General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat's more important: The rights of living, breathing people to walk around with their lives…
Or the rights of others to have access to a vast array of firearms in order to gun them down?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)You're free to complicate your answer to compensate for the question's simplicity all you want.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)There needs to be a balance between the community's need to protect itself/themselves, and an individual's need to protect his/her selves. A simple set of questions for consideration regarding home defense:
- how dangerous is the area?
- how fast WILL the cops get there? (not can... WILL)
- how long will your existent barriers delay a criminal?
If it takes the police ten minutes, and your barriers will only stop the crook for three... you have a problem.
A firearm makes a nifty equalizer, if you aren't as big/tough/macho as a home intruder.
Personally, I think a shotgun with a "candy striped" load is more useful than an "assault rifle," but I've only my own humble experiences...
As to displays in public... that one gets even more into that balancing act I mentioned, and will depend on the community in question. I hang out with folks that hang 3 foot straight razors on a hip, and class H reloadable engines in their ruck sacks. I've never felt threatened.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)I take it that you agree with limiting the availability of certain types of firearms and ammo for civilian consumption… Especially, those types which have no other practical purpose other than to gun down living human beings?
Is that the correct tenor that I take from your answer?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Home defense usually deals with the possibility of "gunning down a living human being."
Do I see a need for full auto weapons in the home? not really, but that's MY choice. Some folks collect guns. I collect swords and rockets, and I'm pretty sure that some folks here would get bent out of shape over that. As long as my collection doesn't endanger someone outside my house, why should you care?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)like the "collections" of the newtown mom who's crazy son used her "collections" to gun down her and and 5 other adults and 20 children.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and not facing the reality of her son's illness.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)26 people dead, including her, because of her "collection."
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)BOTH pieces of this problem had to be there.
In my opinion, there wouldn't have been any problem, had the kid been under proper care (locked up).
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)How do we know you're not the next nutbag that's gonna snap and take out a Kindergarten class?
That's the point. There is NO way to know that now. It's a public safety issue. We DO need to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs. That's not happening now and there is currently NO MECHANISM for that to happen.
Do you agree that we should keep guns out of the hands of maniacs? If you do, then you support regualation and gun safety measures, because that is the mechanism to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs.
What if it's your "choice" to have a rocket launcher in your home? Should you be able to? Should you be able to booby trap the perimeter of your property with IED's to protect youself? Why not? That should be my 'choice' too, shouldn't it? Or do you believe there is a line that should be drawn? If you believe there should be a line, then the debate is about where to draw the line, not IF it should be drawn.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I DO have a "rocket launcher..."
I'm actively involved in Large Scale Model Rocketry and High Power Rocketry. I "roll my own," too...
This is one of the reasons I had stated earlier that I can't allow people with known mental illnesses into my shop. It's a safety issue. As to the rest of the idea of public safety, and your idea of booby trapping lawns...
May I suggest you not walk on my lawn without grounded clothing.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)So I guess it shouldn't be anyones business if I choose to keep weaponized anthrax and a suitcase nuke in my house either. It's merely how I choose to protect myself, right?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)not very non-violent of you.
1.) Yes, I DO have a "rocket launcher." Rotary drum 6 shot launcher for size H engine model rockets. Each engine can put out about 300 Newton-seconds of thrust. mounted on a tripod with an aiming rail.
2.) You immediately went from "...may I suggest grounded clothing, if you walk on my lawn" to suggesting I'd support you're having nukes. Electrifying parts of my lawn's not a weapon of mass destruction. My system won't effect you, unless:
-It's activated (It has to be turned ON. It is OFF by default.)
-you're trespassing
What gives you the right to trespass on my property?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)I want my suitcase nuke and it's none of YOUR damn business how I defend MY home, right? Weaponized anthrax, Grenade Launchers, Bazooka's, no one's business if those are the arms that i choose, right?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)to be blunt... when you make statements like yours, it cheapens what little argument you have.
