I'm convinced the town I work in is full of crazy people.

[Taem]

And I'm equally surprised I find myself agreeing with DeeBye on this issue. It's like saying a drug is a drug, so all drugs should be legal. I've been around enough drug abusers in my life to say in all honestly that a few types of super addictive drugs (i.e. crystal meth, heroine) should not be legal under any circumstances no matter what and so long as it's all drugs or none, despite my stance to legalize drugs, I'd still vote against them being legal if it meant these super addictive drugs would become legal. I'm aware that an addictive personality is an addictive personality period, and that someone predisposed to become an alcoholic is just as likely to pick up the crack pipe and never put it down, but I still think there is something to be said for these two drugs (and possibly nicotine). As far as drugs are concerned, I feel the same... who the hell needs AK47's or Uzi's to defend themselves or for hunting? These weapons are for murdering only, not hunting, not self defense. In this day and age, the reality is we can never enter another civil war of the type we did when the constitution was written - it just can't happen like that! Brain too tired to think up logical argument here, but I leave you with this analogy: Avatar natives vs. military might. Natives lost (well they should have anyway, but had a "mystical power" helping them), so what are a few rebellious American's with AK's going to do against a superpower with spy technology, assuming our leadership became compromised by rich politicians and we wanted to retake the country? We'd be on death row in days. The truth is, our modern age superpowers are too big to fail... think on that. They really are - even Russia collapsed but everything remained the same. Those in power will stay in power even under regime change because they're the ones with all the money! So even if you somehow "win" your war, you've already lost. There is noway to change anything without doing away with the current system, so based on this logic there is no reason to own assault rifles because... it won't make a damn bit of difference in the end anyhow!

[DeeBye]

And I'm equally surprised I find myself agreeing with DeeBye on this issue. It's like saying a drug is a drug, so all drugs should be legal.

That's not even close to a valid analogy. Acetylsalicylic acid is a drug in the same way that Desomorphine is.

[bldavis]

so by using that same logic, all recreational drugs should be outlawed because heroin, meth, and cocaine are
which means all drugs not used to treat medical conditions and prescribed by doctors (caffiene, alcohol, nicotine in tabacco, hell even over the counter cough syrup)

[FireIceTalon]

I don't think drugs is a good comparison, Meat. All drugs, regardless of how harmful they may be, are harmful to one's self only. Even the really harmful drugs like heroin are worse being illegal, not just because of the crime that results, but also because often they are made in labs with carcinogens. Half the time you are probably not even getting the real drug, and something that is even more dangerous. At least if it was legalized and regulated, this problem would be eliminated, would free up a SHIT LOAD of tax dollars that are spent on 'the war on drugs' and the bureaucracy required to enforce it. People who really want to use that stuff are going to regardless, and I doubt legalizing it is going to making a lot of people want to suddenly try it. I cant speak for every person but I sure as hell have no interest in getting into any drug (not even weed), legal or not.

[Taem]

so by using that same logic, all recreational drugs should be outlawed because heroin, meth, and cocaine are
which means all drugs not used to treat medical conditions and prescribed by doctors (caffiene, alcohol, nicotine in tabacco, hell even over the counter cough syrup)

*Ahem* Non-regulated, recreational drugs.

Alcohol and nicotine should really be illegal if drugs are outlawed.

Why is alcohol and marijuana legal in certain countries, but most other drugs illegal in those same countries? Why did two states pass a law making Marijuana a legal recreational drug, but not all other drugs? There is a reason these "other" drugs are not allowed for recreational use in most countries, and it because of their addictive quality. My point in this whole discussion was if you take the all drugs should be legal/illegal defense, I don't agree because of "insert my argument". And if you as a reader are so one-sided to think all drugs should be legal, then clearly you've either never had experience with an drug-addict, never been a drug-addict, or you are a drug-addict, because if any of those were true, I'm willing to be you would know how bad someone can get in a mere matter of weeks with these addictive drugs and not only ruin their life, but the lives of those around them. I'm sure the same argument could be made for alcohol too, but my argument is based on the addictive quality of the drug itself AND the negative impact of the drug on the human body from light usage AND the negative impact on the environment from the manufacture of the drug. If you take these three aspects into consideration when looking into the logistics of which drugs should be legal or outlawed, I think you will come up with a short list of drugs that "should" be legal, and one's that should be off-limits.

And DeeBye, the same analogy works fine for guns. I'm not sure why you don't see the correlation, but I was a bit ranty in my last post. Heat, headache, making it hard to concentrate. Posts coming out shitty, sorry.

EDIT: In retrospect, forget this drug/gun analogy argument. It was a bad comparison anyhow. I don't know why, but all day I can't even look at the computer monitor without squinting, I keep seeing a blur when I look at a computer monitor, and it's giving me a headache bad! I can't even think straight from this headache, and I don't understand it because I don't recall this ever happening before. I can focus on anything IRL, but not on the freakin computer screen without it getting fuzzy. I should just go to bed.

