Gun Debate Discussion

[Ghostrider]

And yet the bow has won far more battles than the gun, historically speaking. Don't take it personally, but if you can see an arrow coming and dodge you're metahuman, not human. People can't often even see cars coming. If you get an arrow through your stomach or intestine, you're in for a world of pain.

Again, there has never been a big gun crime problem in England, historically speaking, and I can strut with more confidence through the streets of Luzern (with a high private gun ownership rate) than I would through any British town. I'm also less likely to be attacked with a knife, or by some drunken idiot. Or [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes"]assassinated by incompetent police officers[/ame].

You choose to "let the authorities deal with it", your problem. You can't always have that luxury. I think that being on guard when going about your business is a healthy attitude and would lead to far less accidental deaths in all fields. And "authorities" are human beings just like you, which should be constantly questioned.

I should ask, why is England hosting the Olympic games, which include shooting events which are banned there? Isn't it hypocritical?

 

[Urwumpe]

As for the comment that hunting is "dying out", you clearly don't live around here. It is NOT a way of "depleting" wildlife - it is a way to MANAGE wildlife. We've reduced habitate for wild animals drastically, and eliminated most natural predators (which tend to be dangerous to people and livestock) so method of managing wildlife levels is required.

I know its a bit offtopic but: Don't you think that nature worked well a few billion years before we invented "wildlife management" and really ruined things.

I mean as extreme example, that illustrated what the problem with such "green keepers" is:

They produce an artificial definition which animals belong here, and which not, and how much of them should exist. We have a growing population of Nandus here, originally from South America, but feeling very well in Northern Germany. These are fought intensively by hunters, because "They are illegal immigrants". At the same time, they fight hard to keep species of deers here, that had been once imported from Russia and need serious effort for keeping, because "They are an important part of the German Fauna".

Essentially you can say that hunters only care about things, they they can hunt for trophies and food, and fight against any better suited species and against letting nature have its way.

With proper wildlife management, we also wouldn't have such strong problems with wild boars raiding the cities. Our "oh so professional" hunters eradicate all predators that could steal them their trophies. If a wolf is seen somewhere in Germany, outside a zoo, hunters get aggressive... and if this wolf is unexplainable shot by an unknown person, despite wolves being protected by law, it must always have been somebody else, but never a hunter. Despite typical hunting weapons being used.

But you won't find a CSI:Mark Brandenburg investigating the illegal shooting of rare animals.

 

[jedidia]

With proper wildlife management, we also wouldn't have such strong problems with wild boars raiding the cities.

Don't mention Boars... our hunters over here are allergic to them :lol:

I remember that huge action they had to get the boar pest under control (Boars are regularly ruining corn crops). Almost every hunter was out in his wheel chair (slight insider joke here: hunters in switzerland are usually significantly older than fifty years) hunting for Boars, and they managed to kill one or two... :rofl: It's almost as if the beasts have read the news.

In general, you can savely say that the boar population in Switzerland is kept in check by traffic. The beasts seem to be pretty clever in outmaneuvering hunters, but haven't figured out how to savely cross a road yet...

 

[Ghostrider]

Don't mention Boars... our hunters over here are allergic to them :lol:

Lol, must be one of those cantonal differences then, because the few hunters I know here hunt nothing but boars. Maybe we should export a couple of them.:thumbup:

 

[JEL]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.

And that is a good thing

Monopolizing power is bad.

Look at some of the countries who have dictators holding the monopoly on power. The freedoms of the people of such countries are determined FOR them, by the self-appointed elite, not BY them according to their own wishes or dreams.

And the main reason such superior elites can keep their power, against the will of the people, is often because they are heavily armed themselves while keeping the population stripped of any retaliatory ability.
The 'checks & balances', that we are so proud of in the west, do not exist in such nations.

And to prove that even the United States agree with this, let's take the other half of the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State

Power IS necessary to secure freedom. That goes for states as well as people.
Therefore it must not be banned or monopolized, but rather shared.

Reducing fear in those who are afraid of guns is ofcourse of concern, since society is for all of us and not just one opinion-group. Maybe the non-owners need some gun-related training to? To better understand if their fears are really rational?

