Quote: Original post by phresnel

Quote:
Yes, that also means I think gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, and all matter of other things that creep people out should all be legal.

Consuming drugs, I guess? Then I agree with that quote. I have the feeling that especially your point on gay marriage and other sexual topics are more understood in germany and it's neighbours (or e.g. Japan) than in the US. That's not to say, it's not enough yet, as many private people here still frown upon such things.

Prostitution is legal here since 2001 (Prostitution Law, sorry, no english entry).

Gay marriage is legal here, too, and we have more and more outed politicians (most notably Klaus Wowereit, mayor of our capital), though not in (catholic) church. Personally, I don't really care for the sexuality and sexual habits of a person, and for me it is really the same if two men are kissing, two women, men and women, hermaphrodites, unsexuals, et cetera. I am of course more pleased when I see members of the human group that I prefer, but I would never frown upon other groups. And I am happy that more and more people today are like that.

Netherlands allow buying/consuming cannabis products (as long as it's not publicly). The sole consumption is legal here, too, afaik.

But I am now really getting offfff topic.

The problem is not that you are going off-topic. The problem is that you appear to think it is reasonable to hold someone responsible for the alleged attitudes of the people who happen to have the same symbolic string printed in their passport.

Why the resort to the american bogeyman? Why cant you simply discuss the opinion expressed here? Be careful: one might get the impression that said opinion is unassailable.

Quote: Original post by Codeka

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.

If your criminals (and other would be harm-doers) don't carry guns, you begin to have a point. If your police don't carry guns either, your point becomes even more valid. I won't try to argue that guns for everyone everywhere is the answer to everything.

However, when the original post to which that part was replying makes no qualifying statements as to scope and basically goes so far as to insinuate that if anyone anywhere, regardless of their country and it's current gun availability and policies, are, quote: "a public menace" -- while it might not hold water as an argument to forever enshrine the 2nd amendment in and of itself, I think you'd agree that it's not a specious argument for that individual in that situation, or at the very least that they're not necessarily a public menace.

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...

Even in the gun totting land of the free, there are restrictions on who may own and carry them.

Quote: Original post by phresnel
Now, let me be paranoiac, just for some seconds

I refuse. Life is not a statistic for the individuals who live it -- and I've given some specific examples of people who would have good cause to go armed. Your reply ignores them, and wanders back to the cozy preconception of "well that'll never happen to me so it's like it doesn't really happen, right?".

Don't get me wrong: Some people shouldn't have guns. I'm saying that some should, to protect us from them. Granted, we live in an imperfect world, and I won't even argue against the point that it could be easier to take them all away from everyone (although I believe it untrue), simply that there are reasons to own a gun other than being a gun nut.

Of course, you can continue to assume the worst of gun owners all you want -- I just want to poke a wider hole in your attempt at justifying it.

Me? I don't own a gun. I may never own one. But I could see myself owning one -- not out of fear, sportsmanship, or any of the reasons of your pick-a-slander list (in my opinion). Simply to hedge my bets. Insurance. The same reason I'll want my car to have proper airbags, my house to have working fire alarms, and my projects to be backed up to multiple locations. And hopefully I'll never have to use any of those either. There will be time enough to be a reckless bastard when I've aged and led a fuller life [lol]

@MaulingMonkey: As pointed out sooner, I am not against guns and rifles per se (I would even vote for conscription and as an alternative Zivildienst), I've even said it's fun for me to shoot them (but not at living subjects). But I am against gun liberty and using guns as a means of vigilantism, even if only potentially; in its core and entirety, even if it is a bit unsharp during all my posts, my statement is "if you want one, get one, but only if you have proven your competence and willingness to attend to periodic training in gun-practice and relevant law"; basically filtering out all inable persons (including persons with too idealistic motivations and those with a sick psyche).

Only under such assumption, I would look further into whether self-defense with guns shall be allowed; but I would make it so that you have to prove that you acted under self-defense, and only under sharp restrictions it would be considered self-defense (e.g., the burglar must aim at you, or attempts to do so).

