons in response to civilians owning weapons, that citizens should just stop buying weapons so that they don't, which I respond to by saying that Sobotnik needs to accept the fact that one side pulling out of a "race" won't neccesarily cause the other side to do the same. And potential victims obtaining weapons is not the only possible cause for a criminal seeking a weapon themselves, anyway.
I hope I've spoken clearer this time.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40285242]What I was trying to say was that there would be an arms race and that criminals wouldn't stop the race if citizens did, so why should citizens be forced out of this "race"? I think this whole arms race notion actually has some weight to it but (and I vaguely remember talking about this before) it comes to a certain threshhold where civilians and criminals would be pretty much evenly matched, since people aren't going to bother to get a fully automatic rifle in response to the opposition having an AR15. In fact it appears that this threshhold has already been reached; criminals have had and still have pistols and handguns as their favorite weapons to use; this hasn't changed for some time now. But I think what Sobotnik is getting at here is that since criminals will get weapons in response to civilians owning weapons, that citizens should just stop buying weapons so that they don't, which I respond to by saying that Sobotnik needs to accept the fact that one side pulling out of a "race" won't neccesarily cause the other side to do the same. And potential victims obtaining weapons is not the only possible cause for a criminal seeking a weapon themselves, anyway.
I hope I've spoken clearer this time.[/QUOTE]
Alright, your position is definitely more clear now. You say that the arms race wouldn't stop if citizens didn't have guns, so why force them out of the race? Well, the answer to that would lie as to where criminals get their firearms. The study posted earlier showed that well over 60% of criminals' guns are obtained in some form or another through the legal process. Either bought from friends or family who likely purchased it legally, through the gun show loophole, stolen from people who likely purchased it legally, purchased in illegal street deals directly from guns store owners, to purchased from other illegal sources (a large percentage of which are probably either non-felons who purchased those guns legally, or other criminals who obtained their guns from one of those previously legal sources as well). I would very much like to see numbers for the total number of firearms obtained by criminals that were actually illegally imported into the country. I'd be willing to bet 99% of criminals' weapons could be traced back to a legal source.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40285806]Alright, your position is definitely more clear now. You say that the arms race wouldn't stop if citizens didn't have guns, so why force them out of the race? Well, the answer to that would lie as to where criminals get their firearms. The study posted earlier showed that well over 60% of criminals' guns are obtained in some form or another through the legal process. Either bought from friends or family who likely purchased it legally, through the gun show loophole, stolen from people who likely purchased it legally, purchased in illegal street deals directly from guns store owners, to purchased from other illegal sources (a large percentage of which are probably either non-felons who purchased those guns legally, or other criminals who obtained their guns from one of those previously legal sources as well). I would very much like to see numbers for the total number of firearms obtained by criminals that were actually illegally imported into the country. I'd be willing to bet 99% of criminals' weapons could be traced back to a legal source.[/QUOTE]
So? That doesn't mean that criminals can't make their own guns. It's relatively easy to make a single-shot shotgun or a small pen gun, or something more elaborate if you have the motivation and the supplies. As for ammo, while modern day smokeless powder certainly wouldn't be feasibly produced by a bunch of ragtag gangsters, old fashioned black powder would be, and in terms of getting the shells they can just reload spent cartridges. The effectiveness of these guns is questionable at best, but now if citizens don't have guns, the criminals in question would definitely have the edge.
In addition, the emergence of a new technology, the 3D printer, has made it theoretically possible for anyone with a printer to make their own guns based on CAD designs-it would be virtually impossible for the government to suppress these from flowing around the internet, and while so far the AR-15 lowers at Defense Distributed can put only 100 rounds max through themselves, the designs are definitely becoming better with each version. Not to mention that guns with smaller calibres would no doubt be much more practical to print and obtain ammo for (although I haven't gotten any word about any .22LR pistols by Defense Distributed at this point). Eventually, fully-printed guns will become a reality, and when that happens and if disarmament occurs, law abiding citizens will have no chance.
In the end its not about cutting off the supply of arms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, its about making sure that enough normal people are armed so that criminals will have to think twice before pulling the trigger.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40284865]conceded that criminals arm themselves as a reaction to their victims being armed.[/QUOTE]
If all citizens were disarmed, would criminals stop using guns or would innocent people be unable to defend themselves?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40286434]So? That doesn't mean that criminals can't make their own guns. It's relatively easy to make a single-shot shotgun or a small pen gun, or something more elaborate if you have the motivation and the supplies. As for ammo, while modern day smokeless powder certainly wouldn't be feasibly produced by a bunch of ragtag gangsters, old fashioned black powder would be, and in terms of getting the shells they can just reload spent cartridges. The effectiveness of these guns is questionable at best, but now if citizens don't have guns, the criminals in question would definitely have the edge.
