[QUOTE=mugofdoom;44732612]I don't understand why anyone would even want them to. Maybe I'm just too 'Murcan but I could never understand why you would want to put your safety entirely in the hands of a group of people who may not have your best interest in mind.[/QUOTE]
I really don't get the point of you guys even having a police force. Every thread we're told "but they don't have to do their jobs and protect us!". What's the fucking point in them then? The police in every developed nation have a duty to protect their law abiding citizenry, [B]apart[/B] from the US it seems.
Maybe if your police forces were actually useful you'd be more inclined to trust them with their job?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732188]True, but honestly it does bring a good point. If life is valuable and precious, why should we deny people the right to protect themselves?[/QUOTE]
I find one notion really insane - whenever there is any talk of gun control you have people claiming it is a denial of a right. When in truth, in a lot of European countries, you have quite a lot of gun control, yet the right is not denied.
Similarly like getting a driving license. You must pass the tests and requirements in order to get one. You are limited in your right, but not denied. Those are two different things and as long as the limitation isn't severe enough to essentially be a denial it should pass most tests.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;44732569]Here lemme lay this out real quick and real simple.
Russia is an extremely large country, correct?
Africa is an extremely large collection of countries, correct?
America is an extremely large collection of almost nation states (but united by a single government), correct?
Canada is an extremely large country, correct?
All these things have 2 things in common, size, and guns. They have them because you can't possibly rely on institutionalized protection forces to guard every single fucking square inch of land. If you don't like that, all these places have very fucking scary animals that are very big and do big damage when they touch you.[/QUOTE]
It is actually considerably difficult to get a gun in Russia, let alone a gun permit. I'm fairly certain the same thing applies to Canada.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732629]I really don't get the point of you guys even having a police force. Every thread we're told "but they don't have to do their jobs and protect us!". What's the fucking point in them then? The police in every developed nation have a duty to protect their law abiding citizenry, [B]apart[/B] from the US it seems.
Maybe if your police forces were actually useful you'd be more inclined to trust them with their job?[/QUOTE]
I have been harassed and intimidated by police far more than I have actually been protected, helped or serviced in any beneficial way.
In fact I've only been harassed and intimidated by them, that's it. Our police force is a joke and the only thing they're good for is generating revenue for the state.
But even if they did do their job I would prefer to be in control of my own safety.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732593]But would it? As I've covered numerous times, armed citizens are likely to cause criminals to require firearms themselves to "one-up" their targets. After all, why would they risk going after someone who has a chance of being armed if they themselves don't have something to match or better them? When you're mugged over here you aren't mugged at gun point (outside of major cities with functional black markets, and even then it's rare), you're probably going to be mugged at knifepoint at most, which is pretty easy to escape from if your mugger hasn't cornered you or anything. Can't really run from a gun very easily, after all "a bullet fired by my Sig P250 has a response time of 1200 feet per second".
Whilst being mugged repeatedly (what is this? Detroit?) is going to have some effect, killing others is quite more impactful for those unaccustomed to it, even if you think it's a justified killing it's probably going to fuck you up (discounting socio/psychopaths). The case you use here seems like it could be solved by not sending a guy who is known to carry money out by himself, like, just give him a buddy and some protective gear or something. Most petty thieves won't fuck as there's others around. It's worked for the guys who shuttle money around here relatively well.
Firearms for personal defence just seems like a reckless thing societally to me (and many others), giving the average person the ability to take the lives of others away in the blink of an eye is a massive risk to take. Even with background checks galore you're going to get people who shouldn't own these weapons owning them, if they are restricted to a black market they tend to become less accessible, due to cost or function, so petty criminals are unlikely to splash the cash on a gun. Keeping them locked up in secure safes for sporting purposes and such is less of a problem, it's not like anyone but fucking morons carries a rifle or shotgun in the name of "self defence".
[/QUOTE]
I understand that a lot of people don't really see a whole lot of points regarding it, and yeah I understand that psychological damage is bad no matter which way it's taken. In the time I have owned my Makarov, I have only CC'ed once. The reason I CC'ed was because I was visiting a really, really bad part of Tucson with my sister, and she wanted me to come along because her friend's car broke down. It wasn't that bad really, and I didn't even load it to be honest.
