Gun Control - Here and There

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby 82_28 » Fri May 14, 2010 11:41 pm

Here are some armed and properly trained people also involving a subway:

There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby operator kos » Sat May 15, 2010 12:26 am

82_28 wrote:Here are some armed and properly trained people also involving a subway:



Yep, that's where I'm from. So you can see why I don't want to rely on these goons to protect me.
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby JackRiddler » Sat May 15, 2010 1:18 am

Do you think Oscar Grant would have been able to protect himself, if only he'd been carrying a legal firearm?

I don't much expect those goons to protect you if you are attacked, by the way. That still doesn't mean getting to carry your own legal firearm would make you more secure.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby Brentos » Sat May 15, 2010 2:27 am

I'm 100% for carrying your own firearm, since its a matter of principle. If you don't have the authority to look after yourself, who does?
User avatar
Brentos
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby operator kos » Sat May 15, 2010 2:34 am

JackRiddler wrote:Do you think Oscar Grant would have been able to protect himself, if only he'd been carrying a legal firearm?


That's silly. Getting unexpectedly shot in the back while being held face down on the ground isn't a scenario where having a gun is going to help you, is it? I have personally been in scenarios where a gun would have helped me though. What qualifies me to make that call? Well, I have gun training. And I'm also a registered EMT, trusted to make life or death decisions on a regular basis. Both the state and federal government have carried out extensive background checks on me. And yet somehow the state has deemed that I'm not responsible enough to carry a gun.

I'm not telling you to carry a gun. I'm just telling you not to tell me not to.
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby barracuda » Sat May 15, 2010 2:37 am

operator kos wrote:Yep, that's where I'm from.


I'm failing to see by what mechanism more guns in Oakland would somehow equate to less shooting in Oakland.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby operator kos » Sat May 15, 2010 2:40 am

JackRiddler wrote:Presumably something that has been true for a long time? I wrote on the "supposed threat of expanded gun control," not on what's already there. I should have added, from the federal level. Couldn't tell you what's happening in every state, and I know there are places (like New York) where it's gotten stricter in recent years. But again, not federal and unrelated to Obama.


There has been very strict gun control in Oakland since the Black Panthers started carrying. The gun control laws here, and elsewhere, have a blatantly racist origin, as they were meant to prevent black people from defending themselves from overt police brutality and murder.

And yes, the gun control laws in California do continue to expand. Over the years legislators have restricted magazines, grips, and all manner of other features civilians are "allowed". Starting in 2010, ammo sales will be recorded with biometric IDs, and guns will require microstamping technology to match bullets to guns. It is a gradual erosion of a fundamental right... sound familiar?

It doesn't really matter if these infringements of my rights come from the state or federal level, since the effect on me is the same.
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby operator kos » Sat May 15, 2010 2:41 am

barracuda wrote:
operator kos wrote:Yep, that's where I'm from.


I'm failing to see by what mechanism more guns in Oakland would somehow equate to less shooting in Oakland.


Then you didn't read my previous response to your question.
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby barracuda » Sat May 15, 2010 2:50 am

I did. Especially the part where you're gonna get mugged and be nice enough to give up your money without using that pistol hanging right there on your belt. I doubt that your own tolerance and level of respect for human life will be widely shared or emulated. It seems more likely that the rate of non-fatal crime will plummet, if you know what I mean. That is, I don't see a lot of hesitation in regard to trigger-pulling as things sit now in the east bay.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby Simulist » Sat May 15, 2010 3:44 am

This country is crazy enough without its too many already-nutty citizens carrying firearms with them wherever they go.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby 82_28 » Sat May 15, 2010 4:23 am

For the record however, I would totally be down with carrying a blaster.

Image
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 15, 2010 4:34 am

23 wrote:In another thread, iamwhomiam wrote:

"China, except in rare situations, prohibits their citizens from owning guns. That's why we don't hear of people killing people with guns in China. Only through actions by the government or soldiers acting on its behalf, do we hear of gun deaths in China. If you would like to discuss this issue further, please pm me or start a new thread."

So here's the thread.

To begin, I will make a concession:

Image


Just for the record, Germany's public disarmament law was repealed in 1928, after which Germans were good to purchase, own, sell and manufacture guns if they had the appropriate permits, which weren't Draconian or fascistically controlling, due to the Weimar government being kind of a mess.

