Assault weapon bans

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Doesn't work in Japan, crime's still perpetrated there with guns. Point me to a place where "gun control" has ever worked and I'll need a GPR to find anyone there, because IT'S A FUCKING MASS GRAVE.

Stop it with the fiction. Scan back in the thread.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

[Rassah]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

[mdude77]

Doesn't work in Japan, crime's still perpetrated... there with guns. Point me to a place where "gun control" has ever worked 100% and I'll need a GPR to find anyone there, because IT'S A FUCKING MASS GRAVE.

It worked great in China, the Soviet Union, and for Hitler!  Lots of dead people to show for it.

M

[Rampion]

soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.

I hear you. My point is that being the US a place where there are so many individuals self-conscious of their rights and armed with guns precisely to protect themselves from the abuse of Government thugs, you would expect a reaction if the government just milks his citizens, outright stealing from them to commit mass murder. That's a pretty big attack to your freedom, isn't it?

Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders.

Look at Obama now, he is saying "Syria is not similar at all to Iraq, we will just bomb them to protect civilians"... Its clear that the best way to avoid civilians to be murdered with Syrian chemical weapons is to murder some civilians with American drones and tomahawks. I know many of you agree this is ludicrous, and that most of you are informed and know that those weapons came from Saudi Arabia and thus this was probably a "rebel" action... But still, you say guns protect you from your Government, but I see no reaction to this awful situation. What would you say about that?

[mdude77]

soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.

I hear you. My point is that being the US a place where there are so many individuals self-conscious of their rights and armed with guns precisely to protect themselves from the abuse of Government thugs, you would expect a reaction if the government just milks his citizens, outright stealing from them to commit mass murder. That's a pretty big attack to your freedom, isn't it?

Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders.

Look at Obama now, he is saying "Syria is not similar at all to Iraq, we will just bomb them to protect civilians"... Its clear that the best way to avoid civilians to be murdered with Syrian chemical weapons is to murder some civilians with American drones and tomahawks. I know many of you agree this is ludicrous, and that most of you are informed and know that those weapons came from Saudi Arabia and thus this was probably a "rebel" action... But still, you say guns protect you from your Government, but I see no reaction to this awful situation. What would you say about that?

I responded already.

M

[PrintMule]

 About a criminal entering your house - I think most of you would be nervous/anxious/scared enough to pull a trigger first, rather than ask questions. Imagine a burglar next to your daughter room. And also they would not stand there waiting for you to call the police, best case scenario they would run off in other direction, worst case - in yours.
 I have nothing against shooting a criminal on your property, even if he dies, he kinda deserves that. But there's a problem, where someone might shoot an innocent person in their house and claim it as robbery attempt.

If scientists did a study and wrote it down for their peers to review that said you should stop using cryptography, including bitcoin, because criminals and terrorists that use cryptography often use Bitcoin, would you try to pass a law forcing yourself and your compatriots to do that?
Would you advocate to those of whom you have a low opinion, that they should not be allowed to use it, and that they should ask their governments to stop them?

That's a very good point there, I must admit.

Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders.

And this one is my favorite.

[Rampion]

About a criminal entering your house - I think most of you would be nervous/anxious/scared enough to pull a trigger first, rather than ask questions. Imagine a burglar next to your daughter room. And also they would not stand there waiting for you to call the police, best case scenario they would run off in other direction, worst case - in yours.
 I have nothing against shooting a criminal on your property, even if he dies, he kinda deserves that. But there's a problem, where someone might shoot an innocent person in their house and claim it as robbery attempt.

If scientists did a study and wrote it down for their peers to review that said you should stop using cryptography, including bitcoin, because criminals and terrorists that use cryptography often use Bitcoin, would you try to pass a law forcing yourself and your compatriots to do that?
Would you advocate to those of whom you have a low opinion, that they should not be allowed to use it, and that they should ask their governments to stop them?

That's a very good point there, I must admit.

Its good indeed, and its one of the reasons why outright banning inanimated objects (including drugs) is never the right answer.