But simply banning all guns will just exchange one group's fear for the other group's fear, and that's not fair. If all guns are banned one group will be afraid of being unable to fend of an attack. If guns are not banned the other group will be afraid of being unable to fend of an attack.

It is the same kind of argument as if you would say: Why should somebody really learn piloting, if autopilots can do it all?

The gun is the autopilot. You point it at your target and press a button. The pilot training equivalent is learning to defend yourself in varying levels of force, not just by autopilot, but by having proper options for every situation that you need to control.

Like said before, I have nothing against guns if employed by people who have had the proper training. But I think they are a huge safety hazard and crime risk in the hands of people who just know how to employ the autopilot.

I guess that in a sense you might say a gun could land a plane... if it was held against the pilot's head :lol:
But other than that I don't think your comparison is reasonable.

An auto-pilot is a dynamic device working without human input.

A gun is a static device that needs human input.

If you took an automatic speed-trap and exchanged the camera for a gun, then your comparison would be more accurate; whenever the speed-trap was triggered by a speeding vehicle it would initiate firing the gun (not knowing it wasn't a camera it fired)
(I wonder when we'll see such things on the roads )

 

[Urwumpe]

You mistake autopilot with autonomous vehicle. An autopilot is not autonomous, it needs human inputs and monitoring, but does common, enduring tasks better than a human pilot can (because he gets tired faster).

It is not about flying a plane alone, but reducing the workload.

 

[JEL]

Would you then consider a double-barrel skeet-shooting rifle a dual-autopilot?

I know you want to imply that a gun does the work for you while you're sleeping at the yoke, under-paid and over-worked, I just don't see it that way

If you fall asleep the gun won't do anything for you, while the autopilot will happily continue to fly. Huge difference.

 

[Urwumpe]

If you fall asleep the gun won't do anything for you, while the autopilot will happily continue to fly. Huge difference.

Until the plane crashes into the Greek mountains. Same thing, same outcome.


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Helios_Flight_522


The use of a gun is essentially giving it the input parameters by pointing it at a target and squeezing the trigger. If you are especially adept in choosing the input parameters, you can hit smaller targets, but unless you are suffering from Parkinson or having watched too many Rambo movies, you can hit a barn door regardless of skill.

A gun is also not autonomous, which is the important thing I mean: of course a human decides what the gun does. The ultimate responsibility ALWAYS belongs to the human. You should not ban guns on the grounds of being a projector of deadly force. You should consider who you consider qualified for using this tool/weapon.

The often cited argument, that a citizen should not have limits there, so no government can suppress him, is pretty weak, since practically, in a working democracy, the community of all involved humans defines such limits. The government is the tool of the citizens, not the other way around.

Also, I am pretty sure, in the context of the USA, and the NRA interpretation of the second amendment: 280 million citizens that play great gunmen on the weekend have less a chance against 1.5 million professional soldiers and 836,787 policemen, than an iceberg in the tropic. Unless you do real militia training, which involves much more than shooting, you will end only as "weak resistance of the old regime" in the history books that will be written by the victors. (Including the fact that 50% of the citizens is too young to really fight, and 30% too old to survive a military campaign). Even if all citizens between 20 and 50 would be willed to fight except the protagonists of the evil government, you would have only 23 citizens against one soldier.

On a good day, 23 citizens can win against a soldier. On the many other days, they won't, but instead get shot and scattered. A soldier who trained such operations for at least 2 years, has more than just a small advantage that the rifle alone levels out. For example a soldier really knows how to be not seen. Even a normal infantrymen can be only a few meters away from normal citizens without being seen until it is too late. And reconnaissance soldiers are usually able to not even make a sound when a hobby soldier mistakes him for a bush toilet.

And 92 citizens against a tank does not sound like less bad days for the citizens. It is not hard to use a RPG to kill a tank. you can do many things wrong, but generally, it is not hard to make it right. But if you not do it right on your first try, you have only a small chance to learn for your second attempt.

And using a modern US guided missile as civilian would be... interesting... I know parts of the Javelin manual, and it is a bit complex.

 

[JEL]

Until the plane crashes into the Greek mountains. Same thing, same outcome.


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Helios_Flight_522

I'm sorry Urwumpe, but I simply do not understand what this wiki has to do with gun-control?

Lack of oxygen at 35,000 feet is related to gun-control how?

