Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote:
Ongoing training is absolutely essential. I feel that citizens should be subjected to the same standards as law enforcement officers. In fact, I think current LEO standards are too little.

I don't think anyone should be forced to undergo training.

Right. I am going to vote those politicians who will abolish drivers licenses. Who actually needs drivers licenses? They are for the wimps. Furthermore, I would vote for anarchy.

Quote:

Quote:
True. But, doesn't it infringe my basic rights if I feel endagered because my neighbour is a big moron and he owns lots of guns? To be honest, I feel more safe under gun control. But of course, this is a topic in itself: "Where does human rights infringement begin?"

We don't legislate on feelings here in the US. If that were so, it would be a complete legal nightmare (even more than it is now). What if I felt intimidated if my neighbor had large muscles, and he worked out in his backyard all day? Just imagine if you could get someone in trouble because they hurt your feelings? Who decides what hurts feelings more than other things?

True. People that get nervous by someone who wouldn't pass any psychological eligibility test are just morons himself. Surely, muscles are as deadly as projectiles.


I really lose interest in this discussion with you. Seeing how you talk about firearms just affirms my attitude towards gun control. Just one last point:

What would actually be bad with gun control? If you are rational, then everything should be fine, not? And moron-people (I hope you are not of those people, but I am not sure) would luckily be disarmed. So, why exactly not, for the sake of less potentially dangerous people with weapons? Gun-Control wouldn't forbid firearms, not? Just regulate them, or what?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
We don't legislate on feelings here in the US. If that were so, it would be a complete legal nightmare (even more than it is now). What if I felt intimidated if my neighbor had large muscles, and he worked out in his backyard all day? Just imagine if you could get someone in trouble because they hurt your feelings? Who decides what hurts feelings more than other things?

This is actually something that a few cops and DAs are abusing here in Alabama. They are arresting and charging people with disorderly conduct for carrying firearms visibly, saying that they are 'scaring people'. The problem is, there is no law against scaring people unless it's on purpose. Plus there are already a multitude of court rulings (including several ALSC) saying it's legal. Just a bunch of 'tards trying to give people a hard time.

We don't legislate on feelings here in the U.S.? You don't seriously believe that do you? Our drug laws are based on little more than feelings. In the 60's and 70's it was fear of the hippies. In the 80's it was fear of black youth. The three strikes laws in the 90's were based on feelings. We invaded Iraq based on feelings. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Fearful politicians decide what hurts feelings more than other things.

Is carrying firearms visibly an activity that a lot of people engage in or only a few? Is it an activity performed by people from all backgrounds or only a few? Is the display of the weapon alone intimidating or are there other mitigating factors?

@laeuchli, Bybee's presence on that court taints all it's rulings regardless of whether he had a direct role in them or not.

i know half my rating vanished the last time i posted what im about to post, but i think it still stands

if curtmax carries a gun on his belt at all times even in public during his everyday routine he is

1-not normal
2-possibly in need of help for his attention issues and general passive aggressive form of trying to command respect
3-a public menace

honestly it really baffles me, coming from northern ireland where the danger of the everyday public having accesss to firearms is painfully obvious it's just something i didn't even think was legal. highly irresponsible.

edit:having just read this thread a bit more, it seems his method of fixing northern ireland is "introduce more guns"

cos that's REALLY what we need. look up south armagh (or bandit country) in wikipedia.. thats where i live. my town has a population of about 200 (we have more soldiers and police stationed there to watch us than we do residents) and a disproportionate amount are in jail for terrorism charges including shootings and bombings. more guns wouldnt fix it.....

[Edited by - Mantrid on April 23, 2009 8:12:04 AM]

Quote: Original post by Mantrid
i know half my rating vanished the last time i posted what im about to post, but i think it still stands

Actually I rated you up. But you should better not post such comments, as people often get hackled up by such comments ;)

Quote:
if curtmax carries a gun on his belt at all times even in public during his everyday routine he is

1-not normal
2-possibly in need of help for his attention issues and general passive aggressive form of trying to command respect
3-a public menace

Until now I could resist, but it urges me .... okay, only the links. I can imagine some of the motivations behind owning a gun, each of which, except for the last one, make me nervous, and show a clear handicap in social behaviour:

• Motivation A
  
• Motivation B*
  
• Motivation C *
  
• Motivation D*
  
• Motivation E
  

*: I mean, how could a law that permits shooting at people when they step on your lawn ever be legalised? Have people lost the ability to talk with someone, like the guy on the lawn, or the police? When I've first seen this "law stub", I thought I would be reading some proposal from 1861.

Quote: honestly it really baffles me, coming from northern ireland where the danger of the everyday public having accesss to firearms is painfully obvious it's just something i didn't even think was legal

I fail to see an equitable reason, too, except for shooting sports (assuming a strict gun control and high degree of respect before the power of an apparatus that has the sole purpose of accelerating projectiles to super sonic velocity).



