inscribed Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I have a right to expect safety. Allowing idiots to carry guns infringes on that. If everyone had the same knowledge, experience, respect, and education I do on firearms, I would feel safe. But since they don't, I hate the idea that parked next to me in the parking lot could be some dumbass who didn't check the chamber in his loaded 9mm this morning and his weapon discharges, shooting his son through the cheek, and me in the back as I am getting into my vehicle. Rights DO come with responsibilities. You're wrong about that. All freedoms (i hate the word because freedoms are not real freedoms in society) have limitations, following those limitations are therefore your responsibility and come with said rights. I define abuse by taking a right/freedom and using it for improper reasons that the right/freedom was not created for. i.e. buying a gun just because you think it makes you a badass or buying a gun and not knowing how to safely use/secure it. That -is- abusing your rights. I can relate it to FL if you'd like You have a right to be in the Academy if you are a member (you also have responsibilities associated with this right). Being in the Academy to hide from a PK is abusing that right. Well, first of all, you do NOT have a right to expect safety. You have a right to secure safety for yourself. Big difference there. The rest comes down to a fundamental difference in definition of what a 'right' is. In FL, you do not have a right to be in the Academy. You have the right to apply to be in Academy, which requires you to obey certain rules. You are essentially entering into a contract by joining the Academy, which either side is free to cancel should the other side not live up to their end. Again, this is a big difference than having a 'right to be in the Academy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I'd have to give a little more thought to the idea of a private nuclear arsenal, outrageous as it may be. If you start trying to say that you believe joeblow down the street should be allowed to maintain a nuclear arsenal I am going to drive down to LV and disarm you myself lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 If you start trying to say that you believe joeblow down the street should be allowed to maintain a nuclear arsenal I am going to drive down to LV and disarm you myself lol If joeblow down the street has the right, does that mean he will be able to acquire them or even be able to keep them functional? Having a right to own something does not mean it's handed to you. But again, I'd have to think on that a little more, but I wouldn't outright say I'm against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Well, first of all, you do NOT have a right to expect safety. You have a right to secure safety for yourself. Big difference there. The rest comes down to a fundamental difference in definition of what a 'right' is. In FL, you do not have a right to be in the Academy. You have the right to apply to be in Academy, circumstance to certain rules. You are essentially entering into a contract by joining the Academy, which either side is free to cancel should the other side not live up to their end. Again, this is a big difference than having a 'right to be in the Academy'. A right is a right, I don't think there can be a "difference" in defintion. Being born in this country or moving into this country, just living in this country, you are entering a contract. You have rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of being a citizen. And yes, you do have the right to expect safety. That's what laws are in existence for, even if they arguably fail. You have the responsibility of securing safety for yourself if you do not feel the level of safety provided to you is adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 So... no line. Gotcha. Immoral? Nothing. Wrong? Depends on circumstance. I wonder... do you support non-proliferation treaties for nuclear and other WMDs? EDIT: Never mind. Tangential. I consider myself done with this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 If joeblow down the street has the right' date=' does that mean he will be able to acquire them or even be able to keep them functional? Having a right to own something does not mean it's handed to you. But again, I'd have to think on that a little more, but I wouldn't outright say I'm against it.[/quote'] It comes down to regulation, as I believe is the problem with guns these days. We do not live in a society anymore that promotes firearm education and experience like they did in the colonies, when you were hunting for your food and lived with a gun in every home and in every young man's hands. No, having a right does not mean its handed to you? Oh, so you mean there are some responsibilities associated with it? Sure, I'd be for someone having a nuclear arsenal in their house..... ...if they were subject to daily/weekly/monthly inspection ...were licensed, trained, and current on any and all licenses for the substances ...had facilities capable of providing adequate safety to those around them ...were forced to pay higher property taxes We are no longer a well regulated militia in terms of morality, ethics, experience and personal responsibility. This society now relies on regulations of a more legal route. Do I agree with any of that? **** no. Put me back on my farm with my rifles, shotguns, and my own means to be self sufficient. Take me out of this garbage that lets the government tell me what I can and can't do, who I can and can't kill, what I can and can't own. Let the moron two corn-fields down from me who doesn't know the first thing about guns own one, but let me have the right to shoot him in the chest if he comes near me and I feel in danger because he's walking around on his cell-phone waving his gun around with the safety off and his finger on the trigger while I'm out picking tomatoes off the vine. But this is the world we live in...a world of idiots sucking off the government tit looking for anything they can get for free and any right they can take for granted. We can't keep fighting it all the time and instead we have to find a way to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akoz Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 So... no line. Gotcha. Immoral? Nothing. Wrong? Depends on circumstance. I wonder... do you support non-proliferation treaties for nuclear and other WMDs? EDIT: Never mind. Tangential. I consider myself done with this conversation. This guy sums up my feelings on the matter. Making them illegal doesn't have any affect on whether or not someone who wants one will get one. Prohibition of anything never works. The answer must be to remove any possible motivation; to take away the provocation, to restore instead a world of opportunity. After all, for nearly 100 years it's not been hard to buy canisters of chlorine gas, nor to rig them up so as to poison large numbers of city dwellers. Aside from a religious nut in Tokyo, why has not some desperado done it? - not because it was unlawful, but because the motivation was missing! And the same is true of nukes. Laws against them are unnecessary, because the malefactor can achieve his ends with greater chance of success and less chance of blowing himself up along with his victim, by using other means. How can we be sure? Because for fifty years, that's even been true of