Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,192
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
I think Jacoby has it right. There's such a thing as a judge and jury, just as with anything that has this much bredth of interpretation there's the 'reasonable person' caveat; ie. would a reasonable person have felt threatened? If the answer to that question is 'no' then they won't go too far with that.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
simon_says wrote:
Supposedly Sears sold them and you could mail order one (or however many) up until the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 took effect. It doesn’t matter what they acquired or how they acquired them, though. It’s what they did with them (shooting people) that should be the crime.
When you see a really obese person do you automatically blame forks and spoons? Why not? That’s what they used to get fat with for the most part. Look how many people die from the health related side effects of obesity. That argument makes about as much sense as this gun fearing thing.
I wouldn’t really need a sub-machinegun to kill off several people. As riflemen go, I consider myself only fair to maybe good on a good day. Give me a concealed vantage point over a high pedestrian traffic area and my old pre-WW1 Swedish Mauser (a 6.5mm five shot bolt action rifle with open sights) and I can hit people out to 300+ yards all day as long as they present themselves. That would go on until I ran out of ammo or the cops finally manned up and stopped me.
The lesson there is that the weapon is only as dangerous as the user. Give a street creep a sub-machinegun with a 30 round mag and I doubt he’d hit but a few people with fatal or disabling hits and probably half of those 30 rounds would miss entirely due to lack of control and generally poor tactics.
This whole topic is really moot, anyway. The trend in the U.S. is and has been favorable to the passage of carry laws enabling citizens the means to protect themselves against society’s predators. That’s the direction we’ve been going in since the 80’s so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to turn any time soon.
I assure you it wouldn’t be going in this direction if the harmful effects outweighed or where even significant compared to the benefits.
If you look at the live map below it shows the progress to be mostly all shall issue states by now. Only Illinois will not issue a permit but that will mostly likely change in time.
CCW map of the United States
Your point has nothing to do with my quote, which was dealing with a claim made by Dox suggesting that the number of kills with legal automatic weapons could be counted on one hand. If those were legal purchases and not a result of smuggling, and I have no way of knowing, then the number would be above five. Unless he meant since the regulations were imposed.
But I'm pretty happy with automatic weapons being extremely rare. I think it's a good trend. Inevitably gun owners will continue to make mistakes or lose it. At some point there will be another opportunity to tighten some regulations.
My reply pretty much pointed out that your quote has no point. You haven't made a point in this whole thread. Why not just repeat "Gunz-r-bad" over and over because that's pretty much the gist of all you, CrazyCatLord, and a few others have said.....
My reply pretty much pointed out that your quote has no point. You haven't made a point in this whole thread. Why not just repeat "Gunz-r-bad" over and over because that's pretty much the gist of all you, CrazyCatLord, and a few others have said.....
Ah, well, you couldnt possibly think less of me than I do of you. Have a nice day bubba.
I think we just got called rednecks... *sighs*
Hey Dox47,
Watch the insults to former Loompanics Unlimited's redneck academic customers who at least know the 2nd Law!! !
And, it's not contradicted by refrigerators, nor by the Law of Large Numbers (though that one tends to gets past ruveyn all the time).
You sure side-tracked the Castle Doctrine discussion, while whining endlessly about no one else sticking to the thread that "The just-passed Minnesota bill to expand 'Castle Doctrine' gun rights should be called the Shoot First law," as, to you, it only involves your self-centric experiences with any assumed self-evident right to bear arms (firearms), and absolutely nothing else.
Tadzio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loompanics
The lesson there is that the weapon is only as dangerous as the user. Give a street creep a sub-machinegun with a 30 round mag and I doubt he’d hit but a few people with fatal or disabling hits and probably half of those 30 rounds would miss entirely due to lack of control and generally poor tactics.
CCW map of the United States
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
Hi Raptor,
Please use at least a more passive, or 3rd person, for dire hypotheticals as such.
Parts of your post could be taken as a possible sign of a foreboding in future hindsight. I don't wish the burden with subjectively feasible consideration of over-reaction/inaction including such possible coincidental social burden from too sensitive or insensitive error or reasonable misreading, as reading the works of fiction allegedly penned by Seung-Hui Cho made public well after the fact was still too close to having been subjected to actualizable warnings, instead of previously only hypotheticals.
Tadzio
Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status. As an urban and urbane gun owner, I take umbrage to the stereotypes so commonly used on us, hence my shared annoyance. I think guns is possibly the only area of politics where Raptor and I tend to completely agree, he's more of a traditional conservative while I'm a non-orthodox libertarian.