[eppie]

EDIT: In retrospect, forget this drug/gun analogy argument. It was a bad comparison anyhow. I don't know why, but all day I can't even look at the computer monitor without squinting, I keep seeing a blur when I look at a computer monitor, and it's giving me a headache bad! I can't even think straight from this headache, and I don't understand it because I don't recall this ever happening before. I can focus on anything IRL, but not on the freakin computer screen without it getting fuzzy. I should just go to bed.

The issue with drugs is that them being legal or illegal and how much they are used are not really connected. The fact that cocaine is illegal in the US is causing more victims in and outside the US than it being legal could ever do...and cocaine can be used safely your whole life if you have the cash.....just like alcohol or cigarettes.

Although regarding weapons I agree with kandrathe when he asked where to draw the line.....and that it might not make sense to draw a line. On the other is it clear that wherever guns are legal you will get more victims (guilty and innocent ones). Of course this debate is heavily tainted by lobbying groups from the weapons industry. And knowing people, it is not difficult to make an entire population believe something bad is good for them.

[FireIceTalon]

Well, there is solid evidence to show that in states with 'less strict' gun laws, crime is lower than in areas where they are more strict. Granted, this could be due to the fact in more so-called democratic states where gun laws tend to be tougher, there tends to be a higher concentration of crime in inner cities where more social inequality exists - so maybe crime is attributed to that rather than the laws. But then again, when the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 was lifted in D.C., in 2008, crime rate there began to go down, and it has done so steadily since. Montana has some of the most lenient gun laws with a very low crime rate, but also a much smaller population than say, CA.

[eppie]

Well, there is solid evidence to show that in states with 'less strict' gun laws, crime is lower than in areas where they are more strict. Granted, this could be due to the fact in more so-called democratic states where gun laws tend to be tougher, there tends to be a higher concentration of crime in inner cities where more social inequality exists - so maybe crime is attributed to that rather than the laws. But then again, when the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 was lifted in D.C., in 2008, crime rate there began to go down, and it has done so steadily since. Montana has some of the most lenient gun laws with a very low crime rate, but also a much smaller population than say, CA.

It is good that you posed some critique yourself.

Also one should ask the question what type of crime we are talking about here. Nobody here said that crime rates would be lower or higher depending on gun laws.

What I said is that crimes will escalate faster. Your comments on police officers have to do with this. In the US it is pretty common that police officers are shot at, something that happens very very rarely in say, Holland. So it is alos imaginable that police officers tend to become more aggressive because of this.

Having a gun is not the same as having a nuke. If you have a nuke chance is big that everyone is afraid of doing something because of fear of mutual assured destruction. With a gun this is not the case. Most criminals are reasonably sane, so if they break into a house they try to do this when noone is home, with the least risk of confrontation. If however it is known that the chance is very high that the home-owner has a gun the criminal will bring a gun as well. Well and if there is a confrontation it is a 50/50 chance of a kill on either side.....so yes there is some more chance of justice, but much more chance of the burglary victim dying..


But seriously the whole gun law thing, freedom of hate speech and hatred of taxes are all really based on some old documents made a few 100 years ago. As mentioned before here, time when there was fear of the british or indian tribes etc. So very emotion-based is probably the best description.

[kandrathe]

... all really based on some old documents made a few 100 years ago. As mentioned before here, time when there was fear of the british or indian tribes etc. So very emotion-based is probably the best description.

No. I believe it was based on the best ideas of a what free society means going back to Greek and Roman times, if not older.

I think it is older, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Magna Carta, Presocratics (Democritus, Empedocles, Parmenides), Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.

[kandrathe]

I consider myself a fairly sane person, and the idea of owning a device that has the sole function of killing another person of my choosing with the press of a button is repulsive to me. I have no problem with people wanting to own guns for hunting or target shooting, but wanting to own a gun that is specifically designed to kill a person or a group of people in the most effective manner is absolutely horrifying.

I'll go further. Killing anything is in its own way a horror. I honor and respect the majesty of the tiger, until it has my struggling child in its jaw. Then, I would kill it and decorate my floor with its hide. I prevent this horror when I choose not to live in tiger country.

The natural law right here though is that when in defense of your life, or families lives, would you (should you) be willing to kill? Therefore, in 2nd amendment parlance, you should not be denied the means of defending yourself from common threats. You and I may never see them, but should we deny others their rights due to our peaceful and idyllic semi-rural lives. So, just as with the tiger, I choose not to live in violence infested parts of town. I'd rather not be put into a position of having to kill people, but not everyone can afford to change their situation.