Oh, I have skimmed too fast through a statement by curtmax_0, sorry:

Quote: For most people, they will use their AR-15 after waking up hearing a bump in the night.

Usually, when I hear noise at night, I just close the windows in my sleeping room and get dreaming again.

Or what exactly is the sum of all bumps in the circle of your relatives and friends? I repeat myself, but I personally assume it's just a fantasy like that one:

Quote: Original post by phresnel
When I've first seen this "law stub", I thought I would be reading some proposal from 1861.

I can't believe I'm looking at a reprint of The Law in Comic Sans MS.

Quote: Original post by Mantrid
if curtmax carries a gun on his belt at all times even in public during his everyday routine he is

1-not normal
2-possibly in need of help for his attention issues and general passive aggressive form of trying to command respect
3-a public menace

Does this apply to policemen as well? If so, certainly you would want to be able to rely on yourself if not the police, wouldn't you? Yet that in turn makes you a public menace as well?

Quote: Original post by phresnel
Until now I could resist, but it urges me .... okay, only the links. I can imagine some of the motivations behind owning a gun, each of which, except for the last one, make me nervous, and show a clear handicap in social behaviour:

• Motivation A
  
• Motivation B*
  
• Motivation C *
  
• Motivation D*
  
• Motivation E
  

Where does someone who's had their life theatened fall on your little bipolar chart of social incompetence, dysfunction, and a single exception in sportsmanship? The life of their friends or family threatened or ended? What about someone who's survived being the victim of hate crimes?

The police are not omnipotent -- sometimes, they're too late.

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

Quote: Original post by MaulingMonkey
Does this apply to policemen as well? If so, certainly you would want to be able to rely on yourself if not the police, wouldn't you? Yet that in turn makes you a public menace as well?

That's a very gun-culture centric answer. In a culture where guns are so common, that may seem reasonable. But coming from a country with tight gun control laws like Australia or Germany, it just seems like specious reasoning to me.

The problem is that if you agree with that, then logically you need to carry your gun everywhere. If everybody was carrying a gun all the time, then nowhere is going to be safe! Either that, or people would be ultra, ultra polite to everybody else, for fear of offending and receiving retribution...

Quote: Original post by Mantrid
i know half my rating vanished the last time i posted what im about to post, but i think it still stands

I don't rate people down for disagreeing with me. I rarely rate people down at all. Basically just spammers.

Quote: Original post by Mantrid
if curtmax carries a gun on his belt at all times even in public during his everyday routine he is

1-not normal
2-possibly in need of help for his attention issues and general passive aggressive form of trying to command respect
3-a public menace

honestly it really baffles me, coming from northern ireland where the danger of the everyday public having accesss to firearms is painfully obvious it's just something i didn't even think was legal. highly irresponsible.

I think you assume to much about my intentions. Carrying a firearm for respect is retarded. Believe it or not, I don't burst into a room demanding respect and drawing attention to a firearm. Many people don't even know I own firearms. It's not really something I talk about in RL unless someone else brings up the topic.

Quote: Original post by Mantrid
edit:having just read this thread a bit more, it seems his method of fixing northern ireland is "introduce more guns"

cos that's REALLY what we need. look up south armagh (or bandit country) in wikipedia.. thats where i live. my town has a population of about 200 (we have more soldiers and police stationed there to watch us than we do residents) and a disproportionate amount are in jail for terrorism charges including shootings and bombings. more guns wouldnt fix it.....

I never said you should have more firearms in Ireland. I could honestly care less what you do in Ireland. This thread, and the 20/20 show were about firearms in the US.

Quote: Original post by Phresnal
I mean, how could a law that permits shooting at people when they step on your lawn ever be legalised? Have people lost the ability to talk with someone, like the guy on the lawn, or the police? When I've first seen this "law stub", I thought I would be reading some proposal from 1861.

Huh? That's pretty much all common law stuff. Why are you complaining about it being legal to use deadly force against someone breaking into your house? Are you supposed to wait until they break in and see if they are trying to kill you? Generally, people breaking into your house aren't just stopping by to say hi. I have a tip for you if you visit the US: Don't break into someone's house. Pretty easy eh?

Quote:
Usually, when I hear noise at night, I just close the windows in my sleeping room and get dreaming again.

It's a figure of speech. I don't even own an AR-15 either :P

Actually, on the topic of your XKCD post: I don't plan to ever save anybody else's life if given the chance. I carry a firearm to protect myself, and possibly someone else if I care about them. I'm not in the business of 'saving' strangers, or showing off. If I'm in a mall and there is a shooting, and I can slip out the back door, I'll slip out the back door.

And, heh, gangstas and cowboy romance? Are you serious?

Quote:
The police are not omnipotent -- sometimes, they're too late.

They also don't have a duty to protect you either.

Quote:
The problem is that if you agree with that, then logically you need to carry your gun everywhere. If everybody was carrying a gun all the time, then nowhere is going to be safe! Either that, or people would be ultra, ultra polite to everybody else, for fear of offending and receiving retribution...