I figure that one thing that should be done in the United States is a federal program and regulation that requires fireproof/waterproof safes to be installed into every home in America. The reason for this could vary from firearm ownership, valuable items, hiding documents for safety. Simply having these safes would be a massive deterrent to crime, and would ensure that things like firearms wouldn't get stolen as often as they sometimes are.
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019][b]why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/b][/QUOTE]
because we live in the red white and blue, and in the red white and blue you are on your fucking own pal
[QUOTE=wraithcat;44732632]I find one notion really insane - whenever there is any talk of gun control you have people claiming it is a denial of a right. When in truth, in a lot of European countries, you have quite a lot of gun control, yet the right is not denied.
Similarly like getting a driving license. You must pass the tests and requirements in order to get one. You are limited in your right, but not denied. Those are two different things and as long as the limitation isn't severe enough to essentially be a denial it should pass most tests.[/QUOTE]
My problem with things like full-blown licensing is that it hasn't really shown to do any true effect against crazies from getting weapons, and all in all it just makes it harder for certain income-groups to get firearms for protection. Some people have actually pointed to this being a civil rights issue at points because it locks out certain minority groups from being able to get viable defensive items for their households. That would be more of an issue relating to things like institutionalized racism and such, but still the point sorta remains.
Then again this could also be remedied with safes being installed in every household. All valuable items could be hidden to ensure that people don't lose all their life-savings, family heirlooms, and such in the case of natural disasters or robberies.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732627]Most CCW training warns you of the firearm safety rules, one of which is pretty straight forward:
[B]Rule 2... Do not point a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy.[/B]
If it ever comes to that point where I am pointing a firearm at someone, it is most likely because they have refused to acknowledge that it's my household and did not take my request to leave, that I do not want them stealing items in my household, and that I do not want them causing psychological damage to the children in my household. As far as I have been trained by family members and family friends, if I have already stressed all routes and alternatives to defuse the situation peacefully, and they still attempt to act violent to me and refuse to leave, my only option is to deal with it via force.
I have family members that I have to protect, and running away is not an option.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't it make sense to take other proactive measures first though, especially if and when they've been demonstrated to be more effective?
I get using firearms as a last resort and in situations where there are no other options. I get keeping firearms at home in safe places. I don't exactly get this desire to carry them about in public as a primary means of self defense as people often describe.
Feel uncomfortable in a bad part of town at night?
Avoid walking there alone, and avoid walking there at night. Stay in lit areas and don't hug corners. If you get a bad vibe from someone don't go near them, and you can usually duck into a shop, restaurant or other (semi)public building (at least speaking from my previous experience as a Chicago resident).
Most of these situations seem really, really unrealistic, and anyone with actual self defense training pretty much tells you to avoid bad situations entirely. Sometimes it's inevitable, but good planning can often prevent any of these situations from happening to begin with.
Most people wish to carry firearms out in public because they don't wish to be completely locked out of areas in certain times of day. It's a very depressing thing to know that you may have to avoid entire blocks of your city because of poverty issues. Certain things may not be an option depending on jobs, as in the case of Drake v. Jerejian, the man couldn't get a permit to concealed carry to defend himself while loading ATMs. Even if this could be remedied by having another person on board, they are sorta screwed if they have heavy workloads, and they need to spread their numbers very thinly and evenly.
Like I said, I don't even carry firearms personally. Most of my firearms stay within my own household, go with me hiking in certain areas, or when I go shooting or hunting. My big deal is that I do not see any point in requiring a "justifiable need" because everyone has different justifications and you can simply be denied from getting it because of certain situations. The better alternative is to simply have it so any case of self-defense with firearm is properly investigated to ensure that the user of the firearm didn't instigate something in the first place, and it was proper self defense.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;44732731]Doesn't it make sense to take other proactive measures first though, especially if and when they've been demonstrated to be more effective?
I get using firearms as a last resort and in situations where there are no other options. I get keeping firearms at home in safe places. I don't exactly get this desire to carry them about in public as a primary means of self defense as people often describe.
Feel uncomfortable in a bad part of town at night?