[shoju]

And my question would be,

To defend yourself or your family from even an animal, what do you need? Let's be rational for a moment and deal with animals that myself or Kandrathe would ever "really" see in our geographic area.

Wolves
Cyotes
Bobcat
Hyena
Bears
Feral Boars
hell, even throw in a stampeding rabid moose just to take it a step further.

Do you really need a fully automatic AK-47, AR-15, Uzi, or other such weaponry?

Going back to your example, of the animal having your kid in it's mouth. What is more likely to get your kid killed: the spray of automatic fire that you lay down from an automatic weapon, or a single shot from a gun that you actually take the time to aim, ready, and fire?

Let's be realistic, even in a "self Defense" standpoint, the need for an automatic weapon is just not there. When trying to deal with a target in a group of "innocents", what does even the military use? More often than not, a Sniper. Who is using a Semi-Automatic Rifle. There is a reason that Snipers aren't mowing guys down with Fully Automatic weaponry.

The most important part of owning a weapon, is training. Going out and buying a handgun and keeping it in the house isn't going to keep your family any safer than it was before. You've just introduced a deadly weapon to group of people who are relatively stupid to it. Hollywood is a terrible teacher for things. Training is the key. Own a gun, get training. Yes. It costs money, but it is the most important component of the whole thing.

[bldavis]

here its wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, bobcats, moose
honestly i have never saw the need for a full auto weapon
for self defense at home, just a shotgun would be more than enough if you know wtf you are doing

we have a .22, 30.06 and a few pistols
i want to get a shotgun at some point
but these are for hunting purposes, as they help provide food for our table

like shoju said, a weapon is even more dangerous if in the hands of an untrained person.
if you do get one, get trained on how to use it and store it properly

[kandrathe]

here its wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, bobcats, moose
honestly i have never saw the need for a full auto weapon
for self defense at home, just a shotgun would be more than enough if you know wtf you are doing

we have a .22, 30.06 and a few pistols
i want to get a shotgun at some point
but these are for hunting purposes, as they help provide food for our table

like shoju said, a weapon is even more dangerous if in the hands of an untrained person.
if you do get one, get trained on how to use it and store it properly

Yes, and Yes.

My dad put 12 shots from a Winchester 30/30 into a bear once, before it stopped charging. His hunting crew tracked it for a day and a half before it finally died. For some wild animals, you need more stopping power.

I agree though that a good pump 12 gauge riot style shotgun is maybe the best for home defense against people. If I need one, I'd sleep better having one. If I have one and don't need it, I'd sleep easier getting rid of it.

I'm not saying that people "need" anything. I don't feel I need anything. There is a difference in people determining and having the freedom to own what they feel they need, as opposed to being told what the limits are by the government. Reasonableness is subjective, and surrendering that power to the government is maybe not so wise in the long run. We are free to fight to be free. Like the link I shared above. That guy owns a tank, and he makes money by letting people drive it around and over stuff. As long as he remains on the honoring other peoples property, lives, etc. I see no problems with the every day citizen owning a tank, even one with a functional gun. Just as in owning a knife, or a car, its when you misuse it that we have a problem.

And, so this is how I feel about Iran having nukes. There is no reason why some nations are allowed and others are prohibited. It's maybe not needed, maybe it's not so wise, but who are we to say they can't build it. We just need to be clear... If you have one, and we feel you are about to use it, don't be surprised when some nervous nation (maybe us) chooses to be preempt you. It's a cautionary tale for gun ownership too.

[Taem]

EDIT: In retrospect, forget this drug/gun analogy argument. It was a bad comparison anyhow. I don't know why, but all day I can't even look at the computer monitor without squinting, I keep seeing a blur when I look at a computer monitor, and it's giving me a headache bad! I can't even think straight from this headache, and I don't understand it because I don't recall this ever happening before. I can focus on anything IRL, but not on the freakin computer screen without it getting fuzzy. I should just go to bed.

Lol, one nonsensical, illogical rant and a just as pathetic follow-up *facepalm*. That will teach me to write when I feel like my brains in a jar. Maybe I had a cold or something. Oh well, all is good now.

[DeeBye]

The natural law right here though is that when in defense of your life, or families lives, would you (should you) be willing to kill? Therefore, in 2nd amendment parlance, you should not be denied the means of defending yourself from common threats. You and I may never see them, but should we deny others their rights due to our peaceful and idyllic semi-rural lives. So, just as with the tiger, I choose not to live in violence infested parts of town. I'd rather not be put into a position of having to kill people, but not everyone can afford to change their situation.

I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that people should be allowed to own shotguns and rifles. I just don't see where the 2nd amendment logically leads to the right to own military-grade weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible very quickly.

If someone breaks into my house and my shotgun is not enough firepower to defend my family, then owning an AK-47 probably wouldn't save me either.