So... back to that electric lawn of mine... what business is it of yours if my lawn could taser you? Do you feel you have the "right" to trespass?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Is that your criteria?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and what right do you have to trespass on my property?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)The rest of society can go fuck itself and has to live with other people's dangerous and possibly irresponsible activities? Dangerous things on your property can leave your property and do damage to people NOT on your property, especially if you are crazy, dangerous, irresponsible freak. But LIBERTEEE!!!!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)the dangerous things on my property DON'T leave my property. Why would you think that I'd leave them unsecured?
Why should you get to circumscribe my life? If the effects of my "dangerous things" end before the property lines, why should you have a say? How about my choice of indoor paint? should you have a say in that?
Why do you feel you have the "right" to trespass on my property? What warrants do you hold?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Unsecured? I have no idea why you might do that, but you might. Maybe you're a crazy loon who leaves things unsecured. Maybe one day you decide the local school needs be blown up, and then some dangerous things DO leave your property.
Why should anyone's life be circumscribed? I demand my right to napalm and Anthrax!!! You don't get to circumscribe MY life! I promise it will never leave my property!! Until it does.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)many people here to to have permanent visas with crazyland.
If we are going to play "the community gets to decide something about your life" then what stops said community from deciding a certain book doesn't belong? Or a person's choice of marriage partner? Or a particular religion?
On edit: and why do you feel threatened by my electrified lawn? If you don't trespass, you won't get zapped.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)About your life. The community gets to decide that you can't molest your kids, even in your own home. You can't build bombs, even in your own home, or cook meth, even in your own home, or sell drugs, even in your own home, and on and on, jeenyus. The community decided that your guns CAN be regulated, even if you keep them in your own home.
Only people divorced from reality think the community has no say in their life. And feel it's necessary to electrify their lawns.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) to encourage lawn growth
2.) to provide an extra method to stop trespassers
WHY do you feel you have the right to trespass on my property?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Got it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Do you feel the have the "right" to trespass on my property?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Activities and behavior regardless of location?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Skraxx
(2,970 posts)The answer to mine is that of course the community has the responsibility to regulate your behavior in any number of ways, regardless of location. This means, under certain circumstances, your property is subject to be entered without your permission.
That being said, I would suggest that perhaps you have much deeper issues to deal with than tresspassing if you are so delusionally paranoid that you feel its necessary to electrify your lawn. It wouldn't surprise me if people in your community refer to you as "that weirdo who electrifies his lawn".
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)but do YOU have the right to trespass on my lawn?
I obey local and state laws. As to my neighbors, they seem to enjoy the firework and arc show, each 4th of july. They bring the beer, and I bring the things that go zap
As to the delusionally paranoid bit... Isn't that an ad hominem attack? (never mind the fact that I've over half a million in rare books and tools...)
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)That's the point. Your behavior IS regulated. Do you receive a permit for your fireworks show? HOW DARE they circumscribe your life like that!
And oh, I have expensive things in my home too, yet somehow I don't feel it's necessary to booby trap my property in a manner that could cause severe bodily harm in order to protect those things. Yeah, I guess it's maybe it's your right (depending on the statutes in your area), but it's pretty weird if you ask my opinion on it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I abide by all laws in my city and state. I like my community enough that I am even attempting to make my shop-space "context sensitive to match the local community tone and style" as per the Town planning recommendations book. Hell, I've offered my local police substation a tour of my workspace and my library. (They declined.)
I regard my security planning as along the lines of having a fire extinguisher: I may not need it right NOW, but I'd rather have it than NOT have it when needed. I regard my library as very important.
Next question: under what circumstances do you feel YOU can trespass? Mind you, I'm not talking about Law Enforcement Personnel serving a warrant or dealing with exigent circumstances. I'm talking about YOU, Sraxx the civilian.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Since we're talking about communities imposing regulations and what those limits are.
Tell me how and why you think that's a relevant question.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)that's relevant.
Why do YOU feel YOU have the right to trespass?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Did I say that I feel I have a "right" to trespass? Where did I say that?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You stated that "under certain circumstances" you would feel a need to trespass.