Avoid walking there alone, and avoid walking there at night. Stay in lit areas and don't hug corners. If you get a bad vibe from someone don't go near them, and you can usually duck into a shop, restaurant or other (semi)public building (at least speaking from my previous experience as a Chicago resident).
Most of these situations seem really, really unrealistic, and anyone with actual self defense training pretty much tells you to avoid bad situations entirely. Sometimes it's inevitable, but good planning can often prevent any of these situations from happening to begin with.[/QUOTE]People should and do take steps to avoid dangerous situations entirely. But there is no garuntee that everything will work or any of it will work.
A firearm is a very strong deterrent, so much so that in the overwhelming majority of cases where a firearm is pulled for self-defense, it is never actually fired.
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police?
I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE]
When seconds count the police are only minutes away. Also America is a large country and many people live in rural areas with a small police force. Police response times in those areas could be over an hour.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732146][t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003832_507950729276182_1662980201_n.jpg[/t]
Because if life is as valuable as society puts it, people should be allowed to defend themselves.[/QUOTE]
Aren't you the guy who was complaining about denying people diagnosed with metal illness the ability to buy firearms because your depression would prevent you getting them; even though the whole point of that was to lower suicide rates?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your opinions on gun control seem pretty terrible if you are.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;44732569]Here lemme lay this out real quick and real simple.
Russia is an extremely large country, correct?
Africa is an extremely large collection of countries, correct?
America is an extremely large collection of almost nation states (but united by a single government), correct?
Canada is an extremely large country, correct?
All these things have 2 things in common, size, and guns. They have them because you can't possibly rely on institutionalized protection forces to guard every single fucking square inch of land. If you don't like that, all these places have very fucking scary animals that are very big and do big damage when they touch you.[/QUOTE]
why would you compare america to the entirety of africa? hell, even the russia-america comparison isn't really that fair
[editline]6th May 2014[/editline]
russia has half the population of america, and like 10% of the amount of guns
[QUOTE=Binladen34;44732569]Here lemme lay this out real quick and real simple.
Russia is an extremely large country, correct?
Africa is an extremely large collection of countries, correct?
America is an extremely large collection of almost nation states (but united by a single government), correct?
Canada is an extremely large country, correct?
All these things have 2 things in common, size, and guns. They have them because you can't possibly rely on institutionalized protection forces to guard every single fucking square inch of land. If you don't like that, all these places have very fucking scary animals that are very big and do big damage when they touch you.[/QUOTE]
Australia is a very large country. It's on an island the size of a continent with a low population density due to only 20 million people or so living here. We seem to be fine without guns, so I don't see your point.
Also I don't think mentioning Africa is really helping your argument. As a continent, it probably has the worst gun-related violence in the world, with how easy it is to get a gun probably being a factor.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732146][t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003832_507950729276182_1662980201_n.jpg[/t]
Because if life is as valuable as society puts it, people should be allowed to defend themselves.
Relating back to the article though and Drake v. Jerejian... It's ridiculous that this type of thing is being dragged. It's a yes or no question, and as current stats have shown us, concealed carry and open carry do not show any meaningful decline or incline relating to crime, so why should it be outlawed in any area?[/QUOTE]
That top-right yes could very easily point to a bubble that asks whether or not guns should be banned considering how many lives they take, with a "no" answer pointing back to "then in what meaningful sense in life valuable".
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police?
I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE]
When seconds count the police are only minutes away!
[QUOTE=Acesarge;44733355]When seconds count the police are only minutes away![/QUOTE]
Yeah, because the rest of the western world lives in anarchic hell-holes where criminals can get away with whatever they please because guns are restricted, am I right? The US still leads the western world in terms of homicide and violent crimes per capita. Do guns really stop crimes?
