• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun control

Mycroft

High Priest of Ed
Mycroft
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
20,501
luchog said:
Oddly enough, I used to have a far-left friend who was fairly adamantly anti-gun. Until he was in a life-or-death situation himself. He was part of some sort of environmental protest in Montana, when a bunch of drunk rednecks decided they didn't like all those "hippy faggot" protestors around, and were going to express their displeasure with assorted blunt objects, like tire-irons and such; and only the presense of a pistol in the hands of another protestor kept that from happening.

He told me the story when he got back from Montana; and said that he was seriously re-evaluating his attitude toward gun ownership.

Melendwyr said:
And if the would-be assaulters had had a gun, presumably he would have been even more vehemently anti-gun.

Your friend was an idiot, and the anecdote about him has no weight.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You imply that if the would-be assaulters had a gun that instead of the conflict being stopped, it might have escalated to deadly force (as though tire-irons are not already deadly when used as a weapon) but the truth here is this:

If the assaulters had been willing to continue the conflict even after seeing the gun in the posession of the protestors, that would have been proof that their intentions were murderous all along.
 
Mycroft said:
You imply that if the would-be assaulters had a gun that instead of the conflict being stopped, it might have escalated to deadly force (as though tire-irons are not already deadly when used as a weapon) but the truth here is this:

If the assaulters had been willing to continue the conflict even after seeing the gun in the posession of the protestors, that would have been proof that their intentions were murderous all along.
Click to expand...

I think the presence of tire irons and other assorted improvised weapons indicates that their intentions were, if not murderous, then at least directed at inflicting serious physical harm. They were stopped by being outgunned, in the truest sense of the word, not for any lack of violent intention.
 
There's an old saying here in the Wild West, "It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one."
 
I kind of agree with melendwyr, if the bunch of drunk rednecks had guns, the situation may have turned his far-left friend in the opposite direction. All while actually proving nothing significant about the value (or lack therof) of gun control.

Besides, what group of self respecting rednecks goes around without guns? You can bet they'll be packin' next time they confront a bunch of hippy faggots.
 
There is a tremendous difference between setting off to rough up some people you don't like and setting off to kill them.

If you're setting off just to rough them up, then the gun prevented violence and saved the protestors.

If they had set off with guns to kill the protestors, then the protestors having a gun certainly could not have made the situation worse.
 
Mephisto said:
There's an old saying here in the Wild West, "It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one."
Click to expand...

Peace through superior firepower? Is this still valid in a civilized society? I grew up in the inner city surrounded by a lot of guns. I never saw or heard of one protecting anybody, though I saw a lot of damage inflicted with them. I don't go to protests (even for things I believe in) but the ones I usually see involve large amounts of police who are there specifically to maintain order. Are there protests where a tire-iron wielding group can "rumble" Outsiders-style with protesters thus justifying those (who apparently want to preserve life and the environment) protesters feeling the need to be armed? A lot of the initial anecdote doesn't really pass muster with me, but the cases of gun possession defusing rather than enflaming a situation are a minority in my personal experience.

I still haven't made up my mind about gun control in the US, but I sincerely hope that the debate isn't settled by quotes from "A Fistful of Dollars".
 
From a legal standpoint, the use of nearly any weapon escalates the assault to felony status. Most state statutes define "deadly force" as force which is likely to cause death or severe injury. "Severe injury" is pretty broad, and can include broken bones, cuts, and so forth.
The use of a firearm to prevent this assault (especially by several individuals) would be legally justified in most jurisdictions.

How can we assume that the "rednecks" in this case would have been satisfied with "roughing up" the protesters? A melee could easily result in a fatal injury, especially when weapons are involved.
The lack of capacity for self-defense on the part of the protesters was not apparently going to stop the asault; the attackers were only dissauded when the weapon was produced.
 
Bikewer said:
How can we assume that the "rednecks" in this case would have been satisfied with "roughing up" the protesters?
Click to expand...

I don't think we can, and I hope I didn't imply that's what I thought. Rather I meant to say that if the rednecks did have guns, it still would not necessarily have escalated the confrontation to a gun battle.
 
MWare said:
I still haven't made up my mind about gun control in the US, but I sincerely hope that the debate isn't settled by quotes from "A Fistful of Dollars".
Click to expand...