What are those circumstances?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Nor did I bring up the topic of your electrified lawn, you did.
I said under certain circumstance I just might have the right to enter your property without permission, I never said I would NEED to. One instance would be if I were law enforcement. There are numerous circumstances under which law enforcement can enter your property without your permission.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)83. Under Certain Circumstances, Indeed, I Just Might Have That Right
You stated you might have that right...
I obey search warrants and exigent circumstances. I also would have my attorney present (he lives down the road...)
so what circumstances allow you the civilian to enter onto my property. You aren't law enforcement? Then I'd say you have a problem.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)I gave you the circumstances. Did I ever say that a civilian would have that right? You said that, not me.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Do tell...
You've heavily implied that you feel you have the "right" to trespass.
So, unless you have a warrant, or righteous exigent circumstances, I'd say you are getting zapped.
As I've stated, the only way someone could get hurt from the electric lawn, is if they were trespassing.
As there is a fence around the property, where's the harm?
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)I implied your property is subject to tresspass under any number of circumstances. Perhaps by ME personally if I was LE. Let's see where I implied I could just Willy nilly trespass. Maybe I'm LE, maybe I'm the queen England, what's the fucking difference? I'll still bust you on yr bullshit either way.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I stated that I had no problem with someone with a warrant or exigent circumstances - I'd also stated I'd have my attorney present.
If you aren't a cop, why should you be allowed to go onto my property without my permission? If you aren't one, I have the right to detain you, hence the electric lawn.
You seem to be getting bent out of shape about a simple method to stop trespassers.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)And are fixated on the idea that somehow you think I want to trespass on yr property. It's bullshit. The community has an obligation to regulate yr potentially dangerous behavior regardless of location. Period. You are the.one who brought up yr ridiculous.electrified lawn and I couldn't give a shit about it. Bit it is creepy.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)just pulling back the slide scares the shit out of people
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)that racking the slide also tells the criminal that you are planning to shoot them... they may figure they can get you before you can get them... Home intruders aren't always the best and the brightest...
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Neighbors that like me. My wife and I make salsa and soups for our neighbors. We also invite them to our 4th of July party.
2.) A good thick door, metal cored.
3.) A stack of marked bills at the door. Most of the "break-in, grab something, and run" crowd will be happy with that. The pro's will figure out that previous planning is involved, and walk away...
4.) An alarm system hooked to High-Intensity lights with a LOT of UV involved. It's hard for a crook to hurt what he can't see.
5.) 12ga with a candy-striped load...
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
sarisataka
(18,578 posts)that the right to keep and bear arms included a right to gun people down. I thought that was against some law or another. 
msongs
(67,394 posts)sarisataka
(18,578 posts)and especially their use- you are welcome
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)Would it?
sarisataka
(18,578 posts)but the broad brushes being used put me in the same picture as a mass murderer.
I support the EOs Obama has put forth, they should have been done long ago. Magazine limits is beginning to restrict my rights, but not in a significant way so I will abide by what ever law passes.
Proposals seen here as to regulate guns to a single shot is an unreasonable restriction, IMO.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)If it doesn't apply to you and specifies a particular action or behavior that you're not doing, then you're not painted in this picture, right?
sarisataka
(18,578 posts)1- if I have no plans to gun them down, then I should have access to a vast array of firearms. So you have no problems if I go out to get a nifty AR-clone, a half dozen doodads and widgets to help aim (and make it look cool) and say 10 30 round magazines so I won't have to reload while I am at the range.
2- because there are people out there who do have desires to gun people down, there needs to be across the board restrictions to a vast array of firearms for everyone, regardless of whether they are preforming the action or not...
If you are meaning there is a third option, I am missing it.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)or a .38 revolver, for gunning others down of course. Not just weapons that can sweep a street.
Gun manufacturers are the most concerned that as many types of guns are flooding our streets. They have money to make and they really don't care who gets shot and killed by their guns. The rest of us should be more concerned about stopping all of the violence.