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;44732862]Aren't you the guy who was complaining about denying people diagnosed with metal illness the ability to buy firearms because your depression would prevent you getting them; even though the whole point of that was to lower suicide rates?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your opinions on gun control seem pretty terrible if you are.[/QUOTE]
At the current period of time when I made that post, they were starting to mention that their was consideration to make background checks include voluntary checkups, and I felt that it would only cause a greater stigma within certain people to look for help regarding depression or other mental issues. Myself as an example, I felt trapped because I had started to get help for some of my own issues, and I felt that in doing so I was going to lose a few of the hobbies that gave me something to keep my mind away from depression.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;44733514]Yeah, because the rest of the western world lives in anarchic hell-holes where criminals can get away with whatever they please because guns are restricted, am I right? The US still leads the western world in terms of homicide and violent crimes per capita. Do guns really stop crimes?[/QUOTE]This is looking at a sea of data and picking out a few specific points and saying those are the root of the problem when there are far more than just firearms.
Also, research regularly shows that at worst allowing concealed carry results in no change to crime rates, and at best causes them to drop.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44732498]Have you ever walked through a bad part of town at night?[/QUOTE]
I live very close to Camden and have been there several times. Never have I said "the only thing that can make this city feel safer is if even more people had guns."
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732146][t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003832_507950729276182_1662980201_n.jpg[/t]
Because if life is as valuable as society puts it, people should be allowed to defend themselves.
Relating back to the article though and Drake v. Jerejian... It's ridiculous that this type of thing is being dragged. It's a yes or no question, and as current stats have shown us, concealed carry and open carry do not show any meaningful decline or incline relating to crime, so why should it be outlawed in any area?[/QUOTE]
this flowchart has a hugely misconceived notion of what exactly a right is and how rights work and is pretty indicative of the flawed thinking of anyone that thinks that you have an inherent right to a firearm
your rights are guaranteed by the state, and the state takes on the responsibility of rights. they're the duty bearer, they are the one (with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force no less, which is literally what makes a state a state) that has the duty to protect your life.
as confusing as it may sound, you have a right to life. however that does not entitle you to self defense under any legal doctrine. they're not connected. Self defense is LEGAL however it is not a RIGHT. just because something is LEGAL it does NOT afford the same impact as being a RIGHT.
in the event that your life is in danger, it is LEGAL for you to defend yourself - however, you do not have a legal RIGHT to do so. you just won't be punished for the use of force in that instant. you have the RIGHT to life, however it is the duty of the state to ensure that your life is not ended illegally / violently / without your consent / etc etc. as such, the state (aka police) are the ones who are responsible and can be held accountable for protecting your life. if they fail to do so, then they have failed in their duties.
this is solidified in pretty much the entire academic community surrounding rights doctrine.
there is no "right" to self defense in the united states, and there is no "human right" to self defense. you've got a right to life, and the state needs to take the necessary steps to make sure that right is not infringed by itself or by third parties through the use of a police force.
you'll note that the text of the second amendment itself states that the firearms are not for the purpose of self defense, but for the defense of the state. all discourse suggesting otherwise is on shaky legal grounds completely. the chart that you just posted is an entirely knee jerk reaction to any sort of gun legislation that's attempting to worm around the issue by appealing to emotions.
something that gun nuts on this forum loooooOOOve to put on advocates of gun control policy.
[editline]5th May 2014[/editline]
/brickinhead your resident political scientist and human rights quantitative scholar
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police?
[/QUOTE]
"when seconds matter, the police are minutes away"
police arn't going to be there the instant you call, you always need a backup plan.
Where i live is a good example, a rural country area might have a 10-15 minute response time. alot of shit can happen in 10 minutes. this is why i like the stand your ground law despite the fact its a huge dual edged sword.
this isn't pro-gun/anti-gun/whatever bullshit, it's common sense. you need to defend yourself before the cops take over.
