Should I move to Australia if Obama wins?

Post Reply New Topic

Your admission that the primary motivation for gun control advocates is fear is interesting. Just what emotion should someone feel when someone not officially designated to carry a gun displays it in public? I sincerely doubt, unless it is amongst gun aficionados, that anyone feels a great emotion for excellent workmanship.

I have no doubt that the Gun Control movement is an offshoot of the peace movement of the mid-20th century which has turned out to be a colossal failure. I wouldnt be surprised if those who advocate outlawing firearms also wish to abolish nuclear weapons. The fear of violence is what motivates gun control advocates, but the trouble is that violence is here and here to stay!
Violence is an intrinsic part of the human condition, always has been always will be. But whats ridiculous is gun control advocates failure to recognize that outlawing something does NOT get rid of it! It just keeps it out of the hands of those who abide by the law. The arms trade is fueled by the manufacturers desire for cash and peoples desire to assert power of other people by means of force. THAT is what human violence is all about: the desire for power and the fierce competition for it.
It is simply NOT possible for the US government to protect ALL of its citizens ALL of the time from transgressive violence.
That is the logic in the right to own firearms, so that when worse comes to worse you can defend yourself when the authorities arent close enough to help you. And Quatermass: You DO realize that a rape accusation has to be investigated and then proceed to a trial in a court of law where the accused rapist is Innocent until proven guilty. Rape cases are very difficult to prosecute and I'll BETCHA ANYTHING that nearly 100% of women would favor measures that would PREVENT rape in the first place rather than harsher penalties for rape. Because its just too easy for rapists to get away with it then to succesfully bring them to justice.So the death penalty would NOT be an effective deterrent for rape as it has shown itself to be an ineffective deterrent for murder in the US.

And how do you propose handling a case of attempted rape when a woman puts a bullet through the head of an attempted rapist?

Call it self-defense.

I believe that technically it's a supposition, since I'm not a gun control advocate and am only speculating as to their motivations. I'm sure it's really a mix of things, the fearmongering is just the public face that seems to be shown most often. I'm sure they run the gamut from victims of crime focusing on the tool, to cynical political types looking for a wedge issue, to suburban parents who didn't grow up with the things and are simply frightened of them because they never learned differently, and many in between. The thing they all seem to have in common is a lack of knowledge and/or experience with firearms, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that I've never met a gun control advocate who knew what they were talking about when it came to the very subject they are so passionate about. I think it's quite reasonable to expect that people who want to place restrictions on the actions of others should at the very least be able present a working knowledge of the subject at hand, and I've yet to see any of these anti gun groups do that. What they do provide in spades is fudged numbers (presenting lawful shooting and suicides as if they were homicides), manipulative language, and emotional screeds, and not much else. Even were I not professionally and personally involved with firearms, I would hesitate to take any group that argues in that manner seriously.

I also am not sure were you're getting this "displaying in public" thing, I mean I know you've been out of the states a while and all, but do you really think it's gotten to the point where people are waving guns around on the street? In many state, including mine, "open carry" is technically legal, though seldom practiced due to law enforcement harassment. The vast majority of people who legally carry do so concealed, as even displaying a firearm can lead to at unwanted police attention at the minimum, and a disorderly conduct or brandishing charge if you're really unlucky. Incidentally, I've worked with several firearms consultants over the years, and the consensus was that the safest firearms users are competition shooter (unsafe practices mean a ban), followed by legally armed civilians, the military, and the police coming in dead last. I can personally attest to the abysmal marksmanship often displayed by the police, having shared a range with the local force at one point, along with their rather casual attitude towards safety. Remember, police officers in general are not gun people, they just have to carry the things as part of the job, and the required qualification scores are not terribly demanding. What I'm getting at is that the informed civilian should be more worried about the gun on the average cop's hip than the one on mine, whether they know it's there or not.

What does this have to do with anything? What I suggested was that if gun control people are to be taken at their word that their motivation is saving lives, then shouldn't they be investing their time and money in causes that save the most lives for the investment? Where are you getting "abolish poverty", I didn't say anything like that, I suggested clean water (huge bang for the buck) and drug policy reform, which would have a side effect of radically reducing gun crime, since at least in the US a very sizable chunk of our gun murders are drug related. Either one of those causes, or many others that I won't list here, have a much higher ROI in lives saved for money and time invested, so why focus so intently on the guns? Or is it not really about saving lives after all?



Because banning drugs works so well? And notice when you're talking about DUIs how you are focusing not on the car or the alcohol, but the misuse of those two items, which is exactly how I approach gun crime, harshly punish misuse, don't just ban something because people might use it badly.



I can't help you with your false assumptions about gun people, but am I reading here that you think banning crossbows is necessary as well? At what point doe you decide that you are safe enough?



Again, I can't help you with your false assumptions, other than to point out their falseness and hope that it takes root, but so far the signs aren't good. I've previously demonstrated the falseness of assigning morality to an inanimate object, and won't waste everyone's time doing so again. As to the sentence I bolded, based on what? Are you psychic now? Even Sand is starting to come around on that point, Sand!! ! I'd suggest you stick to your own motives and morals when speaking in absolutes, you seem to be having enough trouble with far more tangible information.



