@ Jack: Civilians do not need military hardware. Even if they had that type of equipment, the training and organization of the military would make any civilian attempt to stand up to it into a one sided bloodbath.
This isn't the old days, where outnumbering the other guy 3 to 1 meant that you were going to win.
@Luke: I agree with some of what your saying. The idea that an untrained and unscreened person can be walking around with a handgun makes me sick to my stomach. If I could magically wave a wand and make all guns and attendant crime disappear I would, but that's not the world we live in.
Churba summed up the whole,"if your going to shoot, shoot to kill" thing better than I was going to, but I feel it's worth expanding the point a little further. If you are threatened enough by someone that you are going for a weapon, then it damned well better be one that can finish the encounter. A an improvised weapon can go too far, or not far enough. More than one person has accidentally killed someone with a baseball bat to the head, and more than one person has been beaten to death with their own bat by someone they thought was down.
That lethality you pointed out about a gun is the whole point. Any situation where someone is going for any type of weapon is a situation where a gun should serve. If a situation calls for anything less than lethal force then there shouldn't be a weapon out at all.
*Personally i'd like to see more development of chemical sprays and tasers and other less-lethal alternatives. When someone can hand me a phaser with a stun setting then we can kiss this whole issue good by.
They make those Taser shotgun rounds for riot police. I'd like to see a smaller version of that could fit into a pistol. I suppose you could load up some into a Serbu but those only hold like 3 shells anyway.
They make those Taser shotgun rounds for riot police. I'd like to see a smaller version of that could fit into a pistol. I suppose you could load up some into a Serbu but those only hold like 3 shells anyway.
Five. Four in the tube and one in the pipe, if you're using 12-gauge.
The only problem with using the Taser rounds is that they're made to fill that space beyond the effective range of regular dart-line tasers. They've got about the same muzzle velocity as a baton round. Hit someone with one of those at close range, and the current will be the least of their worries. But, it's certainly possible to make one with less oomph, for home defense, even if they don't right now.
Also, as a side note since you mention the Serbu Super shorty - in BF4, they allow you to equip it as a pistol. Which is sick as fuck.
They make those Taser shotgun rounds for riot police. I'd like to see a smaller version of that could fit into a pistol. I suppose you could load up some into a Serbu but those only hold like 3 shells anyway.
Five. Four in the tube and one in the pipe, if you're using 12-gauge.
The only problem with using the Taser rounds is that they're made to fill that space beyond the effective range of regular dart-line tasers. They've got about the same muzzle velocity as a baton round. Hit someone with one of those at close range, and the current will be the least of their worries. But, it's certainly possible to make one with less oomph, for home defense, even if they don't right now.
Also, as a side note since you mention the Serbu Super shorty - in BF4, they allow you to equip it as a pistol. Which is sick as fuck.
Oh I just checked their website and I didn't realize that they had different lengths/capacities. I was thinking of the shortest model. It is a pretty neat little gun, and they do even sell little holsters for them so you could CCW one fuck if I'd pay like $1000 for it. Even with the $200 tax stamp I still think you could make a similar SBS for a lot cheaper.
Oh I just checked their website and I didn't realize that they had different lengths/capacities. I was thinking of the shortest model. It is a pretty neat little gun, and they do even sell little holsters for them so you could CCW one fuck if I'd pay like $1000 for it. Even with the $200 tax stamp I still think you could make a similar SBS for a lot cheaper.
With tools in hand and assuming the proper licenses, I'll make you one for less than that from scratch, let alone from parts. Assuming I didn't charge labor, of course. That said, I haven't had a good look at a Serbu, so I'd need one for reference, or at the very least some plans.
That said, it'd be even cheaper to start with a donor gun(Not a Doner gun, but fuck wouldn't it be cool if it was), since the base gun is usually a Mossberg Maverick, if memory serves. Most of the cost is labor cost - because despite that they start with another gun that's already made, they do have to take it apart and modify it pretty extensively, using their custom parts which are machined in-house.
Also, it's not a $200 stamp, it's an A.O.W since it's a smoothbore pistol rather than a short barrel shotgun, according to law, so it's a $5 stamp instead.
