Topic: Poll for Gun Control Advocates - page 5. (Read 17920 times)

True. if he hurts someone while attacking you, that's his fault. But if you hurt someone while fighting back, that's on you.

Seriously, you're just making yourself look like a fool here. They don't "feel" threatened, they don't even know you're there. That's the point. You're threatening with death people who don't know you, haven't met you, and certainly aren't threatening you.

No, you are threatening them. I've explained that already.
Sorry, but then you can't say you were defending your family, since that spot on the ground didn't do anything to threaten them. Either way, you're responsible for your actions.

Likewise, "Don't fuck with me or I'll blow you away" is a threat. And that is the stated purpose of your vest. Thus, it is a threat. Keep digging that hole.


Everyone's responsible for their own actions. That includes making sure you don't sell something to someone who will misuse it.

All this took was one google search for the term "can cops buy automatic weapons?".

This one looks like it's illegal to do this in cali, but the cops do it anyway.

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/12/peace-officers-buying-and-selling-assault-weapons/


I'm not finding directly applicable data on actual full auto weapons, but this is loosely related...

"Q: Are SAWs and LCAFDs marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or “For export only” now legal to sell to civilians in the United States?
Yes. SAWs and LCAFDs are no longer prohibited. Therefore, firearms with the restrictive markings are legal to transfer to civilians in the United States, and it is legal for non-prohibited civilians to possess them. All civilians may possess LCAFDs."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html

I can't find any current data on an import ban for automatic weapons, not even on teh BATF site.  Are you sure you are not thinking of the assault weapons ban?  That has expired.

1) I did fight back against him, others just got in the way. If he hurts somebody else as a result of his attack on me, that's not my fault.

2)  Actually in that situation you can't. Ask anyone experienced in hand to hand combat. They might "feel" threatened by my nuke, but that doesn't mean they're actually being threatened. Are those feelings enough to infringe on my right to bear arms? And what kind of weak ass argument is that? "They can't defend themselves against a nuke". That's the point. Or does everyone have to walk around with tiny guns that do minimal damage. What's the point of a weapon people can defend themselves from?

3) I disagree. I'm putting them at risk. I'm ok with that.
Ah, semantics. Ok, so then I'm not shooting at him. He just happens to lie at the exact spot on the ground that I was going to shoot at. He's at fault for lying around in my shooting spot. Problem solved then. No need for defense. Funny thing is, that spot actually moves with him.

4) Says you. The reason that you don't point a gun at anybody is to reduce the risk of accidental shootings. I'm OK with putting you at risk. "Give me your money or I shoot" is a threat. "Bang! Whoopsie, does it hurt" isn't.

5) That. Or hiding the fact that they sold it. Whichever is cheaper. This is supposed to be a totally free market, so I'm assuming there will be people willing to deal only with criminals. I sense a new policy here. Are you going to make somebody else responsible for one mans actions? Is the gun manufacturer/seller at fault for what the buyer does with it? Should the seller pay restitution to a victims family if the robber didn't have enough?

No, that's not for you to decide. The mugger shot you. If you can fight back against him, that's fine. But granny, and everyone else in range, did nothing to you. You initiated the conflict between you and them, placing you firmly in the wrong. Mugger might have to pay your estate, but you'll have to pay all the others. But then again, what do you care? You're vapor anyway, beyond the help of medical science. Perhaps you might have been saved from the gunshot, but certainly not the nuke.

It's not opinion, it's fact. If I have a gun out, loaded, and pressed to your head with my finger on the trigger, I can kill you without you having a chance of defending yourself. If I have a nuclear bomb armed and ready to go off at the press of a button, I can kill everyone in range of the blast without the chance of them defending themselves. That makes them equivalent.

No, they're not at risk, as I just explained, you are threatening them.
And no, you're not defending your family by shooting him. You're attacking him. He is not pointing his gun at your family. Your family is running around on his shooting range.

No, numbnuts. Let me restate that: never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. That's the most basic rule of firearm safety. You can't say "screw those rules" and expect me to take anything you say seriously.


Yes, indeed. When the liability of a negligence claim goes up, I most certainly expect that the sellers will do more extensive checks.

1) That's not for you to decide. I'll go to heaven. So will granny so it's not really a problem, but the robber or his estate should pay restitution anyway.

2) Says you. What makes your opinion the right one?

3) Again, says you. They're at risk yes, but I'm willing to take that risk.
I'm defending my family by shooting him, so he's the aggressor and I'm the defender, right. Why should I be held liable for defending my family. Don't I have that right?

4) Why do you have to assume that? Screw those rules. You can't tell me what to do. Your perception makes it a threat, not the action in itself.

5) Like how you trust the private sellers of handguns never to sell to a criminal? Heh, good one. But I'm sure the sellers ethics improve when there's more money involved.

Glad you finally saw reason. He can't do that if he's atomized, and you can't receive it if you are. Nukes are a horrible self-defense weapon.

A bomb is not a threat. An armed bomb is. Just like a gun is not a threat until it is pointed at someone and ready to fire. An armed bomb is equivalent to a gun pointed at everyone within range of the blast.