governments! Yes, they have littered the Planet with 40,000 nuclear missiles available to any madman who can steal some, but no, not one of them has been used for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Ban assault weapons, there is no practical need for them in our society. Ban hollowpoint ammunition. You cant hunt with it, it is only good for killing people. The idea that you need weapons to defend yorself from our tyrannical government is pure insane paranoia at its finest. We, the USA, have the most advanced and well trained fighting force in the world. If the government leaders so ordered the military to take a county, city, even state, citizens with assault weapons would just end up dead. Otherwise, if the military doesnt listen to the government leaders, refusing to open fire on their felloews, well then its over then anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 The idea that you need weapons to defend yorself from our tyrannical government is pure insane paranoia at its finest. We, the USA, have the most advanced and well trained fighting force in the world. If the government leaders so ordered the military to take a county, city, even state, citizens with assault weapons would just end up dead. Otherwise, if the military doesnt listen to the government leaders, refusing to open fire on their felloews, well then its over then anyways. I don't know how you could call it paranoia, when our country was founded on an oppressed, overtaxed people fighting off a tyrannical government. The second amendment didn't have anything to do with hunting or hobbyists, it was written with the notion that the people need to be able to keep their government in check, through force if necessary. If Afghanistan has taught us anything (remember that war we're still fighting that news outlets have conveniently forgotten about?), it's that simple farmers are more than capable of sustaining prolonged fighting against our 'most advanced' military. Not only did they take out nearly an entire Harrier squadron, but they are able to disable our most advanced MRAPs with nothing but water hoses. And these are people with little to no military training. Now you look at the US, with its 20 million vets and 300 million guns... it wouldn't even be a fight. The only thing that can defeat us is apathy and naivety from people born into a cushy world and couldn't imagine anything ever disrupting that. Unfortunately that's a view that's prevalent among our citizens, which is why our government has gone so far down this path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Hollowpoint ammunition reduces the risk of overpenetration and can minimize collateral damage in a confrontation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 Hollowpoint ammunition reduces the risk of overpenetration and can minimize collateral damage in a confrontation. Conventional ammunition is much less likely to result in a kill shot however, and is much more favorable for hunting because you dont want bits of shredded metal in your meat. Though I admit, I would feel better if nobody could own them at all, aside from law enforcment. I also believe tighter calibre restrictions should apply as well, imo. More importantly though is our dieing mental healthcare institutions. Maybe tax bullets, and guns more to fund better mental health. @inscribed, yes our country was founded as a collection of colonial states. Yes they had to fight off an oppresive tyrannical government. They, we, were not represented in the decision making of our nation. Now we are represented, now we do vote. If you think you live under the same oppresive rule and social pressures that the colonials delt with then you either have a very poor understanding of history, or you do not live in the same USA I do. The frightening thing in your rhetoric is that you seem to believe that the american government is not made up of the american people. Now look at the US? The US army is the US, hell people we know on this very forum. You need guns to shoot them? Oh, btw, the idea that banning guns wont reduce massacres is false. This been dispovan in britian, and especially in Australia. Where in 1996, a similar massacre occured. Aussies then out into effect some very serious gun laws and, well they havent had a shooting of any such scale since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 Well, the premise that firearms should be for hunting only is not one that I agree with. I support the use of firearms for self defense. Given our divergent views on the basic functions of firearms, it is no surprise that we disagree on policy. you seem to believe that the american government is not made up of the american people. I would feel better if nobody could own them at all, aside from law enforcement. Exactly, the military and police are made up of American citizens, not special people whom are somehow safer or better equipped to have ownership of firearms. Conventional ammunition is much less likely to result in a kill shot however I'm not sure if I agree. Do you have statistics on the lethality of hollow-point vs. full jacket or hard cast ammunition? I'd rather kill what I am aiming at than injure someone I am not aiming at. Although the purpose of self defense using firearms is not to kill, but to stop a threat. Death would be the unhappy consequence of actions conducted by an aggressor that triggered a defense response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 Exactly, the military and police are made up of American citizens, not special people whom are somehow safer or better equipped to have ownership of firearms. I would hope your average police officer, or soldier once trained is more suitable to wield a weapon than some random person who can basically sign their name. IF any joe could pick up a gun and immediatly be efficient with it then why do militaries bother training anyone in firearm use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 I would hope your average police officer' date=' or soldier once trained is more suitable to wield a weapon than some random person who can basically sign their name. IF any joe could pick up a gun and immediatly be efficient with it then why do militaries bother training anyone in firearm use?[/quote'] What kind of training do you imagine them getting? In basic, it's essentially 'hey, here's a rifle, I'll spend a few minutes showing you how to disassemble and reassemble it, then we'll fire it once'. Even a majority of security forces/military police go their entire careers never firing their weapon once outside of an annual qualifier. Like Mali said, your average gun owner will spend more time firing their weapon and learning the proper care and use of it than someone who only does it because they have to carry one for their job. Combat is a different story, but that has little to do with some supposed magical training they receive before hand, and more to do with experience from "on-the-job training". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cephirus Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Firearms are tools. Like any tool, through repeated use, you will get better at it, some faster than others. Regardless of what the tool is, it is only a tool and does not judge how it is used. The person wielding the tool is what matters. We must focus on the problem, not just throw out an answer that sounds like a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.