[RodeoX]

About a criminal entering your house - I think most of you would be nervous/anxious/scared enough to pull a trigger first, rather than ask questions. Imagine a burglar next to your daughter room. And also they would not stand there waiting for you to call the police, best case scenario they would run off in other direction, worst case - in yours.
 I have nothing against shooting a criminal on your property, even if he dies, he kinda deserves that. But there's a problem, where someone might shoot an innocent person in their house and claim it as robbery attempt.

That could happen. I have heard of people shooting through doors for example. However, I think of my carry gun as a responsibility and a right. If I shot an innocent person then I should go to jail. An accident is not excusable. Your life must be in immediate danger. You can't shoot just because someone was robbing you or raping your daughter. That is not a threat on her life.
I would guess that trying to make it look like a robbery has very little chance of working. The police know a lot about that subject and will know what to look for.
But when an armed intruder is in your house threating you, throwing your gun out the window so that no one is accidentally shot is bad form.

[PrintMule]

I almost forgot about booze. What about drunk people doing stupid things? Mostly accidents of course.

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist .

[FirstAscent]

But when an armed intruder is in your house threating you, throwing your gun out the window so that no one is accidentally shot is bad form.

Absolutely correct. No need to expedite the process of supplying the criminals with guns.

[FirstAscent]

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

The same way all people who shouldn't have guns get their hands on guns. The huge demand for guns in the U.S. by gun lovers has made sure there's lots of guns to go around.

[NewLiberty]

soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.

I hear you. My point is that being the US a place where there are so many individuals self-conscious of their rights and armed with guns precisely to protect themselves from the abuse of Government thugs, you would expect a reaction if the government just milks his citizens, outright stealing from them to commit mass murder. That's a pretty big attack to your freedom, isn't it?

Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders.

Look at Obama now, he is saying "Syria is not similar at all to Iraq, we will just bomb them to protect civilians"... Its clear that the best way to avoid civilians to be murdered with Syrian chemical weapons is to murder some civilians with American drones and tomahawks. I know many of you agree this is ludicrous, and that most of you are informed and know that those weapons came from Saudi Arabia and thus this was probably a "rebel" action... But still, you say guns protect you from your Government, but I see no reaction to this awful situation. What would you say about that?

Do you recommend that Syria do a better job of gun control?  Making sure that no one there (except the government, military, police) has anything that could be considered a weapon?

[FirstAscent]

soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.

I hear you. My point is that being the US a place where there are so many individuals self-conscious of their rights and armed with guns precisely to protect themselves from the abuse of Government thugs, you would expect a reaction if the government just milks his citizens, outright stealing from them to commit mass murder. That's a pretty big attack to your freedom, isn't it?

Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders.

Look at Obama now, he is saying "Syria is not similar at all to Iraq, we will just bomb them to protect civilians"... Its clear that the best way to avoid civilians to be murdered with Syrian chemical weapons is to murder some civilians with American drones and tomahawks. I know many of you agree this is ludicrous, and that most of you are informed and know that those weapons came from Saudi Arabia and thus this was probably a "rebel" action... But still, you say guns protect you from your Government, but I see no reaction to this awful situation. What would you say about that?

Do you recommend that Syria do a better job of gun control?  Making sure that no one there (except the government, military, police) has anything that could be considered a weapon?

If you're asking a question about what Syria should do, then it's clear. Syria should start thinking about the welfare of its population.

[Spendulus]

2x

[Spendulus]

About a criminal entering your house - I think most of you would be nervous/anxious/scared enough to pull a trigger first, rather than ask questions. Imagine a burglar next to your daughter room. And also they would not stand there waiting for you to call the police, best case scenario they would run off in other direction, worst case - in yours.
 I have nothing against shooting a criminal on your property, even if he dies, he kinda deserves that. But there's a problem, where someone might shoot an innocent person in their house and claim it as robbery attempt.

That could happen. I have heard of people shooting through doors for example. However, I think of my carry gun as a responsibility and a right. If I shot an innocent person then I should go to jail. An accident is not excusable. Your life must be in immediate danger. You can't shoot just because someone was robbing you or raping your daughter. That is not a threat on her life.
I would guess that trying to make it look like a robbery has very little chance of working. The police know a lot about that subject and will know what to look for.
But when an armed intruder is in your house threating you, throwing your gun out the window so that no one is accidentally shot is bad form.

