Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Grave_n_idle]

'Way back when'? Don't the militaries still use the basic 'sentry' concept to some sucess?

I practiced being one in training, and I, along with pretty much all the other tower guards, got killed anytime an enemy was simulated.

Which is funny, if not helpful to my argument.

You should have had more sentries then.

Of course - you probably simulated a military-style intervention... rather than keeping an eye on the streets to apprehend lawbreakers.

[Omnicracy]

1) The point of armed revolution is to resist tyrrany of the majority in the case we speak of now... Was that not clear?

No, not even vaguely. Indeed, you've fairly consistently talked about opposing 'corrupt' government - whereas, what you're nOW talking about is attacking a perfectly functional, representative, NON-corrupt government... IF it commits the unforgivable sin of bowing to popular demand on an issue you disagree about.

For the millionth time, just because enough people want to kill the babies to pass an amendment does not mean you should kill babies!!!

No? What should you do?

Attack the government?

1) a. No, not corrupt opressive government, opressive government. Befor you said it was compleatly legaly removed in the scenario I was speacking of corruption as well as opression. Thats why I kept clarifying that opression did not equal corruption, or do you choose to forget that? b. I don't know why I even bother to keep saying it, but... NOT BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, BUT BECAUSE IT IS OPPRESSIVE! THERE ARE MANY POLITICAL ISSUES I DISAGREE UPON THAT ARE NOT OPRESSIVE, AND SO WOULD NOT CAUSE ME TO REVOLT! Did you get it this time?

2) Yes! You attack the government because they now say its okay to kill babies! And, if people try to kill babies, stop them any way you can without hurting the babies or people not trying to kill babies! Or would you say, sence it is what the Democratic majority wants, it should be followed without question?

[The Adrian Empire]

Eight minutes, well that's better then my time, hmm, I'll try to find my source again, still going to leave you down and dying without a wallet, but at least they might arrive in time to still be able to look for the murderer.... heck, if you're lucky you'll still be alive, wallet-less and in excruciating pain but alive...

Cops can't really help unless they arrive during the crime. Their chance of catching such a criminal is extremely unlikely. How will they recognize the criminal in a crowded city (where muggings tend to occur) when he could just hide in an alley?

Unless a known felon lives nearby who matches a description better than: "Tall black man in jeans and black shirt", there really is not much the cops can do to find the guy, let alone get enough evidence to convict.

How many people do you know who were robbed (I know a few), reported it to the police, and later heard of their assailants arrest?

None, of course, I don't know too many people who were robbed, of those I do in my suburban jungle of a town (5 total) never heard from them again and lost all that was stolen from them. I also know several people who claim to have illegally acquired pistols or know how to, I also know junkies, drug dealers and habitual criminals, which is a side note, we haven't had any murders, but it's a small town. Again a side note.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) The point of armed revolution is to resist tyrrany of the majority in the case we speak of now... Was that not clear?

No, not even vaguely. Indeed, you've fairly consistently talked about opposing 'corrupt' government - whereas, what you're nOW talking about is attacking a perfectly functional, representative, NON-corrupt government... IF it commits the unforgivable sin of bowing to popular demand on an issue you disagree about.

For the millionth time, just because enough people want to kill the babies to pass an amendment does not mean you should kill babies!!!

No? What should you do?

Attack the government?

1) a. No, not corrupt opressive government, opressive government. Befor you said it was compleatly legaly removed in the scenario I was speacking of corruption as well as opression. Thats why I kept clarifying that opression did not equal corruption, or do you choose to forget that? b. I don't know why I even bother to keep saying it, but... NOT BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, BUT BECAUSE IT IS OPPRESSIVE! THERE ARE MANY POLITICAL ISSUES I DISAGREE UPON THAT ARE NOT OPRESSIVE, AND SO WOULD NOT CAUSE ME TO REVOLT! Did you get it this time?

2) Yes! You attack the government because they now say its okay to kill babies! And, if people try to kill babies, stop them any way you can without hurting the babies or people not trying to kill babies! Or would you say, sence it is what the Democratic majority wants, it should be followed without question?

1) I didn't 'choose to forget' anything - your definition of 'oppression' seems to be... they do something you don't want them to do. And, apparently, it doesn't matter if that is the Constitutional and democratic thing to do - you're STILL going to hold the government as 'oppressive' for doing it.

2) Again - this is what I've been trying to isolate - you think it's okay to attack the government for obeying the Constitution AND the will of the people... if it is one of your hot button issues.

[Omnicracy]

1) Do you honestly think I said something even kinda in the same room as that?

Absolutely. You justified criminal acts in 'moral' interests.

You then differentiated between those acts, and the 'bad' ones.

This rather falls into a rather gray area , but criminal acts in 'moral' interests can sometimes be actually better ethically than staying on the straight and narrow.

Otherwise every political advocacy group, every rights movement, every abolitionist (anti-slavery), every independence and resistance movement, would not have been justified.