Oh I just checked their website and I didn't realize that they had different lengths/capacities. I was thinking of the shortest model. It is a pretty neat little gun, and they do even sell little holsters for them so you could CCW one fuck if I'd pay like $1000 for it. Even with the $200 tax stamp I still think you could make a similar SBS for a lot cheaper.
With tools in hand and assuming the proper licenses, I'll make you one for less than that from scratch, let alone from parts. Assuming I didn't charge labor, of course. That said, I haven't had a good look at a Serbu, so I'd need one for reference, or at the very least some plans.
That said, it'd be even cheaper to start with a donor gun(Not a Doner gun, but fuck wouldn't it be cool if it was), since the base gun is usually a Mossberg Maverick, if memory serves. Most of the cost is labor cost - because despite that they start with another gun that's already made, they do have to take it apart and modify it pretty extensively, using their custom parts which are machined in-house.
Also, it's not a $200 stamp, it's an A.O.W since it's a smoothbore pistol rather than a short barrel shotgun, according to law, so it's a $5 stamp instead.
I could be wrong but I think they just buy the receivers themselves from Remington and Mossberg and then build the rest. If it was ever a full shotgun then technically it would still be an SBS. IIRC there is still a $200 stamp its just that its only for manufacturing so they are paying the tax but the buyer only has to pay a $5 transfer stamp. I'd just rather pay the $200 and chop down a cheap used gun than pay what they're asking. I mean, Christ if it weren't for all the legal issues it would probably be a $200 gun.
However going back to the "rural people need guns". I find this untrue, I had to visit 5 farms during my 2nd and 3rd years at University and live/work there for 2 weeks each to get an understanding of how farmer's deal with animal husbandry and their views on Veterinarians. Many of these were very distant from any convenience (like a 1 hour drive to get to the equivalent of a corner shop and a pub). I did not see any requisite use of any guns during my stays at sheep and cattle stations or at the piggery, dairy or horse stud I worked at.
The only situations where a gun could have been used was when humanely putting livestock in distress to sleep. However even in these situations it was preferable to use a captive bolt gun. Even though we all took gun safety courses in final year none of my friends carry a gun and the few that absolutely feel it is necessary while on the road, keep a captive bolt gun.
Again, that's just one anecdotal example of why rural people may not need guns. Let me provide you with a counter-example:
You live in a relatively isolated village in rural Alaska. Shops in your little village are small and have limited selection -- often lacking in fresh foods, especially in the winter. The nearest supermarket is an hour away by small airplane (think Cessna 182s, 206s, and such). The nearest pizza delivery place is also an hour away by the same small airplane. For six months out of the year, you're pretty much stuck in your village unless you either own a plane, can afford a charter on one of those planes, or are willing to risk freezing to death by driving a snowmobile for a day or two to get to the next village -- and even then they may not be better off than you. However, there is plenty of fish and game for you to hunt just outside your village. So you load up your hunting rifle and bag yourself a moose or caribou and give yourself enough meat to last the entire winter.
But don't you know? According to the conspiracy theorists, there's no possible way that Oswald made an 81 meter shot to hit Kennedy, that's impossible for even trained shooters! blockquote> Bro Im high speed low drag I hit all target at 100m with my d'egal no problem. Im ex-SAS,SBS SEAL Im a bad enough dude. I no scope with my 50 at 500m no problem and use acog for anything else. The army is scared of me.
Your earlier post covered everything I wanted on shoot to kill, thank you. I could see a system of different teirs of licence being another practical solution. For instance home defence would limit you to certain shotguns and certain loads. Target is another and Concealed carry another. Each with different requrements to be met and such. I feel that more spesific licences might help. Its something we have in the UK that works out pretty well. I mean hell Im hoping to get some sweet dragoon pistols soon and they are covered by the same licence as a shot gun.
So I went and read this after a sleep. It didn't seem so bad till I watched some of the videos. I just screams milsim try hard, the type of guys that rock up to airsoft with perfect recreations of uniforms and insist upon authentisity. To use an over used term it smacked of High speed low drag.
