Gun Control What's your take???

PersonaNonGrata · #1 01-02-2013, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5

I read James Fenimore Cooper, and the pioneers there had weapons... naturally, hostile environment, one needs to shoot first, ask questions later...
now days, we pretend to be a civilized society, the light of free world in the darkness of the tyranny, blah, blah, blah... and yet, when Katrina struck, the looting started... any otherwise peaceful gathering can turn into something violent real fast, i think even the latest camping outside the Wall Street was not immune to that...

in such a violent environment any disruption to normal daily grind may prove fatal - someone losing his otherwise normal mind and going bazookas... even mental health control will not help in identifying a perfect normal dude going biserk - i think, there was a movie (a movie, i know... but we don't read anymore, we watch), about some regular dude going crazy and killing people, i think either Douglas senior, or junior was in that movie... I need to do a search about that one...

my point is, it is very dangerous to have weapons distributed in the society that is not really stable - look at the fiscal cliff, and the debt ceiling, and the whole other plethora of things that are wrong here... V.Lenin said once that he can build a government that even a last maid can operate (кухарка)... sometimes it feels that he had succeeded here, in the States...

The movie you are thinking of is "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas.

We probably won't agree on this but the very things you listed are why civilian ownership of guns is necessary. Katrina brought out the most vicious and opportunistic parasites who would slit a throat for some loot. Without a means of defense, many more people would have been victimized. Those who were armed were far less likely to be victims. If something like the "Fiscal Cliff" causes civil unrest and riots, be sure that there will be the same kind of vicious opportunistic jackals preying upon defenseless people. Again, these events are not about guns and the risk they pose so much as a testament to what some people will do to other human beings and why those human beings need the option to defend themselves.

Katrina proved also that law enforcement is incapable of protecting everyone in the best of circumstances much less in a critical incident or disaster scenario. Hell, the cops in New Orleans were as dangerous as the criminals but that is a different story. As the great sayings goes, "I carry a .45 because a cop is too heavy" and "When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away".

tynashracing · #2 01-02-2013, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

The movie you are thinking of is "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas.

We probably won't agree on this but the very things you listed are why civilian ownership of guns is necessary. Katrina brought out the most vicious and opportunistic parasites who would slit a throat for some loot. Without a means of defense, many more people would have been victimized. Those who were armed were far less likely to be victims. If something like the "Fiscal Cliff" causes civil unrest and riots, be sure that there will be the same kind of vicious opportunistic jackals preying upon defenseless people. Again, these events are not about guns and the risk they pose so much as a testament to what some people will do to other human beings and why those human beings need the option to defend themselves.

Katrina proved also that law enforcement is incapable of protecting everyone in the best of circumstances much less in a critical incident or disaster scenario. Hell, the cops in New Orleans were as dangerous as the criminals but that is a different story. As the great sayings goes, "I carry a .45 because a cop is too heavy" and "When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away".

Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.

TerminatorX5 · #3 01-02-2013, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing

Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.

that is my point - even the best guy/good guy can turn bad... even if his intentions are good, he still can render harm, just by being incompetent in the area of law enforcement... a guy could be genius in computer programming, or can put an engine together with his eyes closed... but he is not competent in law enforcement - and the mentality, shoot first, ask questions later might work, if the results were not lethal... I would not have problems, if everyone had a non-lethal weapon... the problme with lethal weapons is that the culprit does not have a CHANCE to stand trial, as guaranteed by the same Constitution... the judgement, the trial, the verdict, the execution are all carried out at once. If s/he is incapacitated for a period of time, than there is a chance for a fair trial.

i've read a story long time ago, and will grossly paraphrase it:
say there is a woman playing with her big mastiff in a park, and the dog is really nice... it so happened that a wild tribeman is in the park, and his tribe never seen any dogs in their lives... he sees a woman being attacked by huge animal and he shoots the animal dead with a dart in an attempt to save to woman... Best intentions... good guy... armed... worst results... not to say that a cop can't be incompetent...

If the tribesman was armed with a less-than-lethal weapon, then the whole thing would have been less stressful... I am not comparing life of a dog to a life of a human - human life bears much more value...
What happened to all values that we hold dear? We are crying over spilt blood and want to spill more to prevent the bloodshed... strange logic...

PersonaNonGrata · #4 01-02-2013, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing

Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.

Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense.

