Judith on 2/6/2016 at 08:29
Yeah, I experienced violence more than several times, and never got any use of those years of karate classes I've taken. No training will prepare you for what happens in the middle of the night, with several thugs harassing some poor guy that looked "too gay" to them. Only in such situations you can see that you're not cut for it. Your hands get shaky, your scared stare betrays you, and they notice it. Because you were educated in a nice society, that prepared you to think of consequences of your actions. And this is good, that's how most people behave. Such guys have "advantage" over you, as they will glass you in the face, and think of what they did only when arrested. If you don't have "street smarts", no amount of firepower will help you. And I don't want to have street smarts, it's not a goal to have.
Still I don't have any problem with cops carrying firearms, it's both the training, and much higher possibility that they will use it in a real situation - and then live with it, if they kill someone. Unfortunately, that's their line of work. Also, that's one of the pillars of democratic society as well, the so-called social contract. Obviously, legal systems are far from being perfect, but, as of now, there is no better alternative. Introducing gun laws, especially in such backward country as mine, would probably equal mob law, and "hey, we can lynch people again!" attitude.
faetal on 2/6/2016 at 09:00
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
The gun ONLY comes out in a kill or be killed situation.
Unless the person opposite you already has their gun out, or you somehow read their mind and got yours out first pre-emptively, which probably just gives them incentive to get theirs out where they may not have.
I've been in many violent encounters (the UK is a pretty violent place) and I thank fuck I never had a gun for any of them. Largely because if I had, it would have been likely they would too and rather than a concussion or a fracture, I'd instead be looking at something far worse.
Tony_Tarantula on 2/6/2016 at 17:35
Quote Posted by nicked
Preeeetty sure if you have a gun in any situation, you're more likely to die.
That's great you feel that way. Do you have anything to back that up or do you just believe it because its "obvious"?
Nicker on 2/6/2016 at 19:25
A little worried about bringing ideas to a gun fight but here goes:
So here's a scenario. You are at the local movie theater, enjoying the latest super-hero explosion fest, when there are several genuine explosions in the theater itself. Flash-bangs. Mingled with the gunshots on the soundtrack are live shots from within the theater. Someone yells "shooter" so you retrieve your trusty sidearm, lock and load, then scan for targets in the now smoke filled room.
A man in black fatigues and flack-vest, with POLICE emblazoned across it, is crouched in your aisle, exchanging fire with several shooters across the room. Some of your seat mates engage the policeman's targets. Bullets from everywhere whizz past your head as more guns appear, adding their muzzle flashes to the flickering light from the screen.
You crouch and raise your weapon...
...who ya gonna shoot?
heywood on 2/6/2016 at 20:07
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I wonder what people here think of this potential policy. This is one of the proposals that the firearm advocacy group that I am a member of has drafted.
(
https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-10-concealed-or-open-carry/)
I like this group because their platform is to educate the public in all matters regarding firearms, since honestly, most people don't know much about them, and in Canada especially, don't know what the laws are unless they are a firearms owner.
If you really are interested in it at all, I suggest reading all of their policies along with the rationale behind each one. Remembering this is Canada, not the USA or some parts of Europe.
The policy proposal seems reasonable enough to me, but the rationale is weak. The box labeled "Policy" is just an assertion. The box labeled "Rationale and Discussion" is actually the policy statement. What's missing is the rationale to back up the assertion that concealed carry provides a significant benefit to society. It doesn't say what the benefit is or how concealed carry would provide it.
I think you can get a lot of people to understand there are some circumstances and professions where carrying is justified for your own personal protection, like if you're a bail bondsman or repo man. Beyond that, I think it's pretty hard to make a case that you are providing a benefit to the rest of society by carrying a concealed firearm. To me, that is synonymous with claiming that being armed makes you capable of acting as a law enforcement officer.
nicked on 2/6/2016 at 20:37
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
That's great you feel that way. Do you have anything to back that up or do you just believe it because its "obvious"?
Do we really need to dig up statistics about how mental America is and how you're shooting each other at such a rate that the rest of the world is questioning what we should do with your continent once you've all died out from gunshot wounds? I'll go with the simple fact that a gun is a deadly weapon designed to kill people. You introduce it into any situation, chance of death increases. Luckily I live in a sane country where we aren't allowed, and strangely enough, don't feel the need, to carry murder implements around with us, but I know if I did have a gun pointed at me, the last thing I'd ever want to do is aggravate the gunman further by stressing him out with my own gun.
Frankly, even if I somehow knew that I could get the upper hand and take the guy out, I wouldn't want a murder on my conscience. Death, anyone's death, is never a good solution to any situation.
But I think Jim Jefferies puts it best:
[video=youtube;0rR9IaXH1M0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0[/video]
scumble on 2/6/2016 at 21:57
I also enjoyed (
https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4) part 2
I'm not sure this thread will go far beyond trading opinions still. Too many simplified statements. I expect you'll ignore me and carry on...
faetal on 2/6/2016 at 23:47
Even if you're right, the trading of opinions can be useful - you never know when someone might say something which changes your mind a little. It might happen weeks after they said it.
I think the situation in the US is pretty much irreversible at this point anyway. Too many guns out there, no way to get them all handed in with the "from my cold, dead hands" headcases and any form of forced confiscation would (a) be punctuated with mass shootings and stand-offs and (b) be asymmetrically in favour of illegal / unregistered weapons. That said, making them illegal would mean that anyone found with one (local police often know who to stop and search) can be arrested and charged without having to have committed a violent crime first.
I think the biggest point for me is the society one - anyone thinking they should have the right to be armed is extending that right automatically to violent or unhinged people who just haven't been identified yet. Literally creating the very scenarios you then need guns to feel protected from. I'm sure this all seems normal from within the US, but from the outside looking in, it seems nuts.
nicked on 3/6/2016 at 05:53
The US attitude toward guns never ceases to amaze me, just because it is so unique to the US. Nowhere else in the world would anyone ever suggest that you could stop mass shootings if more people had guns, because... well... duh!? But somehow that seems to be a fairly common opinion in America. Yet to an outsider to that warped gun fetish culture, it makes as much sense as saying you could stop wildfires by putting a flamethrower in every home.
Ryan Smith on 3/6/2016 at 11:16
All that matters in a situation where a gun is needed: Who has it and who doesn't?
You won't have time to worry whether or not it's illegal; if you've got one pointed at your face, best you do something about it.