Now if you'd care to bring an original argument to the gun debate you might get some more original responses; as I mentioned before I've fought this exact fight many times (as has Raptor), and both of us tend to have the same weariness towards debunking the same claims and the same hyperbole for the umpteenth time.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
I don't know, it might have more to do with Raptor's well known love of the Confederacy than his views on firearms
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
And you seriously think the average joe would be capable of such an overreaction to the point where it becomes statistically significant? You really need to check your concept of human nature. Because it's mostly repeat offenders that have the propensity for that sort of thing. I wouldn't worry about the average joe since most people wouldn't even resort to hitting a woman, let alone shooting one.
I think I already explained that in relation to German school shootings.
Btw, I've never been robbed, burglarized or assaulted in Germany. The only time I've been robbed was in the streets of Amsterdam, where I suddenly had a knife at my throat. I doubt that a gun would have done me much good in that situation. But handing my wallet over did the trick. Perhaps I'm just a spineless idealist, but I believe that most conflicts can be solved without violence. If I lose some money in the process, that is a better outcome than getting myself injured or killed, and/or injuring or killing another person.
There are gun owners who advocate things like conflict resolution/avoidance and situational awareness. Avoid sketchy areas, avoid being a douche that provokes violence, know how criminals typically position themselves to set you up, and watch yourself within fringe areas of public establishments.
Situational awareness would've helped in your case. Criminals always position themselves in ways that set you up for their crimes. There are always telltale signs that something's about to go wrong. Knowing which areas you should keep an eye out for and what type of maneuvers you should look out for is the key.
The UK has an incredibly high rate of violent crimes at 2034/100,000 compared to the US which has 466/100,000. It is the highest out of all European countries while the US is even lower than that of all the countries on the list.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html
I know jack s**t about how British society is like in terms of its social and economic climate, but I do know that Britain has a lot of nanny state laws and none of that s**t has had any effect on its social or economic issues. Could it possibly be because you're more likely to get shot for trying to pull some punk ass s**t on someone in the US so it acts as a deterrent? Not that I'm saying legal gun ownership has any correlation to firearm-related homicide. I actually would say that there is none since it is usually crooks murdering other crooks. But I have seen that legal gun ownership does have an effect on crime overall.
When it comes to drugs, it clearly doesn't work. People aren't addicted to guns though. Gun prohibition seems to work a whole lot better than drug prohibition. And even if that wasn't the case, the fact that law enforcement is not 100% effective in preventing crime doesn't mean that we should simply give up and decriminalize everything.
Does this mean I think rocket launchers and grenades should be legal? No. Bullets are meant to kill people while explosives are meant to destroy things that bullets can't.
I haven't heard of rice burners being banned yet for looking like they have too much horsepower, so assault rifles shouldn't be banned just because they look too military. And if you think that's a strawman, look up the Brady Campaign. They literally propose banning "assault weapons" merely because of cosmetic features whether or not they have any functional features that would make the gun more "dangerous". I'm not even kidding, they want to ban them just because they look scary.
Last edited by AceOfSpades on 06 Mar 2012, 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status. As an urban and urbane gun owner, I take umbrage to the stereotypes so commonly used on us, hence my shared annoyance. I think guns is possibly the only area of politics where Raptor and I tend to completely agree, he's more of a traditional conservative while I'm a non-orthodox libertarian.
Now if you'd care to bring an original argument to the gun debate you might get some more original responses; as I mentioned before I've fought this exact fight many times (as has Raptor), and both of us tend to have the same weariness towards debunking the same claims and the same hyperbole for the umpteenth time.
Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.
My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.
Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status. As an urban and urbane gun owner, I take umbrage to the stereotypes so commonly used on us, hence my shared annoyance. I think guns is possibly the only area of politics where Raptor and I tend to completely agree, he's more of a traditional conservative while I'm a non-orthodox libertarian.
Now if you'd care to bring an original argument to the gun debate you might get some more original responses; as I mentioned before I've fought this exact fight many times (as has Raptor), and both of us tend to have the same weariness towards debunking the same claims and the same hyperbole for the umpteenth time.
Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.
My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.
I can't see where I've done any whining. Insulting? Possibly if you're overly sensitive but you implying that legally armed citizens are inept and a danger to themselves and the public was insulting. I've objectively answered all these concerns in your "context" but all you've done is repeat yoursef ad nauseum.
Anyone who would disarm innocent citizens in the face of the threats they are arming themselves against IS an insult. There's no way I could top that.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
something wrong |
17 Mar 2024, 8:04 pm |
Would I be wrong to do this? |
21 Feb 2024, 5:40 am |
Something Wrong With my Cat |
04 Feb 2024, 9:32 pm |
What's wrong with doing things later ? |
13 Mar 2024, 7:12 am |