The Nazis were in politics prior to that, of course. And also using strong-arm and violent tactics prior to that, of course. But those were pretty much along the lines of street-fights with members of the competing political parties, and they certainly weren't shoot-outs. In short:

Fire-arms, per se, played almost no role in the successes of the Nazi party prior to 1928, such as they were. Although it was something of a pivotal electoral year for them, actually. But not decisively so, and not for any reason having anything to do with guns.

Anyway, Hitler's real rise to political dominance occurred between 1930 and 1933. It had little (if anything) to do with the then-prevalent state of gun-control legislation and a lot (if not everything) to do with the then-prevalent state of the economy.

Additionally, Hitler himself only ever passed gun control legislation outlawing the ownership of guns by Jews. The 1928 laws continued to apply to everybody else.

And finally, that storied quote is bogus, everybody! Please don't bring it up! Thanks!

See you in Switzerland in just a few.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Sat May 15, 2010 4:36 am

This country is crazy enough without its too many already-nutty citizens carrying firearms with them wherever they go.


Who could look around and then argue with that? But when you pass laws to prevent nutty citizens from carrying firearms, you transfer a lot of power to whomever designates citizens as nutty.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 15, 2010 4:54 am

23 wrote:No problemo. Glad it pleased your palate.

Here's some more juicy, right-wing stuff... from the nasty right-wing country of Switzerland.

Hope it's finger-lickin' good for you.



The Swiss are forbidden to carry weapons when not on military duty. They're also forbidden from transporting armed weapons, as well as -- I believe -- weapons and ammo that aren't packaged discrete from one another. It's true that they can keep their service weapons if they want to. But the weapons are converted to semi-automatics before they pass into the realm of private ownership, after which their private owners are required by law to keep them in their homes and only in their homes. As well as under lock and key.

There are all kinds of restrictions and prohibitions on ammo-purchase in Switzerland, and virtually no way that a private Swiss citizen can acquire any kind of gun other than a service weapon unless he or she works in job that requires him or her to be armed.

There is a lot of recreational range-shooting in Switzerland, though. Almost all of which is heavily regulated, subsidized and -- in a nutshell -- controlled by the state.

Summing up: They have a lot of guns in households in Switzerland, and they also have one whole hell of a lot more gun control than the United States does.

Also, almost all Swiss gun-related deaths and injuries occur, unsurprisingly, in conjunction with domestic violence. Because, fwiw, there's next to no use of guns for the purposes of protecting self, family and/or property in Switzerland. Which is again unsurprising, given that there's next to no armed criminal invasion of someone else's property in Switzerland.

Due, you know, to the scarcity of both arms and armed criminals outside of the gun-owner's home that naturally follows upon it being illegal for almost anyone to carry guns there.

Are you still really, really sure that it's the country the fingers of which you want to urge others to lick?
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gun Control - Here and There

Postby stefano » Sat May 15, 2010 5:38 am

I was leaning toward the 23/operator K side of this argument until last week, now I'm leaning more toward the control side of things after I attended a lecture by a security expert, an ex-military guy who is miles removed from the idealists running NGOs like Gun-Free South Africa and what not. The guy just said that the statistical evidence is unassailable: the more guns there are in a society, the more violent crime gets. Switzerland isn't a good example of 'more guns is better', as c2w? shows above: practically all firearms are in the hands of reservists (and I'm pretty sure the situation wrt shotguns and rifles for hunting is the same as in Germany and France - you have to take a test every so often to show you know what you're doing). They don't have a situation in which any untrained fool who feels like owning a pistol can get one easily.

operator kos wrote:When the average person is likely to be armed, it creates a serious deterrent to criminals.

That's not true - here at any rate, lots of people get robbed for their guns. It's at that point that a lot of futile deaths happen. The gun owner decides to pull a Bronson and gets shot. A gun may make you feel safer, but that doesn't mean it actually makes you safer.

Brentos wrote:I'm 100% for carrying your own firearm, since its a matter of principle. If you don't have the authority to look after yourself, who does?

Yes, that's a good principle, but pushing it to its reductio ad absurdem is what negates the 'libertarian' philosophy to me. If you apply that principle consistently, you'd have to argue against all drug laws, speed limits on roads, bar opening hours, etc. It's just a lot more commonsensical to say that in spheres where people can die, a legitimate government has a duty to make rules that prevent unnecessary deaths.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests