Guns and Nazi Teabaggers

Because it assumes increased government interference in and running of that system, thus making health care entirely publicly funded and run. Government would, in essence, control the means of production (ie the delivery of service).

ok?

To an extent, yes. I think people should also be prepared for the possibility of those political means to failing.

Which is completely off topic.

Then you have been completely ignoring what I have posted.

There is no maybe about it; I clearly don't back up your theories.

Problematic? Not in the slightest.

Again, we are getting completely off topic. Why is the south side of Chicago and Detroit so bad? Ghetto culture. Handout culture. The Government should do something culture. What would I do? Nothing. Its on the citizens of Chicago and Detroit to pull themselves out of the gutter. I have no ties to them.

 

Horrible comparison. I'm not a judge, but the kid that got shot wasn't even armed. There is also a police dispatcher recording where he claims he was following the guy. "Neighborhood watch" or not, I'd consider that hunting and not minding your own fucking business.

I am not ok with that shooting based on what I know about it, if that's what you are asking.

 

If you want. Like I said, I have a concealed weapons permit but don't carry much. I have a gun in my car a lot of the time, though.

You need some context. Where I live, if someone forcibly enters your home or car - forcibly is defined as using enough force to open the door - there is a legal presumption that they intend to inflict death or great bodily harm and the use of lethal force is justified. It also gives you immunity from civil liability. So essentially, all you have to deal with are the moral or emotional ramifications if shooting could have been avoided. And this is all assuming you aren't breaking the law at the time.

On the street carries a much greater responsibility. If someone is attacking you with fists, you can't just shoot them. You have to feel an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and a jury has to agree it was a reasonable belief if it were to go that far. You can end up in prison with manslaughter or aggravated assault charges for even displaying a firearm improperly. Basically, they better have a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon. The other justifiable use of deadly force is stopping a forcible felony, or an imminent forcible felony.

Carrying heat is not only a big responsibility on the street, but I find it annoying. I live at the beach not really a place you need to be strapped. I carry if I'm going into a bad area for whatever reason. Sometimes the movies ever since that Colorado thing. I don't really worry. I'm 6'1 215 lbs and I can fight very well.

As far as home, I don't sit here thinking I NEED a gun. I want guns, I also like to exercise my American rights. I will say though, that a gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, it's gonna be the last time you need one.

 

Deviate

Again you are the man that just keeps giving to my theory, please carry on.

A parachute was designed to save lives its name means "that which protects against a fall."

Guns were designed to kill and maim people. They can be used for fun or recreation but their function is as a weapon.

I think part of the problem (as my theory explains) is that many pro-gunners don’t see the difference.

*

I know of no-one that boards a commercial flight with their own parachute, people do use them for recreation but they take them with them specifically for that and then they have to arrange to go up high they don’t have a parachute around ‘just in case’ their house suddenly decides to break the law of gravity.

*

it's gonna be the last time you need one again the fear factor – that if you don’t have a gun you are going to die.

Why are there ‘bad areas’ and wouldn’t it be better not to have such ‘bad areas’ that you are so frightened of that you feel you need to have a gun to protect you if you go there?

 

Sig

But if it is beneficial to people and alleviates suffering why not want it? I mean the NHS is I believe a better system (and cheaper) than the present US system. It has its problems mainly due to neoliberal tinkering over the last few years but for example it does cover 100% of the British population whereas US public healthcare currently only covers about 83 million (around 28% of the US population) although that I believe might change.

No as I’ve said before part of my theory is that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society.

No and that’s the problem I have read what you’ve said and I haven’t seen the explanation you claim to have produced, so can you actually point to it please?

As I say I don’t know yet

Again you are just telling me I’m wrong, but other than that you don’t seem able to explain why you think of some of your weapons as ‘just in case’ guns.

 

Sig

As I’ve already pointed out these things are very important in any gun debate, because they get to the heart of why many people seem to be pro-gun and why it seems to go along with certain attitudes toward tackling social problems. I mean seeing a problem and deciding to do nothing about it.

You have no ties to them? Are they fellow citizens are they not fellow human beings?

Ghetto culture..

I’m unsure what you mean by ghetto culture, the original ghetto was an area of Venice were the Jewish had to live, since then it has usually come to refer to a part of a city which is inhabited by members of minority group. I’ve even heard reference to ghettos of wealth and middle class ghettoes, I mean a gated community is if you think about it the ultimate ghetto, and I guess such places have their own cultures, but I’m presuming here you are referring to poor areas. Those as you put it that are in the gutter.
But my question would be why not get them out of the gutter?