That might sound strange, but I would make it so to prevent people from exploting loopholes. A simple means of proving your innocence would then be as simple as installing cameras of security of very high quality, ones that clear things up without a single caveeat. If you want to execute, then pay the price of being able to prove your self-defense.

edit: What I wanted to add, is that I would make it so that you, as the self-defender, are "staying in the jail with one leg" already, if you use the weapon (roughly translated from the german proverb "Mit einem Bein im Gefängnis stehen"); this is not uncommon for carriers of firearms here anyways, e.g. a soldier with a handgun on watch at the gate of the baracks is said to do that (further, in the Bundeswehr, one has to report about the whereabout of every single projectile; in times of peace that is). After such self-defense, a judge should decide in court about you, and the judge shall request proof of your own innocence.

[Edited by - phresnel on April 24, 2009 9:17:19 AM]

Quote: Original post by phresnel
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?

Police aren't there to stop crime, it's that simple. All they can do is clean up after the fact.

Quote: 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.

There are plenty of states with the castle doctrine, and they aren't the free fire zones that you would like to believe they are. You can make suppositions as to what would happen all you want, that doesn't change the fact that you're completely wrong about the outcome. Just as concealed carry of firearms has rapidly become legal across the States, and everyone predicted bloodshed in the streets. It simply doesn't happen.

Quote: 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.

Give me examples of the rampant problem of gun owners shooting people in their garden without provocation. If this is a major problem as you seem to suggest, then you really shouldn't have problems proving it.

Quote:

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.

I'll disagree with curtmax here. At least in the USA, confrontation will generally send the person fleeing, but that's because criminals are quite aware of the gun culture that we have. It's one of the reasons our home invasion rates (while someone is home) are so much lower then countries that actively try to protect the criminal at the expense of the resident.

Quote:

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.

It really depends on the crime. Generally police can't respond fast enough to catch anyone in your home. I believe the average response time in the USA is well over five minutes. This will vary wildly by location, but we have huge sections of rural areas where the response would be much longer.

It's quite ignorant to say that America's murder problem is due to the availability of firearms. There are social-economic conditions (as well as the "War on Drugs") in the areas with the highest murder rates that have far more effect on someone's willingness to commit murder then the availability of a weapon does.

Firearms are extremely prevalent in the USA and the vast majority of gun owners are responsible enough to own a gun without grabbing it every time someone makes them angry. All of the scenarios designed to discredit CCW and the Castle Doctrine are baseless. We have those systems in place and they are NOT a problem.

tstrimp, you make some good points.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by phresnel
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?

Police aren't there to stop crime, it's that simple. All they can do is clean up after the fact.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

I'll disagree with curtmax here. At least in the USA, confrontation will generally send the person fleeing, but that's because criminals are quite aware of the gun culture that we have. It's one of the reasons our home invasion rates (while someone is home) are so much lower then countries that actively try to protect the criminal at the expense of the resident.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

It really depends on the crime. Generally police can't respond fast enough to catch anyone in your home. I believe the average response time in the USA is well over five minutes. This will vary wildly by location, but we have huge sections of rural areas where the response would be much longer.

What I have ignored so far while thinking about guns so much: Would it not be a far better solution if people, instead of buying guns, just installed modern alarm devices that would alert the police? Then, police would get alerted even before the burglar awakes you. I think, if such devices were as spread as firearms are, it would have the same effect as firearms. That is, at least at those places where the average reaction time is around 3-7 minutes (don't know how swift modern burglars are).

Quote: Original post by phresnel
What I have ignored so far while thinking about guns so much: Would it not be a far better solution if people, instead of buying guns, just installed modern alarm devices that would alert the police? Then, police would get alerted even before the burglar awakes you. I think, if such devices were as spread as firearms are, it would have the same effect as firearms. That is, at least at those places where the average reaction time is around 3-7 minutes (don't know how swift modern burglars are).

I think alarm systems are a good idea, especially if they have a siren or similar to let the burglar know that it has been tripped. The attention alone would be enough to send most burglars running.