The use of a gun is essentially giving it the input parameters by pointing it at a target and squeezing the trigger. If you are especially adept in choosing the input parameters, you can hit smaller targets, but unless you are suffering from Parkinson or having watched too many Rambo movies, you can hit a barn door regardless of skill.

The gun will NOT work hands-off. It can't do anything on it's own.

The auto-pilot WILL work hands-off. The auto-pilot CAN do something on it's own.

That's a huge difference.

A gun is also not autonomous

But the auto-pilot is.

The ultimate responsibility ALWAYS belongs to the human. You should not ban guns on the grounds of being a projector of deadly force. You should consider who you consider qualified for using this tool/weapon.

I agree, and I do find the people qualified. Just look at yourself, you've shot guns and it all went just fine
You're perfectly qualified to own and carry a gun.

The often cited argument, that a citizen should not have limits there, so no government can suppress him, is pretty weak, since practically, in a working democracy, the community of all involved humans defines such limits.

The Constitution is under democratic control, so all is good.

But the argument is not weak. It's actually what the United States is based upon:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security

The people have the right, even the duty, to over-throw their government if it becomes despotic. And you just can't do that with harsh language.

Every 4th of July this is what is being celebrated. That's not weak. It's the foundation.

The government is the tool of the citizens, not the other way around.

Do you want to hear something funny? It says the same thing in the Chinese constitution:

Article 2. All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people.

...

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Yet Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2010, Liu Xiaobo, is currently serving an 11-year prison-sentence for having written a document or manifesto on how human rights in China could be improved.

In China it is illegal for a citizen to own a gun. Not because China is afraid of guns, their army has plenty, but because they don't want to risk their elitist power-base monopoly being over-thrown by their own population their own fellow man.

I'm not bashing China or the Chinese people, there are many good things about China, but I must say that China has a style of government I do NOT like in even the slightest bit.
Any society that are so afraid of their own people that they don't trust them to hold substantial power... well, I'm just going to say no thanks (while being thankful I'm actually free to say no thanks!)

Also, I am pretty sure, in the context of the USA, and the NRA interpretation of the second amendment: 280 million citizens that play great gunmen on the weekend have less a chance against 1.5 million professional soldiers and 836,787 policemen, than an iceberg in the tropic. Unless you do real militia training, which involves much more than shooting, you will end only as "weak resistance of the old regime" in the history books that will be written by the victors.

The more restricted the citizen's right to hold power become, the less power they have. Obviously.

And if the country's pro-army becomes too detached from civil population, if they become an elite with too many special rights and privileges, they will be easier to sway against the civil population. Obviously.

This is why it's of so great importance to nourish the "all men are created equal" vision of the Declaration of Independence so people don't forget it and begin to split people into classes.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm sorry Urwumpe, but I simply do not understand what this wiki has to do with gun-control?

Lack of oxygen at 35,000 feet is related to gun-control how?

Is that so hard to see? The autopilot did not save the day when the crew was incapacitated. It does not work completely hands-off.

And as you can maybe see in self-reflection: You always refer to what an autopilot can do, what it actually does not do. It is not more than a tool. It reduces the workload, but you will never see pilot and copilot leave the cockpit and simply trust the autopilot to do their job.

Also, let me predict you: The whole NRA couldn't even overthrow the government of Puerto Rico. Let alone a bigger country.

 

[Ghostrider]

Also, let me predict you: The whole NRA couldn't even overthrow the government of Puerto Rico. Let alone a bigger country.

Half a dozen of them could, but they would need chemistry training by Jesuit priests first.

 

[Urwumpe]

Half a dozen of them could, but they would need chemistry training by Jesuit priests first.

And some more stuff - Even Che Guevara failed his mission, despite having much more training. A proper revolution isn't done by weapons alone, weapons are then just for reinforcing already existing arguments.

 

[Ghostrider]

And some more stuff - Even Che Guevara failed his mission, despite having much more training.

Revolutions are a messy thing. Never send a medic to do a lawyer's job...

Anyway, I think that anyone interested in carrying a firearm with the intention of defending himself should read this. This guy knows what he's talking about. You want to get a gun for self-defence, you get an instructor with this kind of mindset and have him hit you over the head until you learn or give up. Anyone opposed should read it as well, because this is what we gun nuts with a brain think like, more or less.