Handout culture

I discovered in a recent thread that there is a widespread belief on the right that those seeking assistance are on the whole lazy scroungers, who just take handouts rather than work. But as I discovered a lot of people seeking assistance are working, even working full time and others want to work.

I mean in the last thirty years or so wealth has vastly increased its riches while the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes have on the whole stagnated or fallen. And with many jobs being outsourced.

The financial crash made that bad situation worse for those middle and lower classes groups. It seems to me that what some on the right are trying to do is shift middle class blame onto the ‘scrounging grasshoppers’ in a classic game of divide and rule.
To me it would be actually better to fix things.

The Government should do something culture

But if something has gone wrong shouldn’t you also be asking the government to do something?

Its on the citizens of Chicago and Detroit to pull themselves out of the gutter.

Again there seems to be the implication that it’s ‘their’ fault. That if ‘they’ just stopped being ‘lazy’ they could get out of the gutter, but since they have not they probably deserve to be there so why should anything be done.

 

Ok, now I'm really starting to believe you have a mental deficiency. If you can't understand how guns can save the lives of innocents then I have nothing to say to you. If you don't understand why there are bad areas and will be bad areas regardless of what the gov't does, I have nothing to say to you.

Keep frolicking around in your land of care bears. Also, keep your day job because your theories suck. Oh wait - you are probably on government assistance and don't even work, my bad I forgot you're a passionate supporter of big government (with weapons) and socialist/communist ideals. Have a good time basking in your conflicted ideology, I'm done talking to you.

 

Because I believe it is beyond the scope of government and, in the long run, is detrimental to the country.

And yet I, as a gun owner, am not ignoring social problems within my community. Indeed, quite the opposite; I am very active in mine.

As to why I have "just in case" guns? I have said this before, but I suppose I can say it again; I have just in case guns in the event that there is a break down in society and I become ultimately responsible for my own safety.

This isn't a case of you not knowing. This is a case of you not wanting to believe what I have posted. There is a difference.

I have explained it again and again and again. I've been very blunt. You don't think my reasoning valid, and that is fine. You're being dishonest in claiming you were never told however.

 

They are at the heart of your theory as to why people seem pro-gun. I am a living, breathing example of how your theory is flawed.

They happen share citizenship with me. Does that make me feel a sense of loyalty or responsibility to them? No. I'll protect them from outside, foreign threats. Other than that, I owe them nothing.

Why can't they get themselves out of the gutter?

Those "lazy scroungers" are very, very real. In my experience they are quite common. Are there people busting their ass and working full time? Yes.

I grew up in the lower middle class, and am currently considered middle class. My wealth has done nothing be increase since I left my parents and lived on my own. Nothing is as black and white as you would believe, Balbus.

Agreed. We differ in terms of how to fix those things.

But where does it end? Should government fix all your problems, no matter how much that problem is of your own making? I don't think so.

I believe, in most cases, they have no one but themselves to blame.

 

I have heard of "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat".
Although it isn't written into law so directly - I believe the same premise is evident within our laws too.
Such circumstances certainly are taken into consideration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19727222
I'm unsure if it would be the same in an urban setting rather than a rural setting.
The "Stand Your Ground" law does seem too much like a black and white green light to shoot a burglar.
I appreciate no home-owner would know if the burglar was ready to flee or fight - but to just presume the worst and let the home-owner shoot first and ask questions later does seem a little like the home-owner gets to be Judge/Jury and potentially executioner all in a very short space of time.
Although, the "Stand Your Ground" and the right to defend your property - seemingly gives you that right.
I guess if the burglar is aware it is a straight forward as that - it works as a warning and as a deterrent.
A rather violent one at that.
Perhaps that logic works better in the US.
Although you may say that justifies having a gun at home - I'm not quite sure it is enough to transfer the same principle here.
Conversely I can't say our attitude would work in the US.
I would prefer our way to be used over in the US.

Do you think it isn't the same as a home-invasion because more people would be shot and killed?

Both you and Siq seem like reasonable and fair people.
I don't think I'd convince you to give up your gun(s) and swap it for a burglar alarm any time soon
At the end of the day, you seem to want to have a gun because you can, too.

 

I think Balbus is well aware of the idea of self-protection, and good an bad areas etc etc. It just seems like he is just vehemently apposed to people owning guns to shoot other citizens.

To be fair, I do think his theory has some merit to it - but I do think he wishes to apply it to every gun owner - well, enough for him not to give you and siq any credit for being unfearful reasonable level headed people.
I wouldn't bite his bait.

You keep falling into my theory you are tarring all gun owners with the same brush.

 

Here's the last mass shooting murderers...

 

Gun control defined: the idea that people who disobey laws against rape, murder and robbery will obey laws about firearms ownership.

It is a self-evidently absurd proposition. That does not of course mean that reasonable regulation isn't a good idea, it clearly is, provided the ever diminishing resources of law enforcement are not chasing the tails of lawful firearms owners while ignoring more serious and dangerous criminality.

Larry Niven wrote a series of SF books about a future where all knowledge of the fighting arts- boxing, karate, tae kwon do, gung fu (wushu) savate and so on- were completely outlawed. A pointless rule, because it was disobeyed, and those who obeyed it were materially disadvantaged. The principle is the same, however, as the banning of guns-it can never achieve its goal.

Even The Simpsons showed that a dude with a nail in a piece of wood could be lethal.

 

I've done enough drugs in my time to know those people are fucked up on pills. And just fucked up in general.

 

That picture is seriously disturbing. But a great point. And great post greengreengrass. Our society is in a sad state..

 

Oh Deviate have I told you how much I love you, I mean with every word you back me up 100% its lovely and I thank you for it - oh and it’s so funny watching you trying to be clever, its like watching a puppy trying to bite a ball that’s too big for its mouth.

But wouldn’t it be better to live in a society that didn’t frighten you so much? Your posts are peppered with fear you will be broken into, fear of attacked, fear of raped and fear of being killed, your head is full of these possible scenarios and the only thing that seems to give you comfort is the idea that you have a gun, so if needs be you can be the one to maim or kill.

That seems to fit in with the theories I’ve presented now so far (other than just telling me I’m wrong) nobody has put up any argument that refutes what I’m pointing out.

So you would do nothing? Again this attitude is in my theory.

 

Sig

Why? So how would you arrange healthcare?

While seemingly ignoring or dismissing problems elsewhere. From what I’ve gleamed so far you seem to be a comfortably off well middle class person who lives in a nice stable community. But that you also seem to think that most people that are on assistance are lazy scroungers and deserve to be in what you call the gutter.

As I’ve said I’m still not sure

Yes you fear these things so much that you have two ‘just in case’ buns and wish to have three ‘just in case’ guns, one of which is in a safe by your bed that you know you can open in five seconds. I mean if you didn’t fear them why would you even think of these guns as for ‘just in case’ and why have one in a bedside safe you know you can open in five seconds?

I’m glad is has, did you go straight into the government job or was that later?
Is also interesting that once again it about you, the individual, it is not the polity, it is you. I talk of the polity, but you reply about you.

I’ll ask again how would you fix things?

So you are not even going to try and have a better society?

How do you know these peoples problems are of their own making, are you once again implying that you think most people in hardship are there because they are lazy scroungers?

Oh it seems you do

 

Green

Nothing of the sort,

To repeat - I’m not against the law abiding and responsible people owning a gun

But according to the FBI virtually all the guns in criminal hands were once purchased legally but then sold on or stolen.

So how responsible is it to have guns around that could be easily stolen?

Once again I ask - Do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals

I know the default answer for many is simply – that can’t be done – but please would they go beyond that - do they want guns out of the hands of the criminal and irresponsible?

And if so how far are they willing to go to achieve that?

Again this is what I term as the natural born killers argument.

This seems to be the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens - that they’re so violent and murderous that they just want to kill, kill, kill. That its not guns that count for the high level of murders but the murderous nature of Americans, that the same amount of carnage would go on because Americans are so much more bloodthirsty than other people.

When you think your fellow citizens are like that it is no wonder that so many Americans are so frightened.

But why do they think that is it true?

Are Americans truly that different than other people, so much more violent and murderous?

Now if things are looked at in those terms (that Americans are murderous savages that are just waiting to kill people) then when crime figures are looked at they seem to back up that view.

For example

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons.

 

Ah statistics....so meaningless. I don't use them for these purposes, they are empty and lack context.

 

like i said gun control is like the war on drugs its obsolete