[QUOTE=Wii60;44733964]this isn't pro-gun/anti-gun/whatever bullshit, it's common sense. you need to defend yourself before the cops take over.[/QUOTE]
sure you do, nobody's arguing against that. the problem is that america's mentality of "nowhere is safe! always be ready! there might be a freak out there tryin to kill ya!" is ridiculous. i'm not saying you shouldn't have a backup plan, but a lot of americans seem to think that backup plan should be a priority. are there psychos out there who might try to shoot you on sight? yeah, but does that warrant 90% of your population owning guns? most robbers out there want nothing but your money, and i think it's terrifying to think that there's so many people in the US that are completely fine with shooting them over that
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732593]it's not like anyone but fucking morons carries a rifle or shotgun in the name of "self defence".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44734261]the problem is that america's mentality of "nowhere is safe! always be ready! there might be a freak out there tryin to kill ya!" is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I spent six years between East Africa and the Caucuses, more than long enough to know that the only person I trust to my own safety is myself. Why shouldn't I be ready? What kind of moron says 'oh, it probably won't happen to me' and just ignores the risk? I have flood insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, home insurance, and life insurance. I keep supplies ready for power outages or natural disasters. Shit happens, and while damaging events may not be common, these contingencies are small investments for the peace of mind of being prepared in case something does go wrong. And for the extremely rare but nonetheless real possibility that someone enters my home with intent to do me harm, I have a gun and the training to use it if absolutely necessary.
Maybe you guys live in societies where the police are infallible and always respond immediately to a threat, but I doubt that. More likely I think you haven't had an experience where the police [I]didn't[/I] save you, that made you realize that the world is not a nice place and counting on others to protect you doesn't always work out. The UK and even the US are a far cry from Tanzania, and if you choose to roll the dice and hope nothing bad happens, that's your call. But I choose not to, and in this country my viewpoint is not uncommon.
[QUOTE=catbarf;44734564]I spent six years between East Africa and the Caucuses, more than long enough to know that the only person I trust to my own safety is myself. Why shouldn't I be ready? What kind of moron says 'oh, it probably won't happen to me' and just ignores the risk? I have flood insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, home insurance, and life insurance. I keep supplies ready for power outages or natural disasters. Shit happens, and while damaging events may not be common, these contingencies are small investments for the peace of mind of being prepared in case something does go wrong. And for the extremely rare but nonetheless real possibility that someone enters my home with intent to do me harm, I have a gun and the training to use it if absolutely necessary.[/quote]
nobody's saying you shouldn't be ready, i'm saying that there's a point where it's too much, and when being ready to kill someone is one of your priorities then you're past that point
[quote]More likely I think you haven't had an experience where the police [I]didn't[/I] save you, that made you realize that the world is not a nice place and counting on others to protect you doesn't always work out.[/QUOTE]
i think you shouldn't assume shit about people you don't know
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44734261]sure you do, nobody's arguing against that. the problem is that america's mentality of "nowhere is safe! always be ready! there might be a freak out there tryin to kill ya!" is ridiculous. i'm not saying you shouldn't have a backup plan, but a lot of americans seem to think that backup plan should be a priority. are there psychos out there who might try to shoot you on sight? yeah, but does that warrant 90% of your population owning guns? most robbers out there want nothing but your money, and i think it's terrifying to think that there's so many people in the US that are completely fine with shooting them over that[/QUOTE]
American heritage has always been about self-defense and guns. the entire country was built upon it (A war that freed us from a abusive government and is the main reason a gun amendment exists in the constitution, the American Frontier movement which caused the whole "wild west" thing where people had to defend their carts/houses/towns/farms/etc. from being raided while moving over to the west with police/law barely existing, etc.)
isn't really a shocker to wonder why so many people still prefer to carry guns, especially in rural areas. it's pretty much nailed in american society and it probably won't ever be removed. it's also why the Gun is america's backup plan when shit hits the fan.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732473]You're still having to carry a weapon around to feel safe. That's hardly a good sign of a healthy society. Or a healthy mind.[/QUOTE]
You're right, whenever I am attacked I should just get my phone out and dial the police. They'll be there in seconds!
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police?
I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE]
The police aren't going to save your ass when you live in downtown detroit and a bunch of gang bangers break into your house when you're watching south park.
I don't get what the big problem is. Just employ stricter controls when someone buys weaponry instead of banning it completely.
Here in Sweden you need to be a member of gun clubs and you need to seek a whole ton of permits and undergo health checks before you get to own any kind of gun.
[editline]6th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police?
I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE]
And what about people who like firing guns for a hobby? Target practice? Hunting?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;44736078]The police aren't going to save your ass when you live in downtown detroit and a bunch of gang bangers break into your house when you're watching south park.[/QUOTE]
Neither would guns though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.