That said it set the ball rolling on other ideas. For instance with target shooting why not have it over a 250-500m wild range with targets hidden at different length and different size. Or clay pidgeon shoot where the shooter is presented with a veriety of targets and different hights, colour and speed.
Also where the fuck did the "High speed low drag" thng come from. I had a 14 year old say that my 'stash looked well ally and would be great for BF4. It makes me look like a 80s porn star and Im terrilbe at BF4.
However going back to the "rural people need guns". I find this untrue, I had to visit 5 farms during my 2nd and 3rd years at University and live/work there for 2 weeks each to get an understanding of how farmer's deal with animal husbandry and their views on Veterinarians. Many of these were very distant from any convenience (like a 1 hour drive to get to the equivalent of a corner shop and a pub). I did not see any requisite use of any guns during my stays at sheep and cattle stations or at the piggery, dairy or horse stud I worked at.
The only situations where a gun could have been used was when humanely putting livestock in distress to sleep. However even in these situations it was preferable to use a captive bolt gun. Even though we all took gun safety courses in final year none of my friends carry a gun and the few that absolutely feel it is necessary while on the road, keep a captive bolt gun.
Again, that's just one anecdotal example of why rural people may not need guns. Let me provide you with a counter-example:
You live in a relatively isolated village in rural Alaska. Shops in your little village are small and have limited selection -- often lacking in fresh foods, especially in the winter. The nearest supermarket is an hour away by small airplane (think Cessna 182s, 206s, and such). The nearest pizza delivery place is also an hour away by the same small airplane. For six months out of the year, you're pretty much stuck in your village unless you either own a plane, can afford a charter on one of those planes, or are willing to risk freezing to death by driving a snowmobile for a day or two to get to the next village -- and even then they may not be better off than you. However, there is plenty of fish and game for you to hunt just outside your village. So you load up your hunting rifle and bag yourself a moose or caribou and give yourself enough meat to last the entire winter.
I'm just trying to work out needs for guns based on my own experiences. I didn't think of climate differences. Good counterpoint, however probably don't need a semi-automatic, automatic or burst shot rifle for hunting though.
Why are you limiting farm firearm useage to putting down livestock? What about the pest animals that come on the farm to kill your livestock?
In Australia there aren't really aren't any pests that can kill your livestock and the feral animals such as foxes and cats which could cause problems are kept off by farm dogs. The farmers I came across looked down on other farmer's abilities to make appropriate fences if wildlife came wondering in.
The worst I saw were a bunch of emus that got into a sheep paddock that was being rested (grain/grass allowed to regrow and parasites to die off). Plus the morning kangaroos wandering around.
Aren't emus, kangaroos and koalas poisonous and deadly like everything else native to Australia? It's Australia, everything is trying to kill you. Y'all need AKs every time you leave the road.
Can you imagine a Pokemon game set in Australia? Everything would be a poison Pokemon!
Seriously, didn't realize you were only referring to Australian farmers.
Good counterpoint, however probably don't need a semi-automatic, automatic or burst shot rifle for hunting though.
Oh, definitely. These hunters typically use standard-type hunting shotguns and rifles -- perhaps with some heavier duty ammo in order to bring down large game like moose and caribou.
Those that live on the edge of the sea or on islands, however, they get some bigger stuff. They need to be able to hunt seals and whales, so they're permitted to use explosive tipped harpoons and the guns necessary to fire them. That is admittedly a more extreme case and only those who need that stuff to hunt whales and seals typically get to use it.
No but my Queensland classmates recalled going on "epic hunting trips" for feral pigs.
I can't blame them for taking that attitude, they're tough to hunt. I've seen a pretty decent sized specimen eat a 30.06 that should have killed it, then turn around, charge, and kill my mate's dog.
Those that live on the edge of the sea or on islands, however, they get some bigger stuff. They need to be able to hunt seals and whales, so they're permitted to use explosive tipped harpoons and the guns necessary to fire them. That is admittedly a more extreme case and only those who need that stuff to hunt whales and seals typically get to use it.
There is a thing called a Power Head that you can buy just about anywhere - It's basically a spear, but instead of a spear-head, it has a tiny little shotgun. They make them for killing sharks and big fish that would be hard or unsafe to kill in the traditional manner.