Are you calling me an idealist? Be that as it may, I happen to think that people will generally act responsibly when they know that they are accountable, and don't have a false sense of security. I've been seeing some road construction studies recently that would seem to back this up, what the studies found was that certain old European roads have much lower than expected accident rates despite being on treacherous terrain and lacking any modern safety features. What the researchers found was that because the roads looked dangerous (hairpin turns next to cliffs with no guardrails, etc.) that people drove much more cautiously than they might have on a more modern road with crash barriers and guard rails. A lot of people get hurt because they walk into danger without being aware because they've been lulled into a false sense of security by certain aspects of modern life.

Would you really have a problem with that? Preventing rape is generally considered legal grounds for using deadly force, and I honestly wish it happened more often that way. Sadly, armed females are few and far between, though I do my part to teach as many of them as possible about shooting and self defense.

I am not against a woman defending herself and I have no sympathy for rapists but would the law see the woman's point of view?

Generally, the law is pretty good that way, at least here in the states. What's really interesting is that most states have laws regarding equality of force, which essentially mean that if someone punches you in the face you don't get to stab or shoot them, but if they attack you with a deadly weapon (subject to some dispute, but generally any sort of gun, knife, club, etc.) you may respond with deadly force. There are exceptions, for example if three guys are stomping you to death in an alley you're allowed deadly response, or to prevent eminent death or serious bodily injury from happening to you or another, or to prevent rape. Women get a slightly different set of rules, when used against a woman a man's assumed superior strength is actually considered a deadly weapon, and she is free to respond with whatever she happens to have on her. It's not a blanket pass to light up any male who looks at them crosswise, but women get considerable more leeway when it comes to self defense against a man or men.

A report I've read just the other day indicated that, in general, police are ill equipped to examine and prosecute rape cases and many rape kits stay unexamined for months or even years for lack of expertise or interest. Your own disdain of police capability seems to confirm that.

Drug policy reform? Do you mean stricter laws on drugs or legalising them?

And it is about saving lives. Helping abolish poverty (which would also include clean water, I might add) would help. But think about the practicalities, and you'll see why it would be a Sisyphean task.



If people cannot face up to responsibility for their own actions with these things (and they have been given plenty of opportunity), then it should be taken away from them. DUIs should have their cars crushed.



When people wake up to themselves about tools that have a singular purpose. Which will probably be sometime never. And as for my false assumptions, examine why you champion the right to bear arms.



I said most, not all. I have a very profound insight into the value of a human life, which is why I think that people who champion the right to bear arms hold life very cheaply.



I said responsibility, not caution. That study is only peripherally related to responsibility because they are concerned for their own skins primarily, and for other road users second. It's a good rule of thumb, actually, to assume that other drivers are acephalous nematodes with all the hand-eye co-ordination of a brain-dead rabbit. I suggest that, if you drive, you use that assumption, if you aren't already.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go an prepare for a job interview.

There are a couple of key factors in the matter of possession of a lethal instrument. Dox47 is adamant in proclaiming that someone who has become expert in the techniques of firearms is therefore competent in judging a dangerous situation. It is obvious that the key element in a complex interaction between humans is not just the lethal capabilities but the ability to assess when those abilities are proper to apply. I have read that the mere possession of a gun distorts this equation so radically that firearm possession very frequently tempts one to enter encounters which would normally be avoided if one felt the appropriate vulnerability. The gun changes the psychology completely. And by this alone, whatever the competence with a firearm, the firearm itself engenders a sense of overconfidence that easily can result in fatalities.

A statement like that is nothing more than a person opinion which is unlikely to be true unless you can back it up, which you obviously CANT. Im glad I dont like in your country, because if I did Id be constantly getting into fistfights with guys like you who have big egos and assert their opinons as facts.

You wouldn't get the chance. If I knew who you were, I'd avoid all confrontation in reality.

Very well then. But I strongly disagree with your statement that those who champion the right to bear arms hold life very cheaply.
Specifically, they hold their OWN lives very dearly(as I do)and you could say that they regard their own personal safety as having precedence over the personal safety of others. Those who oppose the right to bear arms to me are people who think that being submissive will instill empathy in others and make others inclined to treat them mercifully. Its perfectly rational to put you OWN life and the lives of those you care about over the lives of total strangers! I really dont see what is so wrong with that and how such an attitude makes you "hold life very cheaply". Ive know MANY people who do everything they can to avoid confrontation and yet the STILL ended up in dangerous situations where they were dealing with a transgressive thug who viewed them as weak and easy prey.

And people get struck by lightning every day, but it never occurs to me to wear a hat with a grounded lightning rod.

What is most disturbing about people who carry guns is that they assign to themselves the capability and the right to decide who shall live or die. This is a right most carefully handled in law by a jury and a judge and even after conviction criminals are permitted reconsideration of this action frequently several times. In hard contrast a gun owner accords him or herself the right to make this most crucial decision under extreme pressure of an abnormal occurrence with no calm way to calculate alternatives to what might be a gross misperception. On the other hand a real death threat by a perpetrator must be handled quickly and efficiently under these psychologically shattering situations. I cannot judge abstractly any solution to this almost impossible requirement and both sides have reasonable points. Nevertheless I have lived a long life and been in many places that could have presented difficult problems and never carried a gun nor felt the need for one. Luck has most likely played a part in this but also a good deal of caution in evaluating circumstances and avoiding confrontations.