In addition, the emergence of a new technology, the 3D printer, has made it theoretically possible for anyone with a printer to make their own guns based on CAD designs-it would be virtually impossible for the government to suppress these from flowing around the internet, and while so far the AR-15 lowers at Defense Distributed can put only 100 rounds max through themselves, the designs are definitely becoming better with each version. Not to mention that guns with smaller calibres would no doubt be much more practical to print and obtain ammo for (although I haven't gotten any word about any .22LR pistols by Defense Distributed at this point). Eventually, fully-printed guns will become a reality, and when that happens and if disarmament occurs, law abiding citizens will have no chance.
In the end its not about cutting off the supply of arms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, its about making sure that enough normal people are armed so that criminals will have to think twice before pulling the trigger.[/QUOTE]
there are a lot of things we'll never be able to completely stop people from doing, but we can certainly make the penalties for doing it much, much harsher. we always enjoy catching a plot to bomb a public building before it happens, but we don't always do. bombs are very easy to make at home. how does the average citizen protect themselves from that? we know we can't stop all of it, but we can make the punishments very severe. that's truly what the law is for; a piece of legislation doesn't stop a crime in progress, it allows us to prosecute those who break it.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40286461]If all citizens were disarmed, would criminals stop using guns or would innocent people be unable to defend themselves?[/QUOTE]
please read the next few posts after that one
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40286900]there are a lot of things we'll never be able to completely stop people from doing, but we can certainly make the penalties for doing it much, much harsher. we always enjoy catching a plot to bomb a public building before it happens, but we don't always do. bombs are very easy to make at home. how does the average citizen protect themselves from that? we know we can't stop all of it, but we can make the punishments very severe. that's truly what the law is for; a piece of legislation doesn't stop a crime in progress, it allows us to prosecute those who break it.
please read the next few posts after that one[/QUOTE]
So we should just not allow citizens to legally own guns and steepen the penalties for owning them? Think about this for a second. Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, and the rest-did they walk into those public areas with a gun locked and loaded fearing the penalties? No! They were so deluded that they just ceased to care about what would happen later down the line. Some of them, like Adam Lanza, were planning to be "an hero" anyways, so they feared the consequences even less. Now how would steep penalties work to discourage people from committing crimes, people who lose all sense of self preservation or foresight? You might say something like "Well for criminals who DO have foresight, the consequences will discourage them enough, and saving even one life is a step forward". But I say, this really doesn't have any impact on violent crime, even if it does work. It isn't and never will be a heinous crime to own a kitchen knife, so naturally criminals will just fall back to using those as they have in the UK. But the problem is, whereas the stregnth of a bullet is derived from the energy stored in its powder, a large part of the power of a knife is derived from the stregnth of its user. This is especially bad for women who like CCW because should a national disarmament magically and successfully happen, they would resort to using knives themselves, but the playing field would be more uneven than if a women or even both a woman and a criminal are carrying firearms. Since women tend to be weaker than men physically, they would be at a disadvantage in a knife fight with a stronger and possibly well-experienced criminal.
I myself am not top of my class in the Navy SEALS or trained in gorilla warfare, and am relatively weak in comparison to the average person. So needless to say I would much rather be in a standoff with a criminal aiming guns at each other than a standoff with a criminal brandishing knives at each other.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40285806]Alright, your position is definitely more clear now. You say that the arms race wouldn't stop if citizens didn't have guns, so why force them out of the race? Well, the answer to that would lie as to where criminals get their firearms. The study posted earlier showed that well over 60% of criminals' guns are obtained in some form or another through the legal process. Either bought from friends or family who likely purchased it legally, through the gun show loophole, stolen from people who likely purchased it legally, purchased in illegal street deals directly from guns store owners, to purchased from other illegal sources (a large percentage of which are probably either non-felons who purchased those guns legally, or other criminals who obtained their guns from one of those previously legal sources as well). I would very much like to see numbers for the total number of firearms obtained by criminals that were actually illegally imported into the country. I'd be willing to bet 99% of criminals' weapons could be traced back to a legal source.[/QUOTE]
gun show "loophole" hahahaha you people are hilarious. there is no debating on an amendment, a right to the people.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40287938]gun show "loophole" hahahaha you people are hilarious. there is no debating on an amendment, a right to the people.[/QUOTE]
Yes there is, because believe it or not, times change.
Laws need to be able to stand up today in order to serve people best. If a law is old and showing limitations, debate and revision must inevitably arise.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40287976]Yes there is, because believe it or not, times change.
Laws need to be able to stand up today in order to serve people best. If a law is old and showing limitations, debate and revision must inevitably arise.[/QUOTE]
So if you lived in an urban area with a high crime rate, You would keep yourself unarmed and wait for the local authorities to respond to an invasion of some possibly armed criminals? There is no problem, People will continue to kill each-other, No matter the method. Banning anything firearm related does not help.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40284181]Arming yourself doesn't prevent conflict, it merely provokes an arms race.