There are lots of ways to stop gun violence, if we have the will and wherewithal to do it, right?
But whatever it takes to prevent gun deaths, by any kind of weapon out there, what's more important? The right to have access to any kind of weapon, or the rights of people to live without getting shot by those weapons.
sarisataka
(18,578 posts)Gun manufacturers have a vested interest in gun violence. Too much violence leads to strict regulation therefore reducing the market. OTH if there is no violence, there is no need for a self defense arm, eliminating the market. They need to tread a careful line between paranoia and anarchy.
There are ways to reduce gun violence as there are ways to reduce all violence. If we address the root causes of violence, logically gun violence should fall at approximately the same rate.
According to our current interpretation, people have a right to own guns as they also have a right to vote. As people have a right to vote, they also have a right to live. We do not totally eliminate a right in favor of another but we can balance them. It is the balance that is not easy. There are at least 40 different calibers in my reloading manual, all of them are lethal. There is no way to make any loaded gun not potentially lethal. To balance that we need to control the operator. We pass laws to restrict the use of guns- you can only legally shoot at a person in self defense.
I fully support keeping guns out of the hands that would misuse them. That is not a perfected science so we can only do our best on background checks and controlling methods of sales. Another possible way is to limit the lethality of firearms. Magazine limits may have some effect. I enjoy high capacity pistols for target shooting but could accept limits for the greater good. Bans based on cosmetic features do not affect the lethality so I do not support those measures. If a restriction can be geared towards a measurable factor in the lethality of a firearm, I would be willing to give it support.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Most who are gunned down are done so not with a weapon found in a "vast array," but with an ordinary handgun. Tens of millions of gun owners, on the other hand, will never gun down anyone. Your dichotomy, while perhaps not entirely a false one, is relevant only to a very small, narrowly-defined group.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You really even need to ask that question? People who "gun down" others illegally (we'll leave war out of this discussion...for better or worse, it's an entirely different subject) are generally considered to have a reduced set of rights. They're felons, ferchrissakes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)why are you proposing to violate the 'lesser' of these two rights?
EarthWindFire
(84 posts)believe that the 100 million gun owners in this country have guns solely for the purpose of "gunning" people down... Do you have any facts or information or anything to support such a ludicrous claim?
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)The question was specifically about people who shoot others and ONLY those people alone.
Now, the touchiness of your question's tone overlooks the specificity of second part of the question.
I never made that claim, you did.
Of course, this is nothing more than a tactic to avoid answering the question in the first place.
It's not like anyone can't see what you're doing.
EarthWindFire
(84 posts)This is your question
"What's more important: The rights of living, breathing people to walk around with their lives…
Or the rights of others to have access to a vast array of firearms in order to gun them down?"
Your question insinuates that the right of people to own firearms is for the purpose of gunning down people who are "living, breathing people"
And I also noticed how you said "The question was specifically about people who shoot others and ONLY those people alone." Do you expect only murderers to answer your question?
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)Over maintaining the access to vast privately owned arsenals, even by people who would commit gun violence, then there would be no need for the question in the first place.
EarthWindFire
(84 posts)Makes sense, you know if u would of posted that instead of that question, it would of made a lot more sense.
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)Would you like to walk around without worrying about things or would you rather walk around worrying that someone might harm you?
I'd have to say 99.9% of gun owners who walk around with a gun usually forget to worry about someone harming them and aren't reliable when something actually happens because their basic human instinct (running away) takes over.
Some people here say they'd face a shooter with no problem but I think that's complete and utter bullshite.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)The paranoia, in itself, is the primary problem for those folks.
Fear, hatred, bad intentions, all made more deadly with firearms.
Yes, we can address the weapons themselves… But without addressing the problems of fear, paranoia, hatred and bad intentions, we're only doing a half-assed job.
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)Where they train people for a month in concealed carry and put them in a situation that their training fails.
A lot of the gun carriers keep saying that the training is biased. I'm like, "Really? Do you always think about your gun and if someone might harm you?"
