|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 20 30 40 ... 48 49 50 51 52 ... 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:12 AM |
|
|
|
Let's just say I'm okay if someone's having a revolver or a shotgun in the house in a locked drawer (or someplace safe in another way). But when they promote your Average Joe having access to something that looks like only Arnold Schwarzenegger can lift up, I don't buy the story that it's to protect the wife and kids.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:16 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 02:21, 16 Jul 2013.
|
artu said:
Let's just say I'm okay if someone's having a revolver or a shotgun in the house in a locked drawer (or someplace safe in another way). But when they promote your Average Joe having access to something that looks like only Arnold Schwarzenegger can lift up, I don't buy the story that it's to protect the wife and kids.
no, and fittingly so. they are for militia purposes, to protect against a corrupt government from doing whatever they want, personally, to you and your family, as well as your country. they are also a last resort. your country may have never had that, so you wouldn't know what i am talking about.
every country that is "safe" because of their government, where the populace does not own firearms to keep their freedoms, are under their own governments' thumb. we americans cannot allow that. that is the entire reason we HAVE this country. that is why we FOUNDED this country.
well, that, and for freedom from government tyranny. lol, you know what i mean. 
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:25 AM |
|
|
|
You can not fight a government whose annual defense budget (military expenses) is 690 billion dollars by militia. That is just fantasy. And as I've mentioned before, almost every country's founding is some kind of war, be it against some corrupted monarchy or an invading external enemy etc etc. It's not unique to U.S. history.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:28 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 02:13, 08 Aug 2013.
|
yeah, but look at what freedoms you have, artu. i'd say many other countries went a different route than the u.s.
that argument made no sense.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:35 AM |
|
|
Ok, we are a moderate democracy, still developing, I'll give you that. And an average American citizen has more freedom than an average Turkish citizen. Any citizen from a Western European country has as much freedom as you do, though. Why don't they walk around with AR-15's?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:39 AM |
|
|
The fact that western European countries have more restricted gun ownership than the US does is one example of them having less freedom.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:51 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 02:54, 16 Jul 2013.
|
artu said:
Ok, we are a moderate democracy, still developing, I'll give you that. And an average American citizen has more freedom than an average Turkish citizen. Any citizen from a Western European country has as much freedom as you do, though. Why don't they walk around with AR-15's?
lol, what are you on about, artu? nobody here walks around with ar's. we are in possession of them.
and, to extend what mvass said, any citizen from a western european country DOES NOT have as much freedom as we do. they also have higher taxes. hence the complaints about the u.s. 
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:54 AM |
|
|
@fred
Walking around was a figure of speech, do I really have to spell that out?
@mvass
This is not about freedom, I can bet you anything that even if it's free to own an automatic assault rifle of that scale in those countries, people won't feel like it. And your conception of freedom is as abstract as a 2D geometrical shape drawn on paper and there is no perfect circle in the universe. Freedom is not a fetish, it's not just about being able to do things, it's about consciousness of what you can choose and WHY you make those choices. If you realize that your answer to all 3D problems won't be "police is cheaper."
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 02:59 AM |
|
|
artu said:
@fred
Walking around was a figure of speech, do I really have to spell that out?
@mvass
This is not about freedom, I can bet you anything that even if it's free to own an automatic assault rifle of that scale in those countries, people won't feel like it. And your conception of freedom is as abstract as a 2D geometrical shape drawn on paper and there is no perfect circle in the universe. Freedom is not a fetish, it's not just about being able to do things, it's about consciousness of what you can choose and WHY you make those choices. If you realize that your answer to all 3D problems won't be "police is cheaper."
to be fair, artu, you are usually more elaborate in your discussions. when you petered out, i was worried.
don't be insulting because you are losing the argument, artu. that won't reflect well, being that you are usually more stellar in your arguments. resorting to insults doesn't help you win, if you feel backed into a corner and start wanting to bite, remember that "humans are better than animals".
humanity has shown that they constantly make the wrong decisions. like i said, if everyone was responsible, one wouldn't NEED guns. the flaw is with humanity, not firearms.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:15 AM |
|
|
artu:
Actually, freedom is nothing more or less than being unrestricted in your ability to do things that don't harm others. If I can go buy a gun if I want to, then that's a freedom. If the state steps in and tells me that I can't (because it's an assault weapon or something), then I'm less free. Just because there are some freedoms that you may never want to exercise (such as doing drugs) doesn't mean that they aren't legitimate freedoms.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:16 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:20, 16 Jul 2013.
|
What insult? I always criticize Mvass for being a 2D idealist in issues that require a historical approach, his understanding of freedom is a memorized sermon. This is not the first time I point this out.