And this is kinda where I was heading. If Omni makes such a deal about needing a gun to protect himself from criminal elements who will be armed - and Omni IS a criminal element who is armed - isn't his own argument extremely circular and self-serving?

It's like masturbating, then calling the cops and demanding protection from the guy who just molested you.

Of course - I can see why civil disobedience can be productive. Of course. I do find it difficult to apply the same kind of 'moral' crime banner to the idea of 'voting with the ammunition box'.

I do not believe in the right because for criminal elements, I believe in it for the case of revolution. I have made the argument for owning guns for purely civilian purposes because it is there and it is a good one. Also, if people feel that my crimes caused by my morrals are immoral to them, they should do everything in there power to stop me. Everyone should act based upon their own personal morral code. Did you think I was trying to say people should act on my moral code or something like that, because that is not what I ment. While I will try to convince you that I am right and you should do as I do, I will also always tell you to act in the manner you believe to be morral.

[Omnicracy]

However even that isn't quite right, the constitutional right to free speech shouldn't be repealed even by a majority of the people, there are some things no democratic nation should ever repeal

I'd tend to agree. Of course - I don't see 'free speech' and 'right to keep and bear arms' as in anything like the same league.

Maybe it's my experience of the UK. Free speech is essential to democracy, guns aren't.

But democracy is not essential to an eternaly free socioty at the end of the day and, arguable (as I have been making that argument), guns are.

[The Parkus Empire]

Which is funny, if not helpful to my argument.

In retrospect....

You should have had more sentries then.

There were twelve of us who already had plenty of training vs. two fucking sergeants.

Of course - you probably simulated a military-style intervention... rather than keeping an eye on the streets to apprehend lawbreakers.

Yeah, I'm betting some purse-snatcher with a hand-gun is not as dangerous to a squad of tower-guards as soldiers with assault rifles are.

[Grave_n_idle]

I do not believe in the right because for criminal elements, I believe in it for the case of revolution.

Wait, what? You're now REJECTING the self-defence argument? I'm having trouble keeping up - you seem to either be leaping from platform to platform.. or you don't actually HAVE a platform.

I have made the argument for owning guns for purely civilian purposes because it is there and it is a good one. Also, if people feel that my crimes caused by my morrals are immoral to them, they should do everything in there power to stop me.

They should kill you.

Right?

Everyone should act based upon their own personal morral code.

By killing, if necessary.

Right?

[Grave_n_idle]

However even that isn't quite right, the constitutional right to free speech shouldn't be repealed even by a majority of the people, there are some things no democratic nation should ever repeal

I'd tend to agree. Of course - I don't see 'free speech' and 'right to keep and bear arms' as in anything like the same league.

Maybe it's my experience of the UK. Free speech is essential to democracy, guns aren't.

But democracy is not essential to an eternaly free socioty at the end of the day and, arguable (as I have been making that argument), guns are.

I... but...

you...

Um.

[Omnicracy]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

Your Situation is actually a perfect one against your argument:
If you were armed you could have pull the gun out before he did dissuading them from taking advantage of you, or you could pull it out when he did kill that MF and if necessary those other rapists, unlikely, yes. Has it happened actually yes, in that situation she shot the man on top of her and the other men ran away.
But without that gun you will almost always be raped in that situation (if there was only one of them you could potentially use martial arts, a stun gun or mace but it may just enrage him) whether there is a gun in his hand or a knife, or even two men holding you down. Unless you have a gun, then you have a chance however to survive unharmed.

Criminals like rapists and especially gang rapists will always find ways to acquire firearms, you can never take the gun from that rapist's hand, but you can put one into the hand of the victim

I was simply pointing out that your example suggests an emotional argument for guns, by suggesting that guns autmatically translate into defeating the 'bad guys' when, in fact, there is an (at least) equal possibility for arguments to the exact opposite effect.

It's funny that you seem to assume every victim will be a carrying a gun (sothe victim in the rape scenario can fight off her attackers), but not every villain.

As you seem to asume every villan always has just the right scenario to make a gun in the hand of a victim useless.

[Grave_n_idle]

In retrospect....

Well, I laughed.

Yeah, I'm betting some purse-snatcher with a hand-gun is not as dangerous to a squad of tower-guards as soldiers with assault rifles are.

That's certainly more the direction I was thinking.

If we've got criminal gangs running around functioning like military units, with assault rifles... we've got bigger problems that disagreement over what the Second Amendment says.

[Omnicracy]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

Wich would sometimes happen. But in yours, she always gets raped. In his, she has a fighting chance.

[Grave_n_idle]

As you seem to asume every villan always has just the right scenario to make a gun in the hand of a victim useless.

WHo is going to instigate the crime?

Thus - who is going to pick the advantageous position, territory, etc?

If a thief thinks you're armed, he'll whack you in the back of the head - not charge at you, yelling and making faces.

[Omnicracy]

So you would have it because guns can fall into the hands of bad people to just take away the right everyone has to defend themselves,

No.

Why do you keep doing things like cutting quotes off mid-sentance?