No, you are threatening people. You have an armed bomb, so anyone within range of the blast is threatened by that weapon. Again, you are more than welcome to have such a device, so long as you keep it far away from anyone or anything that might be harmed by it, or else keep it disarmed while around them. As to what you should do, use your judgment. I am not responsible for your actions, only you are. Understand, though, that you may be held liable for causing him harm, if you act to prevent him from firing.

But people are not psychic, so if you point a loaded firearm at people, you have to expect them to assume you intend to shoot. Rule one of firearm safety is: Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. So if you are following firearms safety, you intend to shoot the person you point a gun at. That makes it a threat.


You're right, governments should not have nuclear bombs. they're far too dangerous to trust to such insane organizations. I'm glad we could come to that agreement. I trust the private sellers of nuclear bombs to vet their customers properly before selling them, and not sell to anyone with ties to governments, or other terrorist organizations.

1) No granny doesn't deserve to get hurt. The mugger should pay restitution.

2) Where's the threat? Please explain why a bomb is a threat but a gun isn't.

3) And I'm using mine as I see fit. No problem then, right? I'm not threatening people. I put them at risk, at their property. Something that's perfectly OK according to you. And you still haven't answered my question about how I should act. Shoot him or wait for restitution.

4) Still not buying it. Being prepared isn't the same as threatening. Having a gun out, even pointing it at people isn't threatening them unless I ask something from them, or have an intent to shoot. I imagine elderly people doing this to compensate for them being slower to react. No law against being prepared, right? How to figure out intent is another matter. I imagine that the "National coalition of elders" puts out a pamphlet or something explaining why elders walk around with a finger on the trigger.
I'm the one believing that democracy is a good thing remember. That means a collective decision about how to use parks, and it includes restrictions even on private property.

5) Just answer the question.
But I'll answer yours just the same. I'd prefer that nobody had them, yes. But there's accountability when most governments have them, something that can't be said for individuals. Nukes in the hands of Pakistan is a nightmare, far worse then Iran imho.
I do think groups can acquire them now actually. That's why I want stricter control and people who take these dangerous toys away from people who shouldn't have them.

The US government is no longer a government of the people.  It's a government of the corporations and control freaks (read: power elite) of the world.  Time and time again out of control governments strip their citizens of the right to bear arms, and then slaughter them.

The most horrendous crimes of humanity have been done by governments against an unarmed population.

Do you trust your government?  You shouldn't.

M

I'll accept this argument when you tell me what granny down the street did to you to deserve you fighting back against her. To say nothing of the rest of the people in range of the blast.

No, he shot a man (though I use that term loosely). You, on the other hand built (or bought) and armed a nuclear weapon and carried it into a city. And it's not risk, it's a threat. That's the difference.

It's a public park. which means that it is his property, too. He's just using his property as he sees fit. You, on the other hand, are bringing a device which can kill indiscriminately onto someone else's property, and using it to coerce your safety out of him. The target shooter may be putting the other people using their shared property at risk, but you are directly threatening people, on their property.

I never said he was. I said you were threatening people. And by carting around an armed nuke, that is exactly what you are doing, threatening people. I am being consistent. You are the one suggesting that property rights change depending on who owns the property.


What do you expect to be the result to be by giving such power to your local government?

EDIT: And if you think such a group can't acquire one now, you gotta be nuts.

Indeed, you have removed the uncertainty. You've drawn your gun, and pointed it at the skull of everyone in range of the explosion, simply by being there with an armed nuclear device. I'm sure you can see how that will lose you friends. And while a threat is not harm, it is aggression. You do not have the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person. This is known as the Non-aggression principle, and it is the guiding concept of libertarianism.

But it is your problem, because it's not collateral damage. it's the bomb doing it's job. You nuke a city because a mugger shot you, it's not his fault that you killed everyone else in range.

Stay off public land, then, and stay in privately owned parks, where the owners are intent upon it remaining a park, and not being used as a shooting range. Public property is public property. You cannot stop someone from using their property in whatever manner they desire.

Again, you're threatening the use of physical force upon completely innocent strangers. That is the harm.

Yup.
[/quote]

1) No I haven't. It's aggression to fight back? I thought that was defense. I haven't initiated anything.

2) I still think that the eventual deaths is a direct result of the muggers actions, not mine. And besides, it's just risk, not real harm. Until there is, but that's not my problem either. I'm vapor by then. Probably. Who knows.

3) But it is a park. Built as a park. Everyone but one has the intent of keeping it a park. He's waving a rifle around, preparing to shoot. Can I  shoot him back first? And wait what? He can shoot his rifle and that's fine but I can't carry my armed nuke around, because you consider that a threat? Either he's a threat to everybody in that park, or I'm not with my nuke. Make up your mind. Neither of us intend to kill anyone. We might put others at risk, but hey... you know the song.

4) See rifle shooting guy in park above. Earlier he wasn't harming anyone, but now he is? Or I'm not. Please be consistent.

5) What do you expect the result to be by giving such power to your local supremacist group, Al-quaeda or similar organization?

Indeed, you have removed the uncertainty. You've drawn your gun, and pointed it at the skull of everyone in range of the explosion, simply by being there with an armed nuclear device. I'm sure you can see how that will lose you friends. And while a threat is not harm, it is aggression. You do not have the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person. This is known as the Non-aggression principle, and it is the guiding concept of libertarianism.

But it is your problem, because it's not collateral damage. it's the bomb doing it's job. You nuke a city because a mugger shot you, it's not his fault that you killed everyone else in range.

Stay off public land, then, and stay in privately owned parks, where the owners are intent upon it remaining a park, and not being used as a shooting range. Public property is public property. You cannot stop someone from using their property in whatever manner they desire.

Again, you're threatening the use of physical force upon completely innocent strangers. That is the harm.

Yup.

1) Assuming you get your gun out. I've taken out the uncertainty. You will lose a fight with me. We both will. You can never win. A threat is not harm. Where's the harm? Threat is also highly subjective.

2) Why proportional force? Where's the rule saying that? You you wish to give the robber a possibility of success? Read Sun-Tsu, he's not a proponent of proportional force either. Yes, there's a risk of collateral damage. Not my problem.

3) We're back to intended use then. Something you were a proponent of earlier iirc. And for the question you ignored. My family IS leaving, it's just that they're not out yet. And he's going to shoot NOW. So, what are my options? He will not listen to my plea.

4) Where's the harm? And that's your opinion. I don't see it like that. Who's correct? Who gets to decide?

5) Thanks Cpt Obvious. I think we all know what a nuke does. Everyone should be allowed to wield that much destructive power in case they want to take up astroid mining?

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.  Many experts disagree.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/guns_home_defense.htm

In the end of course,  folks paranoid of armed murderous robbers in body armor they have to shoot in the dark strike me as the type more likely to end up accidentally hurting a family member.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

Maybe if your threats are at long range.  Inside a building or at close range (much more likely scenarios for robbery) and you are going to want the handgun because of the advantages in mobility.  

And bottom line, just easier to carry.  You aren't patrolling Baghdad, you can afford to compromise.

Oh, Rarity, you're not doing yourself any favors by ignoring this question, you're just proving me right.

I do not believe that such a process is actually legal.  I'm gonna need a link on that.    First off, I do not believe policeman can "own" fully automatic weapons.  They are treated as any other citizen under these laws.  They may be issued one by a department but they do not own it and can not sell it. Second, it is my understanding that no fully automatic manufactured after 1986 can enter the legal market as per FOPA.  I'd be interested if you could provide links to show otherwise.


They are at least as effective as a semi-auto and they have that flexibility to go full auto in the unlikely even you actually needed to.  Otherwise they are bad tools for most purposes other than fighting a battle.  The ban is so effective gun control advocates have had to resort to a lot of false scare mongering about semi-autos to try and make them out to be "Machine Guns" or give them scarier names like "Assault Weapons". (and I say that as someone in favor of gun control)  If fully automatics were actually out there on the streets, believe me you would be hearing about it.  

Sorry for being unclear. I got into this thread because I was interested in how effective the "ban" on automatic rifles really is. From what you are saying you think they are poor tools anyway.

Furthermore, the 'ban' on importation or manufacture of full-auto weapons are, in fact, not a complete ban.  There are exceptions, some of them notable.  For example, a FN P-90 is on my wishlist, but falls under the aforementioned importation ban.  Except for policemen.  But once it's been imported for a cop, and said cop has owned it for a period of time (2 years, IIRC) then a standard Class III transfer & ATF tax stamp is all that is required for that cop to sell that firearm to any other citizen with the correct permit to buy one.  I won't claim that this happens often, because it most certainly does not, but there have to be some guys buying up such guns (perhaps for an additional "private pension" fund?) because P-90's are available in the US, apparently legally.

Now, I don't know how many states limit their policemen in this regard.  I've no doubt that it's a non-starter in California.  But it is an exception to the ban, so there is no ban.  If there is an exception, then it's not (economicly speaking) a ban.  If the demand is high enough, the exceptions become the rule and then the ban is meaningless political drivel.

I don't quite follow how you got back to modding.  A modified semi-auto is not particularly useful for a criminal or collector.  There isn't really a market there.  

Handguns are the best weapon for criminals.  Even for mass murderers, killers with handguns who know what they are doing have put up comparable kill rates to killers armed with semi-automatic rifles.  

For crimes such as robbery you want to steal stuff and not get caught, not kill people.  For criminal use the attributes you want are an easily concealable but still an extremely effective, reliable, and relatively easy to use weapon.  They prefer handguns for the same reason people prefer them for self-defense.

A black market modified rifle of unknown reliability and large size that will spray bullets everywhere in the mode you modified it for is not a good choice.  

I was talking about the modding not importing. I wonder how often the police even check to see if this has occurred. Like you I don't think its important enough to search out.


Anyway, why? Because you think it will price them out of the range of the common criminal?