And if you really think there is an actual causality between gun ownership in 21st century and your established democratic rights, you are totally off. It's just so off, I can't find a way to emphasize it. The thing is, you just like guns, you say it's to protect family from burglars, when that is confronted with logic, you say US is gangland (not your argument today), when that is confronted you say it's in case governments go corrupt, how and why your freedom established by the state laws (that you defend comparing to Europe) will be guaranteed when fighting that state in jungle law is a mystery. Now, this is done, you will find another rationalization to own an assault rifle when in fact the real reason is simply, you like them. You can like them, sure, but if you think you have a solid case here, you're dead wrong.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:16 AM |
|
|
|
The only possible conclusion is that US and Europe are very different cultures when it comes to fire arms (or religion btw). It has nothing to do with <> freedom, an attempt to freedom is when removing a right while everyone fights for it, or nobody in Europe would want to have guns legalized. We are very fine without them and wish it stays like that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, freedom is nothing more or less than being unrestricted in your ability to do things that don't harm others.
You're exactly where I criticize at. That's an infinite set.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:29 AM |
|
|
artu said:
What insult? I always criticize Mvass for being a 2D idealist in issues that require an historical approach, his understanding of freedom is a memorized sermon. This is not the first time I point this out.
And if you really think there is an actual causality between gun ownership in 21st century and your established democratic rights, you are totally off. It's just so off, I can't find a way to emphasize it. The thing is, you just like guns, you say it's to protect family from burglars, when that is confronted with logic, you say US is gangland (not your argument today), when that is confronted you say it's in case governments go corrupt, how and why your freedom established by the state laws (that you defend comparing to Europe) will be guaranteed when fighting that state in jungle law is a mystery. Now, this is done, you will find another rationalization to own an assault rifle when in fact the real reason is simply, you like them. You can like them, sure, but if you think you have a solid case here, you're dead wrong.
oh. if that's your standard way of talking to mvass, then i'll butt out. i wasn't aware, lol.
all of those things i said are true, and they all form my opinion. just because i said them at different times, doesn't mean my argument doesn't stand, artu. i'm not backing out, or running away, or avoiding anything in this discussion.
it is true that i like firearms, they are much more reliable than people, and are more my "friends" than any i have ever had. they don't judge me, and they will kill my enemies, protect my family, and help to keep this country free, as well. of course, i'm speaking abstractly, and projecting myself into inanimate objects(obviously), but the point still stands. firearms are just tools, and they work how people use them. just like everything else.
and, i DO have a solid case here. you fail to see that because you lack american perspective, which isn't a flaw, just a difference. i don't hold it against you, but many people seem to hold their differences against americans, which is not right. but whatever, i'm not getting anywhere with you or the other anti-gun advocates, and i'm having to delete posts just to repeat myself again and again in this thread.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:38 AM |
|
|
The incident with Zimmerman and Martin was about self defense. The race-baiter-in-chief and his lackey Holder, as well as leftist media, are intent on making it about race and guns and refuse to respect the verdict of the jury.
If Zimmerman had been black and Martin had been white this would not have even been a national story.
The ballistics expert said Martin was bending over Zimmerman (who was flat on his back with a bloody lip, bloody nose, and bloodied back of the head) when Zimmerman shot him. And Martin was high on weed, had a history of using weed, had stolen jewelry in his backpack and had pictures of himself flashing gang signs and with handguns.
The media has paited a lie of Martin being a good kid gunned down in cold blood by a racist. The media edited tapes to try to make it look like Zimmerman was a racist.
Zimmerman is going to sue NBC. I hope he also sues the individuals involved, and not just the network.
Clicky
Quote:
Last night’s not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial will enable the neighborhood-watch volunteer to resume his case against NBC News for the mis-editing of his widely distributed call to police. Back in December, Zimmerman sued NBC Universal Media for defamation over the botched editing, which depicted him as a hardened racial profiler.
Here’s how NBC News, in a March 27, 2012, broadcast of the “Today” show, abridged the tape of Zimmerman’s comments to a police dispatcher on the evening of Feb. 26, 2012:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
The full tape went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
NBC Universal Media responded to the Zimmerman complaint by noting that other media outlets played up the racial angle of Zimmerman’s deadly encounter with Trayvon Martin.