I've been in a situation where I've been so engrossed in an activity that someone throws something at me and it catches me by surprise. Playing sports, shopping etc are the same and I cannot imagine doing these activities AND worrying about someone coming in to shoot me.
So I think when people say they're mentally prepared, I don't think so. I'm educated in history but I had psychology and my psych professor said that it was bullshit as well. It's like driving and texting, I couldn't do both at the same time. People say they're good multi-taskers but I've found that in my so-called "multi-tasking" I'm good at doing things one at a time. It feels like I'm doing things at the same time but it's really one at a time in short spurts.
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)My rights under the first, fourth, fifth, fourteenth, and my right to privacy as found to exist by the SC in the Roe v Wade decision trumps any second amendment right absolutely as far as I am concerned.
I'm a man, with the same emotions, hopes, aspirations, and future as anyone else.
Guns are property.
People deserve to be elevated over the level of property. I believe we fought one war in our history to establish and uphold that principle.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)I don't know why it's so hard for a lot of other people to come to that conclusion in this argument.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)
especially since we've had columbine, newtown, aurora, etc, etc, etc. IF those situations had not happened, the question would be moot. but since they DID happen, and continues to happen, clearly the "right to life" for post-fetus humans is more important than the right to own weapons of mass destruction.
rivegauche
(601 posts)The amount of shrieking and pants-peeing from the right on this issue just beggars belief.
bluerum
(6,109 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)calimary
(81,201 posts)These are Weapons of Mass Destruction - in EVERY sense of the word!
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)
There is no right to massacre... that's why the cops show up and shoot the perpetrator, duh. 
The only right to massacre exists for the US government, it's leaders, and it's armies.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)because if you are NOT strictly controlling murderous weapons & ammunition you ARE allowing massacres to occur that otherwise would be much harder to pull off.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)a nutcase in the store this morning was talking about obama "taking away more of our rights." i said: "if we lose the "right" to kill 20 children in a school, that's a loss i can live with."
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Both rights can coexist. The right of the people to keep the guns (legally) is for preservation of life/liberty (self-protection). Others' right to personal safety is also secured in that murder & assault are ILLEGAL.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)unless the murder of 20 children in a school is what you consider collateral damage to preserve the right to own weapons of mass destruction.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)nukes, and weaponized virii.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)is a waspon of mass destruction.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)an assault rifle kills only those it's pointing at. A weapon of mass destruction everybody in the area.
That's the definition.
Logic and facts beat emotional rhetoric...
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)guns don't kill people is the most stupid line EVER. people with guns kills people, ergo guns kill people. i will ask you AGAIN: do you think it's "logical" to continue to accept mass murders committed by people with guns as collateral damage to maintain our INSANE lax regulation of guns?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Guns are nothing but a tool. A tool designed to kill, but a tool, nonetheless.
2.) I have no problems with tighter regulations.
3.) Take a breath once in a while...
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Must be bedtime, I suspect.
Coexistence has been statistically pretty decent, IMO. 30,000 annual gun deaths and 300,000,000+ million guns. That's less than 0.01% of guns being a problem.
Fact is that violent crime and gun crime has experienced a steady downward trend in the past 30+ years. You are stitastically safer today than ant any time in recent history. Period. Don't believe me? Look up the FBI Unified crime reports.
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)To the GOP in the uterus.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Because when guns are banned only the hidden criminals will have guns, ie: police & government.
indepat
(20,899 posts)trumps all others' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that whether you live long in this society will depend, in part, on never happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time ever. This prevailing mind-set is but a microcosm of the wholly fucked-up mind of vast numbers blinded by the right. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)The problem for me is how do I know for sure they are the good guys and only intend to use their guns to protect themselves from bad guys? How do I know they aren't the bad guys? That's what they ask us to assume and it's pretty big. Adam Lanza'a mother thought she was protecting herself. Turns out she just enabled the murders of others.
Yavin4
(35,433 posts)than it is for a child to have a safe classroom.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)We don't give a fuck what you think you're entitled to... get the fuck over it and surrender.