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

Wich would sometimes happen. But in yours, she always gets raped. In his, she has a fighting chance.

Outgunned three-or-four to one is a fighting chance?

In the scenario I speculated, she might survive. That's the real difference.

[Grave_n_idle]

So you would have it because guns can fall into the hands of bad people to just take away the right everyone has to defend themselves,

No.

Why do you keep doing things like cutting quotes off mid-sentance?

Because that first half of the sentence suggested that I am a person who supports a gun ban,

Why bother going any further? The premise is ALREADY wrong.

[Omnicracy]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

...you're going to want a gun. Preferably an automatic.

I think you'd rather not be getting raped, in the first place.

And I think you'ld rather not be getting raped and instead win the lottery!

[The Adrian Empire]

However even that isn't quite right, the constitutional right to free speech shouldn't be repealed even by a majority of the people, there are some things no democratic nation should ever repeal

I'd tend to agree. Of course - I don't see 'free speech' and 'right to keep and bear arms' as in anything like the same league.

Maybe it's my experience of the UK. Free speech is essential to democracy, guns aren't.

But democracy is not essential to an eternaly free socioty at the end of the day and, arguable (as I have been making that argument), guns are.

Except, that you are losing your free speech too. I have heard stories, no for sure conformation on it, of political activists being silenced by government order because of concerns that it would "offend people", I know these circumstances occur in Canada, I have several documented, one that I referenced before of an anti-gay marriage catholic priest being ordered by the government to never write to any newspaper again. A complete destruction his right to free speech, and pro-life college groups having funding revoked while pro-choice groups were not affected, effectively silencing them. Now, tell me that isn't a violation of free speech. Might I remind, that Canada has restrictive gun laws

[Omnicracy]

Is that true? Boy, society has become something hasn't it, now a criminals doesn't even need to hold a banana in their hand (as a fake pistol) and people will still give in to them

Sure, because the guy might have a gun in his pocket, or something.

http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp

http://www.ocregister.com/news/bank-226 ... -note.html

It happens all the time. Bank robbery without a weapon can be as little as four years, with parole possible. Throw in a gun, and you crank it up to fifteen years.

But if the robber does have a gun, having one of your own might make him violent. Nothing scares the shit out criminals more than the possibility that their victims have guns; if they think their victim has a gun before the crime begins, that fear takes the form of retreat. In the middle of crime, that fear takes the form of violence.

Wait, what if someone just walked up to a bank teller and handed them a note saying, "Please give me $10,000 dollars in small, unmarked, non-sequential bills. Thank you." Couldn't the person argue that they were not robbing the bank, but just asking it for money?

[The Parkus Empire]

Wait, what if someone just walked up to a bank teller and handed them a note saying, "Please give me $10,000 dollars in small, unmarked, non-sequential bills. Thank you." Couldn't the person argue that they were not robbing the bank, but just asking it for money?

Yeah, probably wouldn't stand-up in a court of law, though, unless they verbally asked for it, and that depends on intonation. A note indicates an attempt to be secretive.

[The Adrian Empire]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

Which would sometimes happen. But in yours, she always gets raped. In his, she has a fighting chance.

Outgunned three-or-four to one is a fighting chance?

In the scenario I speculated, she might survive. That's the real difference.

Criminals are not uber-fighting machines, these rapists probably will head for the hills after she shoots one, if they don't yes, she has a fighting chance, more often then not the mere presence of pistol will send them running, because raping that girl =/= a big chance of dying.

[The Adrian Empire]

Wait, what if someone just walked up to a bank teller and handed them a note saying, "Please give me $10,000 dollars in small, unmarked, non-sequential bills. Thank you." Couldn't the person argue that they were not robbing the bank, but just asking it for money?

Yeah, probably wouldn't stand-up in a court of law, though, unless they verbally asked for it, and that depends on intonation. A note indicates an attempt to be secretive.

But, what if the person was mute
I couldn't help it sorry

[The Parkus Empire]

Criminals are not uber-fighting machines, these rapists probably will head for the hills after she shoots one, if they don't yes, she has a fighting chance, more often then not the mere presence of pistol will send them running, because raping that girl =/= a big chance of dying.

Eh, no. Criminals, like just about anyone who has a gun, will typically respond with bullets, even as they flee, if their buddies are being gunned-down and it looks like they're next.

[The Parkus Empire]

But, what if the person was mute
I couldn't help it sorry

Then it's up to the judge, and if he says the guy was just asking for the money the only way a deaf guy can, then I suppose the banks will have to remember not to give the dude any cash in the future.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

Which would sometimes happen. But in yours, she always gets raped. In his, she has a fighting chance.

Outgunned three-or-four to one is a fighting chance?

In the scenario I speculated, she might survive. That's the real difference.

Criminals are not uber-fighting machines, these rapists probably will head for the hills after she shoots one, if they don't yes, she has a fighting chance, more often then not the mere presence of pistol will send them running, because raping that girl =/= a big chance of dying.

But shooting or disarming her, less so?