You also have to factor in the cost though. A decent home defense weapon could be had for under $500. A decent home alarm system will run at least $3,000. If you can afford it I'd say go with an alarm, or both if that makes you more comfortable. For a lot of people that isn't an option. They have probably inherited a gun, so it's much, much cheaper to consider that your line of defense.

Edit: may be wrong on home alarm costs. I'm checking other sources.

i've carried a tire iron, a snow shovel and an air pump in the trunk of my car for over a decade. They're all dusty and the shovel's showing a little rust. Is it paranoia that drives me to carry these things? Hero fantasies? Insecurity about my ability to resolve crises without their help? Yeah, I think all three apply a little.

When I was in college, the slide projector jammed in my Art History class, and I was the only one who had a pocketknife that day. Unfold the little screwdriver, poke it a bit, and we're back on track. Very gratifying. Little things like that happen all the time, and either I've got what it takes or I don't. I like to be the guy with the tools and know-how to solve problems, and if there's a problem that is best solved with a handgun, I want to be the guy with the handgun when that problem arises.

That's a narrowly focused view of the matter, of course, and it's not taking into account the broad implications of legislation. I used to think that everyone should have a gun all the time, so that we could all see that it's our desire to preserve one another's safety, not the lack of easy ways to hurt each other, that protects our neighbors. As I get older and more cynical, I think a lot of people can't be trusted with the means to act out their psychotic fantasies and bestial tendencies, and should be restrained by legislation (or steel bars) for the protection of the "decent folk". I don't like thinking that, but it's hard not to, just from my personal experience. Mix in the culture of fear we've been developing here in the US for a decade or so, and it's no wonder we want to make the whole world a rubber room.

The problem is that the state of nature is always there, under the surface, and the more insulated from it we are, the less prepared we are to live in it. It takes harder and harder boundaries to protect the softer and softer populations from the facts of life, and that means ruthless politicians, overpowered police and savage legislation to preserve "civilization" at a level we can be comfortable in. There's a whole continuum between Dan'l Boone and Brave New World, and we have to find out where to settle down.

Quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
i've carried a tire iron, a snow shovel and an air pump in the trunk of my car for over a decade. They're all dusty and the shovel's showing a little rust. Is it paranoia that drives me to carry these things? Hero fantasies? Insecurity about my ability to resolve crises without their help? Yeah, I think all three apply a little.

When I was in college, the slide projector jammed in my Art History class, and I was the only one who had a pocketknife that day. Unfold the little screwdriver, poke it a bit, and we're back on track. Very gratifying. Little things like that happen all the time, and either I've got what it takes or I don't. I like to be the guy with the tools and know-how to solve problems, and if there's a problem that is best solved with a handgun, I want to be the guy with the handgun when that problem arises.

That's a narrowly focused view of the matter, of course

It strikes me more as a rather perverse rationalization.

I'm with a lot of other people here in that I can't understand the logic of everyone having guns, meaning the world is a better place. It seems like a senseless way of "evening things up".

You're always going to have people that want to kill, whether it's a knee-jerk reaction to a situation or if it's simply for something materialistic. Inevitably, whatever weapons are legalised in a country, there will be those who would abuse the accessibility of the weapons.

If nerve gas were to be legalised, the majority of people (hopefully) would feel the need not to use it. However, you will always get someone that will see it as an opportunity to carry out revenge or as an extreme way of getting attention. You know what though? It's a hell of a lot easier to run away from someone with a knife than it is to run from someone with a gun.

Let me ask you this: how happy are you with the state of nuclear missiles? Are you fine with only some countries having them? Does it worry you that Iran and North Korea are developing WMDs? I don't know about you, but I'd find it much easier to sleep at night knowing no-one had nuclear missiles ready to be let loose at the touch of a button. Hiroshima carries a very real, very tragic, lesson and not just for the use of WMDs.

Being fine with everyone having guns is like being fine with every country having WMDs. Do you think the world would be a safer place like that?