 

[Dambuster]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41257218/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

[Tommy]

I know its a bit offtopic but: Don't you think that nature worked well a few billion years before we invented "wildlife management" and really ruined things.

Nature worked until humans started to overpopulate the planet. Unless you are willing to get rid of about 95% of the human population, you WILL have people infringing on animal habitat. Less habitat available means that less animals can be sustained. We have killed off most of the natural predators - not just so we don't have to compete with them, but because predators don't just kill wildlife - they kill pets, livestock, and even people. It's a safety issue. Also, predators need a lot of "hunting ground", so the decimation of natural habitat has hit them much harder than it has their prey. In any developed country, wildlife management by people is REQUIRED. You can allow hunting, or hire professional snipers. There is no other viable choice - leaving it up to "nature" simply won't work.

Out of the same logic that permits the ownership of guns for defense, we should be permitted nuclear weapons for defense as well.

You have completely missed the point. The point is not to allow a few citizens to effectively win against the government forces. The point is to allow them to create a stand-off long enough for the media to find out. That forces the government to make sure that it's use of force is legally justified, rather than strong-arming the population simply because they can get away with it since without the stand-off there would be very little public awareness that someones rights were infringed.

As for those who think it's best to let the police protect you, look around. How many police officers do you see right now? The town I live in has only one officer on duty after 5:00 pm most days. The County Sheriff has only two officers on duty at a time - for a fairly large area. There may be a State Patrol officer in the area - but don't count on it.

The chances of a police officer being handy when you need protection is slim. In larger cities - where you are more likely to need protection - the chances that one will be close enough to help are minimal. The simple truth is that Police are not able to provide a proactive defense - only react once a crime has been committed. Sure, they may be able to arrest your killer - but you'll still be dead, won't you. Sure, once the bad guy is locked up the world will be a bit safer - but "safer" is a relative term. It still won't be truly safe.

 

[T.Neo]

Unless you are willing to get rid of about 95% of the human population, you WILL have people infringing on animal habitat.

Ahem... humans have been "infringing" on animal habitat since before we even evolved, and certainly since before we numbered in the some 350 million.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also species dying out because of another species consuming their resources or hunting them is part of evolution. The problem starts when humans start to impose artificial considerations on which animals are worth to be protected and which should be eradicated. Every such decision means messing with nature, and not protecting it and its way, but actually domesticating wildlife. We try to tame nature. And still claim it is a morally better thing as industrializing nature, which is the same thing with different preferences.

Hunting for food is ok, but we rarely do it in the western world, because just buying mass produced food from meat factories is cheaper. Thus we need "wildlife protection" as justification for shooting living beings for fun, instead of eating them.

 

[Ghostrider]

Hunting for food is ok, but we rarely do it in the western world, because just buying mass produced food from meat factories is cheaper. Thus we need "wildlife protection" as justification for shooting living beings for fun, instead of eating them.

Well, hunters I know eat what they kill. One I knew who lived in the USA (got to check on him to see if he's still alive, used to hunt board with a single-shot pistol), once killed a mountain lion. He ate it. Could be worse, had he killed a lawyer he would have needed hospitalization for food poisoning.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, hunters I know eat what they kill. One I knew who lived in the USA (got to check on him to see if he's still alive, used to hunt board with a single-shot pistol), once killed a mountain lion. He ate it. Could be worse, had he killed a lawyer he would have needed hospitalization for food poisoning.

I suspect eating a mountain lion is just slightly better than crocodile meat.

Those hunters I have in my neighborhood would need to be round and fat, considering how much they boast with what they have shot last week. They can't have eaten that all, and even including what they sell to restaurants, it should have been a lot.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

he killed a lawyer he would have needed hospitalization for food poisoning.

:rofl:
I've got a freezer full of venison downstairs in my basement. I don't think highly of hunters who only hunt for the trophy. When I hunt I'm thinking of a well stocked freezer, if I get a nice pair of antlers out of the deal, well that's OK. If not, I'm still going to be well fed.

I don't hunt animals that I have no intention of eating later on. But rabbit, squirrel, turkey, deer, bear, elk are all good (and only in season, special place in hell for poachers).