Just as an aside, I've actually been in a situation like this when I was very young. The TL: DR version is that a man with a shotgun came to the front door of our house. He was looking to kill my father. We outsmarted him by running out the back door and called the police from a neighbour's house. They responded quickly and he was arrested.

[eppie]

I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that people should be allowed to own shotguns and rifles. I just don't see where the 2nd amendment logically leads to the right to own military-grade weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible very quickly.

If someone breaks into my house and my shotgun is not enough firepower to defend my family, then owning an AK-47 probably wouldn't save me either.

Just as an aside, I've actually been in a situation like this when I was very young. The TL: DR version is that a man with a shotgun came to the front door of our house. He was looking to kill my father. We outsmarted him by running out the back door and called the police from a neighbour's house. They responded quickly and he was arrested.

I also agree there should be some right to defend yourself, but I still think guns are not the option.

I think in the Netherlands yearly probably 5 people are killed in their house during a burglary (max), most of those were special circumstances, none or 1 (average) involves a gun.
So a normal family that is attacked in their house by a burglar and of which one is killed, and this wouldn't have happened if they would own a gun would probably happen once every so many years.

For me changing the law which will flood the country with guns, greatly increasing deadly violence on streets, deadly accidents with guns, violence between neighbours, killing sprees by people who are layed off etc. is just not worth it.


and to add to that, something I mentioned before.

Whereas in the Netherlands less than 1 % of burglars are carrying a gun, when guns are legalized this will increase to 50% probably. Especially because there will always be some nut job that says it is Ok to kill someone who enters your house....and we all know what this leads to; I don't like a person, I invite him over for a beer, I kill him, and than I tell the police it was self defence.

introducing guns will increase the death toll under innocent people by 2,3 or 4 times, and will also increase the death toll under criminals ( a bit more maybe).


OOOORrr of course criminals will stop being criminal because there is the chance that they get shot. Let's ask our american friends here on the lounge; Is this true?


But as I said before I understand and respect they way you guys think about it. Because it is a very natural way of thinking. We saw it in say WW1 where people let themselves be slaughtered by the 10 thousands when they attacked the enemy lines; somehow most people think ***it is true death rate is 90% but i will for sure be among the 10% who survive****.

From a strictly personal persepctive it will be good (at least emotionally) to own a gun and have the idea you can defend yourself, but from a general perspective many more innocent people are killed.

[bldavis]

But as I said before I understand and respect they way you guys think about it. Because it is a very natural way of thinking. We saw it in say WW1 where people let themselves be slaughtered by the 10 thousands when they attacked the enemy lines; somehow most people think ***it is true death rate is 90% but i will for sure be among the 10% who survive****.

i...
um....

wow


LET themselves?
oh you mean by FOLLOWING ORDERS
cause im sure they were all willing volunteers to go over no mans land...
that is why officers on both sides would wait and shoot anyone that DIDNT go up and out
trench warfare was insanely hellish...
hell it took developing a brand new style of vehicle just to counter the stalemate

i dont even know what to say
i know i am new here, but really?
if this is a joke, bad fu**ing taste dude..
and if its not...you need your head examined

[kandrathe]

I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that people should be allowed to own shotguns and rifles. I just don't see where the 2nd amendment logically leads to the right to own military-grade weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible very quickly.

If someone breaks into my house and my shotgun is not enough firepower to defend my family, then owning an AK-47 probably wouldn't save me either.

I think the principle is larger as well, which is why they said 'militia'. Luckily we don't see people being called to muster to defend against the invading army, but that was a part of the original idea. On our northern border it is an anachronism, but not so in fighting drug lords on our southern border. If I lived on remote land on the southern border where thugs armed with military grade weapons trespassed daily, I'd probably want more than a shotgun for home defense. I'd either want enough firepower to defend myself, or leave it.

I also agree there should be some right to defend yourself, but I still think guns are not the option.

What is the better choice? Teeth? Kitchen knives?

[eppie]

I also agree there should be some right to defend yourself, but I still think guns are not the option.

What is the better choice? Teeth? Kitchen knives?

I should have written; 'are not the solution'.
And you can read why I think so in my previous post.

Of course if you live somewhere were armed burglars break in to houses, I can of course imagine you want one yourself as well. So moving back from legal to illegal is very difficult.

And that is why I am against legalization when looking at it from my own perspective. In the netherlands the chance of being harmed by an armed burglar is close to zero, and once we start legalizing guns, that chance will go up tremendously.......irrespective of the fact if I can defend myself.

[kandrathe]

In the netherlands the chance of being harmed by an armed burglar is close to zero, and once we start legalizing guns, that chance will go up tremendously.......irrespective of the fact if I can defend myself.

Is that based on the criminals having access to weapons? Can they not smuggle them in by car from other parts of Europe?