As my brother pointed-out to me, gun control in the US is a moot issue because gun proliferation (illegal and legal guns as well I guess) has gotten to a point where pretty much nothing can be done about it.
 
MWare said:
I don't go to protests (even for things I believe in) but the ones I usually see involve large amounts of police who are there specifically to maintain order.
Click to expand...
Not all protests are large-scale, organized gatherings with police present. There are many that get no publicity simply because they're small, out-of-the-way occurrences; particularly with the environmentalist movement here in the PNW and surrounding regions. I've seen a few myself.

Police did eventually show up later in the protest, but not to "keep order". They simply arrested any protestors who were still around.
Are there protests where a tire-iron wielding group can "rumble" Outsiders-style with protesters thus justifying those (who apparently want to preserve life and the environment) protesters feeling the need to be armed? A lot of the initial anecdote doesn't really pass muster with me, but the cases of gun possession defusing rather than enflaming a situation are a minority in my personal experience.
Click to expand...
Key words: your "personal experience". I know people who have been beaten up at protests. Some even with cops present, but not exactly on the side of peaceful resolution (eg. sympathetic to the rednecks, and turning a blind eye to the violence, unless the protestors actually fought back, that is).

As for whether my friend would have reacted similarly if the rednecks had had firearms as well... I cannot say. Judging by what I did know of him, I'd hazard a guess that the response would have been similar. He grew up pretty sheltered, and didn't really encounter much in the way of violence until college and joining up with the environmentalist movement.
 
Jorghnassen said:
As my brother pointed-out to me, gun control in the US is a moot issue because gun proliferation (illegal and legal guns as well I guess) has gotten to a point where pretty much nothing can be done about it.
Click to expand...

This is correct, but far too few people remember it.
 
I don't know if gun control in America is a good or bad or even possible thing. Not living there it's probably not my place to comment but, if for some reason I did decide to live there, I would give very serious consideration to buying one.

I sort of go along with the view that it's better to have one and never use it than not have one when you really need it.
 
Gun control does not equal gun banning.

The US is not like some wild west movie. Well most parts anyway.
 
Hunting with firearms is a widely practiced and supported enough hobby, and way of feeding a family in some cases, that there's a broad base of support for "reasonable and responsible" gun ownership in the U.S. The question is the U.S. is generally more a matter of degree than absolutes. It would be impossible to approve or enforce the abolition of guns. Handguns, automatic weapons, and other concealed and military style hardware are the contentious subjects. The shooters at Columbine High School didn't use sporting rifles. Every family in Afghanistan has a gun. Those two cases alone show that while gun owernership doesn't cause crimes, nor produce a safe and stable society, poorly regulated guns meant *only* for killing people (military hadware) don't help.

Automatic weapons aren't a ulitiarian tool for civilians, and jeopordize the monopoly on force that governments depend on. Our police and military are the only two group authorized to use force, and they're both tightly regulated. Civilians with hardware of the magnitude those two have access to is a problem.

P.S. As an unrealted point, the second ammendment reads:

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but it seems quite explicit to me that the purpose of the right to bear arms is to have "a well regulated militia". Shouldn't the gun debate revolve more around people serving in a milita, like the old style National Gaurd, more than Mr. Heston saying we should all have automatic rifles?
 
The national guard is just an arm of the fed govt anyway. Whatever the 2nd says, its evolved to the individual right to have a gun.

Id say most americans arent out for BANNING. Control is another thing. If every gun is registered you should be able to follow the chain of ownership. That makes it more likely to catch people who misuse or unlawfully possess firearms. Which should help with crime prevention.
 
Tmy said:
The national guard is just an arm of the fed govt anyway. Whatever the 2nd says, its evolved to the individual right to have a gun.

Id say most americans arent out for BANNING. Control is another thing. If every gun is registered you should be able to follow the chain of ownership. That makes it more likely to catch people who misuse or unlawfully possess firearms. Which should help with crime prevention.
Click to expand...

We already have such a system in place. It's not all that effective in preventing gun crime, it's just helpful in aprehending people sometimes. A gun that's illegally resold isn't going to be tracked that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom