I'm eagerly awaiting the victor in this fascinating battle of standard deviations, bravado, and cluelessness.
Casey, I was being very sarcastic on this aside. If you want me to fully explain the route I was taking (i.e where you get less and less in shape as you mow less and less, therefore taking more and more time), some might consider it belittlement.
I have the "protect the lives of others" as in your argument with deadly force. This doesn't apply at all to citizens arrest. Totally irrelevant and lazy try.
Hmm, not sure why you consider mowing a lawn physical exercise and thus directly responsible to my health condition. Have you ever mowed a lawn? Been in houston during the summer?
... Are you trying to argue that a private citizen is equivalent to a law enforcement officer, or should be treated as such? Or that the average citizen encounters as many life-threatening instances as someone trained to for these instances, and specifically sent out to deal with them? Well, if you are, there you go.
No but you are now trying to walk away from your distinction that the reason I should have inferior equipment because I am not entrusted to save the lives of others I assume? Including robbery rape etc. To you second point I argue the possibility of encountering the situation is irrelevant. If that argument was valid rich people in low crime areas would have less rights than those in high crime areas. My life is worth the same as a police officer no matter what the likelihood of encountering a deadly force situation.
Uh yes, it's very valid, because it's written in most state laws (except for North Carolina, but there you go) that private citizens have different rights than law enforcement officers in that they can be held personally liable and criminally liable for doing law enforcement work (i.e being entrusted to look out for others on a regular basis). You weigh the cost/benefit of giving high-powered weapons to trained professionals who are sent out to enforce the law vs. mostly untrained public citizens who should have no business looking for these situations and I think you find very different measurements there. It's why the distinction exists for citizens' arrest; the vast majority of citizens will never need to be put in that situation. The same applies for situations where high-powered weapons are required. I can't even fathom a situation where a high-powered weapon outweighs the cops coming in 8 minutes. The only two off the top of my head are if the cops are illegally entering your premises, but then you'll just end up as a dead you with a dead cop or two. The second is if the friggin Zombie apocalypse happens.
If I use deadly force to prevent the rape or murder of someone it isn't law enforcement work. It is however specifically a legal usage of deadly force. So the difference now is training? Because "looking for these situations" just falls back to expectation value of being in the situation. If the only difference is training I assume you support any trained individual to have full rights? You don't really think about these scenarios very often though correct? No training or mental energy used in understanding how the best survival rate is attained I assume. That's fine and understandable, but please don't mistake your understandable ignorance with lack of truth.
Casey, unless you're Dexter, the first is not going to happen. If it does, I urge you to restrain the perp and then call the cops. You can be held liable for being judge, jury and executioner. Do I particularly think it's a great idea for cops to have high-powered weapons either? No. But I think it's a hell of a lot more valid than private citizens having them. So your study isn't the greatest comparison, because you're definitely comparing apples to oranges.
No, I find my life is better without me imagining OK Corral death scenarios for myself, but to each their own.
Again I don't own guns and was just using 'you' to make the conversation go easier. Also, you can be held liable for any scenario, most assuredly where someone dies. Restraining someone might work or might not. The best idea is to use the method that has the best rate of success depending on the situation Yet you haven't differentiated them in any way I see as valid. Training, other people's safety and probability just don't seem morally reasonable. Which brings me to the post earlier. This all falls down to how much someone believes in the right to self defense on the margin. Exactly, so your inability to imagine is really not significant. Those that don't have to imagine have certain tools.
huh. Never thought the right to self-defense extended to other people's safety. Neighborhood vigilantism doesn't tend to do so well these days. Okay, I actually have no idea where this is going, especially as you keep on reminding people in this thread that you hold no guns.
The government entrusts regular citizens the right to protect other people (and sometimes property) with deadly force. When did I suggest the right of self defense to justify any sort of vigilantism? My overall point was this argument always breaks down to the core fundamental disagreements on the right to self defense which I have found tends to be the reason why two people don't agree on gun control. I am just responding to you saying you "can't even fathom a situation where a high-powered weapon" by suggesting that is expected. You probably can't even fathom a situation where I "need" a lawnmower that cost several times the one they sell at the local store. You've never really thought about it. Which is fine, just pay someone.
FB said most situations fall under a certian number. I just wanted to know what that number is and how many fall above it. Very reasonable because it leads into discussion of what happens in those cases. Military seems reasonable because they fight wars. Police? It isn't noble at all. Rights cost lives all the time. We could go iRobot on everyone and greatly enhance public safety. Curfews under the law of "nothing good ever happens after midnight" could have saved lives every night. It infringes on rights.
This is better. As you say it comes down to rights. Any type of restriction cuts down on rights. Whether it be taxes, zoning, city ordinances preventing watering at certain hours, or even the inability to purchase an deploy AP landmines on your own property. In terms of the hierarchy of rights, the ability to own a semi-automatic rifle seems exceedingly low on the totem pole, while the absolute right to own a gun in general is a bit higher. I personally do not believe the right to acquire a semi-automatic rifle outweighs the rights of say (guessing) maybe the 4 of people who could have survived if the shooter had not had access to weaponry with such killing power. Nor do I believe that the right to self defense is sizably diminished because you cannot purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Just like I value the right to self-defense and bodily integrity of those people who wish to own guns, I value the right to self defense of those extra people who would likely not have died if the guy had been shooting with say a personal handgun. Of course this is somewhat speculative, we can never know exactly how many less people the shooter would have killed had he walked in there with just a handgun, we can only trust articles like the ones you linked which tell us that: Handguns are more appropriate for personal self defense in almost all situations encountered by the public unless you are being attacked by a large group of well-armed individuals and have time to prepare and go grab your semi-automatic rifle back at home. People don't typically carry around semi-automatic rifles for self defense. So, in my mind, the right to life of the individuals who died simply because this guy had access to a higher powered, more accurate, higher wounding power weapon in my mind trumps the right to simply have a semi-automatic rifle to go shoot at the local gun range on the weekends. Additionally, I fail to see how the inability to purchase semi-automatic rifles for personal use substantially impairs the right to self-defense for individuals because they would still have access to personal handguns. For those reasons, I am not in favor of allowing people to purchase semi-automatic rifles. So, that's how I see it. How do you balance the rights of the individuals with the right to own semi-automatic rifles?
Tide is turning against the gun lovers anyway, just keep lobbying against them it will be gone once the next president comes into office in 4-5 years. As long as that guy is a D rather than an R of course.
" Come At Me Bro " <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FV74rbgIsr8?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FV74rbgIsr8?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
If you are reducing rights on the margin you are foolish not to attack handguns which are involved in many more killings. You arer also foolish to include all semi-auto rifles but that is just par for the course on technical details right? You don't need to know them to tell me you need to limit rights. Handguns are also more appropriate for murders and are involved in more deaths than expensive and hard to conceal rifles. How could you see how you are substantially impairing someones right? You know nothing of guns or defense tactics. Your ignorance doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