Huh. You are saying if there are no guns everyone would be safe? As there aren't other things that can harm people?

Additionally, you seem to believe that everyone carrying a firearm is trigger-happy and will shoot you at the slightest insult or provocation. I think you may be doing a bit of self-projection there. So you might not want to personally own a firearm :P

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote:
The problem is that if you agree with that, then logically you need to carry your gun everywhere. If everybody was carrying a gun all the time, then nowhere is going to be safe! Either that, or people would be ultra, ultra polite to everybody else, for fear of offending and receiving retribution...

Huh. You are saying if there are no guns everyone would be safe?

No, he's saying that if there are no guns everyone would be safer. Not safe. Not absolutely. But safer than they are with a plurality of high-velocity projectile weapons at hand.

My feelings on guns: they're fascinating machines. I love watching them in the pure male fantasies that we call action movies. I'd like to get some training and shoot some, at a range or for some other form of recreation/entertainment. I do not plan to ever own one. I do not plan to ever join a gun club. I do not have a problem with people owning guns or joining gun clubs in provinces where it is legal to do so.

My feelings on gun control laws: while they may not affect the "hard core" criminals, they will affect petty criminals. Instead of a mugger holding you up with a gun, he'd do it with a knife, which automatically increases your chances of survival substantially. For that reason alone, I'd say it's worth a shot.


@curtmax_0: I read the early part of this thread a few days ago, then came back and read the last few posts this evening. You've made some strong points, and I respect the manner in which you've debated your position. I don't agree with you on a few things, but I'd feel perfectly comfortable buying you a beer.

Cheers.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by Phresnalphresnel
...

...

Quote:
Why are you complaining about it being legal to use deadly force against someone breaking into your house?

Because I am not trained to judge whether someone is a thief or a killer. I leave that to the police (who must be able to reach your house within a few minutes here), which is part of the so-called "Executive". As you like hints, I have one for you: "Seperation of Powers". Basically, if you say you want to own a gun with the right to kill people (which imho opens a lot of loopholes if you can't stand your neighbour, or someone else), then you also say that you want to be part of the Executive. Then, why do you need a police at all, if you anyways can defend and decide yourself whether murder is appropriate? Militia should be enough and save you from the one or another tax.

From that law, I have the feeling it is already legal to shoot at someone who enters your garden, just because you have the impression that he is a menace. And if it isn't legal, there are, imho, enough loopholes that let you successfully defend yourself before the judge. Now tell me again that you don't base your laws on feelings and paranoiac aggression.

Also, looking at how the IQ measure is defined, half of all people have an IQ < 100. Often, that iq measure is not appropriate, but it gives a glimpse about the rationals that a person is able to apply when deciding wether the person in his/her garden is a A) killer, B) thief, C) someone seeking security, D) someone seeking someone, E) someone who is drunken.

Quote: Are you supposed to wait until they break in and see if they are trying to kill you?

See, that is why I assume you are paranoiac.

Quote: Generally, people breaking into your house aren't just stopping by to say hi.

Generally, no people stop by to specifically kill me. I am just one of many unknown bastards.

Quote: I have a tip for you if you visit the US: Don't break into someone's house. Pretty easy eh?

I have a tip for you, too: If you ever visit germany with your firearm/s, don't forget your gun license [smile]

Quote: The police are not omnipotent -- sometimes, they're too late.

Agreed about them being too late, but also agreed about that only being sometimes.

Now, let me be paranoiac, just for some seconds: I assume that you are getting bumped 0.1 times per year (so if you become 80 years old, you will have experienced 8 bumps in total). Now, if the definition of "sometimes" in this respect is "in 1 of 100" cases, do I assume right that you are in real danger for a total of 0.08 times in your life? So you need roughly ten persons so that only one will ever be in such danger. Next question would be, how many of those potential dangers for life become actual shootouts? 1 of 10 (very approximately for sake of mindplay)? Then you already need 100 persons, so that only one of them ever really needs a gun. How many times do you really get bumped at night, during your life? One time? Then you need about 800 persons, to get only one person who ever needs a gun in her/his life. How many of those burglars shoot at people that themselves don't have a gun? 1 of 8? Then we are at a total of 6,400, which is roughly the size of the population in the village where I live.

The town in which I live has a rough population of 80,000, so assuming the data in my mindplay, there are approximately 13 persons in my town, during my whole life, who are endangered for life (guess how many of them are rationally aptly enough to sanely judge such situation). And when I look rationally at that very very paranoiac mindplay, well, then I must be paranoiac to really fear so much that I need such Snake Oil.

I prefer to care about other things, i.e. actual life, not about fancy, wild-west'esque dreams of vigilantism.

(btw, I apologise if there are any errors in my calculations; it's soon in the morning here; please slap me for every error).

[Edited by - phresnel on April 24, 2009 1:56:03 AM]