A couple points.

There was a case some years ago, Cory Maye, where he shot through a door at what he presumed was an armed intruder.  It turned out to be a police officer that was doing a SWAT team style raid on the wrong house - a "no knock raid".  He was convicted of capital murder, spent ten years or so in the state pen and was released on appeal to the state supreme court.

Moral of that story:  DO NOT EVER THINK about shooting at something behind a door, it could be one of your relatives, a friend, there is no knowing what.  What is thought to be a threat must be verified as a threat, then action is taken.  Then one must consider issues relating to spray shooting without a clear target, such as bullets traveling up the street and into the next house.  This problem reduces to 'concealment and/or cover' if when possible.  I can't envision something fundamentally crazy like spraying a bullet pattern out in the general direction of even a known threat without a serious and immediate mortal danger.

Second point.  Yes, you certainly can and on occasion should shoot to prevent a robbery or to stop a rape, when there is no "immediate or obvious mortal danger".  In the US, state law varies on this, and obviously is the authoritative source for what to do when.

[RodeoX]

I almost forgot about booze. What about drunk people doing stupid things? Mostly accidents of course.

True that. Bring booze into the mix and violence is likely to increase. perhaps it should be banned again?

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

Amen. Whoever owns that gun should face charges.

EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist .

This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions.

[NewLiberty]

Do you recommend that Syria do a better job of gun control?  Making sure that no one there (except the government, military, police) has anything that could be considered a weapon?

If you're asking a question about what Syria should do, then it's clear. Syria should start thinking about the welfare of its population.

No, I don't really pretend that I know anything at all about Syria or what they (by this I think you are meaning the government) should do.  I've never been there, though I may have friends that have.  Since it was brought up though it raises the questions above out of curiosity and whether your outlook is generalizable, or if it is constrained to the rights of a particular population, USAians.

All I can see about Syria is what reaches us through the filters of mediated information.  Internet, News, and the like.  So I don't really have any knowledge on the matter.

But there do seem to be some here who know all about what other folks should be doing, and have a penchant for advocating enforcing control regimes on them in order to make them conform with their world view of "the way things ought to be".  I am curious as to how that applies in the case of the Syrian people's relationship to their government.

One of our most famous American Syrians, Steve Jobs, was said at times to be pretty authoritarian, so maybe they are more amenable to your authoritarian outlook than the typical American?  Perhaps you would enjoy engaging them in a dialog about how they should not have any weapons unless they have a badge or a uniform and are paid by their authorities to point their weapons at whom their authorities choose?

Anyhow, I looked it up just now.  It looks like you would do pretty well there.  They seem to be moving toward the UN goal of disarming their people.
http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=188&pos=1000

[FirstAscent]

Do you recommend that Syria do a better job of gun control?  Making sure that no one there (except the government, military, police) has anything that could be considered a weapon?

If you're asking a question about what Syria should do, then it's clear. Syria should start thinking about the welfare of its population.

No, I don't really pretend that I know anything at all about Syria or what they (by this I think you are meaning the government) should do.  I've never been there, though I may have friends that have.  Since it was brought up though it raises the questions above out of curiosity and whether your outlook is generalizable, or if it is constrained to the rights of a particular population, USAians.

All I can see about Syria is what reaches us through the filters of mediated information.  Internet, News, and the like.  So I don't really have any knowledge on the matter.

But there do seem to be some here who know all about what other folks should be doing, and have a penchant for advocating enforcing control regimes on them in order to make them conform with their world view of "the way things ought to be".  I am curious as to how that applies in the case of the Syrian people's relationship to their government.

One of our most famous American Syrians, Steve Jobs, was said at times to be pretty authoritarian, so maybe they are more amenable to your authoritarian outlook than the typical American?  Perhaps you would enjoy engaging them in a dialog about how they should not have any weapons unless they have a badge or a uniform and are paid by their authorities to point their weapons at whom their authorities choose?

Anyhow, I looked it up just now.  It looks like you would do pretty well there.  They seem to be moving toward the UN goal of disarming their people.
http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=188&pos=1000

You seem to be confusing a number of things. In order to help you gain clarity, you should consider the nature and stability of the government in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.