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5

that is my point - even the best guy/good guy can turn bad... even if his intentions are good, he still can render harm, just by being incompetent in the area of law enforcement... a guy could be genius in computer programming, or can put an engine together with his eyes closed... but he is not competent in law enforcement - and the mentality, shoot first, ask questions later might work, if the results were not lethal... I would not have problems, if everyone had a non-lethal weapon... the problme with lethal weapons is that the culprit does not have a CHANCE to stand trial, as guaranteed by the same Constitution... the judgement, the trial, the verdict, the execution are all carried out at once. If s/he is incapacitated for a period of time, than there is a chance for a fair trial.

i've read a story long time ago, and will grossly paraphrase it:
say there is a woman playing with her big mastiff in a park, and the dog is really nice... it so happened that a wild tribeman is in the park, and his tribe never seen any dogs in their lives... he sees a woman being attacked by huge animal and he shoots the animal dead with a dart in an attempt to save to woman... Best intentions... good guy... armed... worst results... not to say that a cop can't be incompetent...

If the tribesman was armed with a less-than-lethal weapon, then the whole thing would have been less stressful... I am not comparing life of a dog to a life of a human - human life bears much more value...
What happened to all values that we hold dear? We are crying over spilt blood and want to spill more to prevent the bloodshed... strange logic...

I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.

TerminatorX5 · #5 01-02-2013, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense.

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.

I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.

this is the law of jungle - he, who has the bigger claw, survives... this is not the law of society... the criminal has the luxury of the first strike, the society has the luxury of the law - it is better to let go ten guilty ones, then to convict one innocent one, or whatever that saying says...

I agree with you on the personal level, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (gee, my dentist probably be dead over and over now!!!). but I can not bring myself down to the level of an animal, that the criminal is, just to satisfy the need to lynch... I do not deny the right for the self-defense, it is one of the basic rights, but I can not become a wild animal...

It is the same, as acting like Robert Bales, and killing the afghani civilians... chances are, half of those civilians were peasants by the day and cold blood killers by the night, but we can't be the same... this is the whole idea of civilized society, that we are NOT blood thirsty mob with pitchforks and torches, that lynches the "criminals" on sight. This is the whole notion that the forefathers are trying to instill into us, that everyone deserves due process.
Again, I am a human too, and I am subject to emotions, and my first reaction is to shoot the MF on scene... But we can not teach others on how to be, if we can't behave ourselves... One of our engineers shot two intruders in his house around Thanksgiving (Minnesota homeowner shot two teenagers dead in cold blood in his basement 'because he feared they had a weapon' - NY Daily News), and i understand what he had done, those kids were NOT supposed to be in his house uninvited... but if he would have used an non-lethal force, those kids would be standing trial... Granted, the judicial system is seriously flawed, but that would a subject of a new thread. we still can not take the law into our hands - otherwise we will plunge into the dark ages...

tynashracing · #6 01-02-2013, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense.

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.

I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.

PersonaNonGrata,

I see you take your oath seriously

. And, I bet you have a few years under your belt. You make me proud of what my country should always stand for when dealing with our liberties and Constitution.

It's awesome to see real patriotism is alive and well with those commissioned to protect my rights from foreign and domestic tyranny!

JCL · #7 01-02-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

I appreciate reading your point of view.

I think it is worth separating law enforcement gun use from private citizen gun use. Picking up on your point about the potential of a private citizen making a mistake, it seems to me that mistake could potentially be shooting in error, failing to secure the weapon from unauthorized use, failure to obtain appropriate training, and so on. Here is one view of some of the results of those failures, although the data is somewhat dated:

Quote:

Injuries and Deaths from Guns
Every time a gun injures or kills in self‐defense, one is used

11 times for a completed or attempted suicide
7 times in a criminal assault or homicide
4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury

Source: Journal of Trauma, injury, Infection and Critical Care (1998)

So by those statistics, guns don't appear to be an efficient form of self defence on a societal basis, considering the costs to society of all those other consequences. They certainly may be efficient on an individual basis, as long as the gun owner never suffers from the consequences listed above.

Since this is a BMW board, and since one of the most popular topics to debate here is whether it is worth changing transmission fluid to extend the life of ZF and GM transmissions installed in BMW vehicles, let's do a comparison.

Let's say 25% of us decided to change our transmission fluid to extend our transmission life. And let's say we had real data that said that for every time one of us who changed their fluid avoided a transmission failure, 22 other transmissions blew up, whether they were ours or not. Wouldn't we begin to wonder whether it was a good idea to keep changing the transmission fluid, even though we each currently have a clear right to do so? And if we wanted to change the fluid, individually, would it be a good idea for those of us who did so to do so on average four times? For background, some statistics put gun ownership at 25% of US citizens, and the average US gun owner has four guns. Rough figures. Anyway, I fully accept that it is a silly analogy. Just trying to put it in perspective.