....
According to Zimmerman attorney James Beasley, the case against NBC News was stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case. Now that’s out of the way, and Beasley is ready to proceed. “We’re going to start in earnest asap, we just have to get the stay lifted which is a ministerial act,” says Beasley, a Philadelphia lawyer, via e-mail.
When asked how the not-guilty verdict affects the civil case against NBC News, Beasley responded, “This verdict of not guilty is just that, and shows that at least this jury didn’t believe that George was a racist, profiling, or anything that the press accused George of being. That probably doesn’t get you that much but it’s simply time for us to start the case and hold accountable anyone who was irresponsible in their journalism.”
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
i'm not backing out, or running away, or avoiding anything in this discussion.
I didn't say that, I said you were rationalizing your love for guns. That is, you don't go from reason to conclusion but from conclusion (guns are necessary) to reason (fill in anything). Anyway, I know how irritating that post limit can be and I'm getting sleepy too anyway. So, let's leave it for today.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 04:06 AM |
|
|
artu:Quote:
You're exactly where I criticize at. That's an infinite set.
It's a large set, but not an infinite one. Unless you want to be pedantic and count things like "move your finger to the left 1 cm" and "move your finger to the left 1.0001 cm" as separate freedoms, in which case it would be an infinite set.
Salamandre:
Rights are rights regardless of whether anyone is fighting for them or not. In the 70s, no one was fighting for same-sex marriage, but homosexuals were still being denied their rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 04:23 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
And Martin was high on weed, had a history of using weed, had stolen jewelry in his backpack and had pictures of himself flashing gang signs and with handguns.
At least have the decency to relate the truth, not your usual propaganda:
High on weed: the quantity found was minimal and could have been smoked weeks before. Experts said they were uncertain about the effects on Martin and the evidence of drug use was not admissible in court. You lie.
Stolen jewelry in backpack: it was 2 years ago (2011), in his backpack at school, and he was not prosecuted because police found out that the jewelry did not match any that had been reported stolen. You lie.
Pictures of him with guns: kinda ironic, when we know he was killed by a gun trigger happy. Aren't you people considering legalized guns as a constitutive right? So he is guilty because?
@Mvas: I enjoy my right of chewing popcorns at home while not fearing any armed burglar as you do guys. I enjoy my freedom to walk down the street and not peek at every human walking by my side, fearing that he is an armed psychopath which within a simple click could kill me just because he had a bad day.
I enjoy my right of not becoming paranoid as some of Americans do. This is my freedom as I see it, on this issue. And you lost it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 04:51 AM |
|
|
Most Americans have little reason to fear armed burglars. Most people who buy guns to protect themselves from home invasion aren't doing it because they think it's likely to happen, they're doing it because they want to be prepared in case it happens. If you have a fire extinguisher, it doesn't mean fires are frequent, and the same principle applies to gun ownership. I don't know what kind of image you have of America, but aside from some bad areas (but what country doesn't have those?) it's generally safe. Contrary to what some in the media may depict, America isn't a trigger-happy Wild West sort of place. I walk in the streets every day, and I'm not afraid of getting shot.
Also, artu, this may be of interest to you.Quote:
In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other [Black] Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.
Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.
“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.
“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.
By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn't interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn't committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.
While it's not possible for armed citizens to fight the military, things like this are possible.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 06:15 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 06:17, 16 Jul 2013.
|
mvassilev said:
Most people who buy guns to protect themselves from home invasion aren't doing it because they think it's likely to happen, they're doing it because they want to be prepared in case it happens. If you have a fire extinguisher, it doesn't mean fires are frequent, and the same principle applies to gun ownership.
A gun isn't a fire extinguisher. My personal impression is that a lot of people own guns solely because it is their right to do so. The psychology of it almost conflates right with duty. There is a value, in some peoples' minds, of exercising a right (a right perceived to have been purchased with blood) even if there's no true need to do so. In this sense, the need to have a gun as a means of defense (from burglars, from tyranny) is an ad hoc justification.
This, of course, ignores people who buy guns because they like guns, either because they like the recreational aspect, or they like the way owning a gun makes them feel. There is, I think nobody would deny, a psychological aspect to carrying a gun, and I don't mean just a feeling of security. Nobody, at least that I know of, feels powerful, masculine, or righteous wielding a fire extinguisher.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