This has happened everywhere. If you arm yourself with a gun, the criminals are just going to start using guns too.[/QUOTE]
Most people are unarmed in the United States. Criminals still arm themselves because it gives them a massive edge over those unarmed citizens. They prefer to attack an unarmed citizen over an armed citizen because then the odds are in their favor to win. Also when they fight each other. Mexico for example.
People don't go murdering each other simply because they have a gun but because they have a reason to want someone else dead. The gun is just the "easy" thing to target instead of the motivations of killers.
[QUOTE=Kigen;40288366]Most people are unarmed in the United States. Criminals still arm themselves because it gives them a massive edge over those unarmed citizens. They prefer to attack an unarmed citizen over an armed citizen because then the odds are in their favor to win. Also when they fight each other. Mexico for example.
People don't go murdering each other simply because they have a gun but because they have a reason to want someone else dead. The gun is just the "easy" thing to target instead of the motivations of killers.[/QUOTE]
this. if you want to reduce gun violence you have to target the other factors rather than just the legality of owning a firearm. Targeting motivation like kigen said would do a helluva lot more than a gun ban. Stricter penalties for commiting gun crimes is a good example.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40287992]So if you lived in an urban area with a high crime rate, You would keep yourself unarmed and wait for the local authorities to respond to an invasion of some possibly armed criminals? There is no problem, People will continue to kill each-other, No matter the method. Banning anything firearm related does not help.[/QUOTE]
Does owning a firearm increase your life expectancy?
[editline]15th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kigen;40288366]Most people are unarmed in the United States. Criminals still arm themselves because it gives them a massive edge over those unarmed citizens. They prefer to attack an unarmed citizen over an armed citizen because then the odds are in their favor to win. Also when they fight each other. Mexico for example.
People don't go murdering each other simply because they have a gun but because they have a reason to want someone else dead. The gun is just the "easy" thing to target instead of the motivations of killers.[/QUOTE]
So if everybody armed themselves to protect against criminals, what do you think criminals will do?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40288463]Does owning a firearm increase your life expectancy?
[editline]15th April 2013[/editline]
So if everybody armed themselves to protect against criminals, what do you think criminals will do?[/QUOTE]
If anything they would be afraid of the civilians in the area. this has happened before in some areas the crooks are more afraid of the gun owners than the police.
And in response to your first question, it depends where you live. Some people need them to survive in extremely rural areas. And why not own one for self defense? I don't understand the logic that owning a gun adds to a "gun crime" problem. You gun control advocates understand that restricting firearms only hurts responsible owners right? There are so many guns in america that any act to ban anything wouldnt prevent a criminal from aquiring one.
Also your "arms race" thing is completely false. the criminals arent going to arm themselves in response to civilian gun ownership.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40288498]If anything they would be afraid of the civilians in the area. this has happened before in some areas the crooks are more afraid of the gun owners than the police.
And in response to your first question, it depends where you live. Some people need them to survive in extremely rural areas. And why not own one for self defense? I don't understand the logic that owning a gun adds to a "gun crime" problem.[/QUOTE]
Do you have evidence that says gun owners live longer than non-gun owners, or are less probable to die?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40288544]Do you have evidence that says gun owners live longer than non-gun owners, or are less probable to die?[/QUOTE]
No. I dont need some statistic saying that gun owners live longer than non owners because thats silly. I could get into a car acident and die today for all i know. A lot of people live long lives without guns. What I'm trying to explain to you is that gun ownership can only help you. It cannot harm you. And stripping the responsible citizens of their arms only aids the criminals knowing that less people they encounter are armed.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40288603]No. I dont need some statistic saying that gun owners live longer than non owners because thats silly. I could get into a car acident and die today for all i know. A lot of people live long lives without guns. What I'm trying to explain to you is that gun ownership can only help you. It cannot harm you. And stripping the responsible citizens of their arms only aids the criminals knowing that less people they encounter are armed.[/QUOTE]
You need evidence to support your claims.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40288615]You need evidence to support your claims.[/QUOTE]
Okay i have no evidence and my statement is void, please enlighten me with your plan to mutilate the second amendment with guncontrol and back it with evidence please.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40288649]Okay i have no evidence and my statement is void, please enlighten me with your plan to mutilate the second amendment with guncontrol and back it with evidence please.[/QUOTE]
But the burden of proof is on you to show that gun owners live longer than non-gun owners.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40288874]But the burden of proof is on you to show that gun owners live longer than non-gun owners.[/QUOTE]
having a firearm tends to increase your life expectancy when someone with a gun is attacking you.
[QUOTE=moffe;40288913]having a firearm tends to increase your life expectancy when someone with a gun is attacking you.[/QUOTE]
Right, so do you have a source which shows the life expectancies of both firearms owners and non-firearms owners?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