Maybe that "Power Head" thing is the explosive harpoon I was talking about. When I found out about it, they didn't go into details as to what it was actually called or the regulations concerning owning it. About they only thing they said was that flying into Russian airspace with them on board your plane could create an international incident as it's technically classified as an explosive device.
Maybe that "Power Head" thing is the explosive harpoon I was talking about. When I found out about it, they didn't go into details as to what it was actually called or the regulations concerning owning it. About they only thing they said was that flying into Russian airspace with them on board your plane could create an international incident as it's technically classified as an explosive device.
Actually, you might be right - I went and looked it up, and it turns out you can get spear-gun power heads and thrown harpoon ones, as well as getting them in a lot of different calibers, which I didn't know before. I was only familiar with the 12-gauge staff type ones you see on shark boats.
I remember seeing something similar that people in crocodile infested areas would keep on their boats. Basically a zip gun on a stick. Not sure how they are legal in the US. Probably an AOW or something.
Somewhat related, do any of you know what a "bobby gun" is? I watched a VICE video the other day about a guy who sold guns on TOR in Europe. He said he bought legal "bobby guns" and converted them into real guns. Are they just deactivated guns, or maybe blank guns?
I've seen guns that only fire blanks or gas, using a special barrel that has large obstructions in it but still permits gas flow. And I'm pretty sure there's also guns that fire some kind of pepper-spray blast as well.
I've seen accounts of them being sold in Eastern Europe and the like.
Converting one is likely possible with a new barrel, but I wouldn't trust the slides or frames to be able to handle real ammo for long: maybe one mag? Not bad for a throwaway carry piece for a gangster or something, no real practical civilian use like that.
This makes me wonder what the legality would behind carrying a broken firearm designed to injure the user with the expectation by the owner of the device being that if attacked the attacker would take it and attempt to use it against the owner?
Here are some punctuation marks that you can add above to make it make sense: ,,,...!!???,,,;;:: ...
Somewhat related, do any of you know what a "bobby gun" is? I watched a VICE video the other day about a guy who sold guns on TOR in Europe. He said he bought legal "bobby guns" and converted them into real guns. Are they just deactivated guns, or maybe blank guns?
No, actually. Or at least, I might, but I'm not familiar with the slang he's using.
Sorry I am a little late to the party, I have not been on the forum recently. I have a question mainly for the anti-gun advocates like Rym and Sk0pe.
With the two sides of the gun control debate, I have been thinking the distinction between the two comes down to how each view free will. Here is what I mean.
Gun supporters feel each person has complete free will and agency over their actions. A person will decide to do something, then find a tool to accomplish the task. They will decide to break a window, or build a bird hose, then find a hammer to accomplish the task. And if you give a person with no motivations a hammer, it will neither cause them to build a bird house, or break a window. This is because the hammer in just an inanimate object that does not affect a person agency over their own actions.
Gun control supporters have the viewpoint that our decisions result from our situation and circumstances. If you have a person who would normally not break a window, you give them a hammer, and the persons viewpoint is that hammers are for breaking windows. That person will then use the hammer to break a window, where as if they had not had the hammer there would not have been a desire to do so. Because gun control supporters think that guns are for killing people then if you give a person a gun, they will use it to kill someone. And if they did not have a gun, they would not hurt/kill anyone.
Sk0pe gave an example where he feels that had there been guns, people would be dead, and because there were not everyone was okay. This is an example of the mindset that a person looses their agency over their own actions because the gun takes it away. The gun is there so it needs to be used to kill someone, instead of the gun being a tool that a person can decide to use or not use. With Sk0pes example, he feels that had the other party had a gun, they would have killed him, where as because they did not, he just got beat up.
In the United States in 2010 according to the CDC there were 11,078 murders by firearms; according to the FBI there were 8,775; and according to the Congressional Research Service there were 9,812. Let us average the number to 9,888 murders by firearm in 2010.
According to numbers from the National Institute of Justice in 2009 there was 310 million firearms in the united states. This means that in 2010 only 0.000031% of all firearms in the united states were used to murder someone.
My question is what do people think about the idea that free will is total and not influenced by tools? Or the idea that tools take away our free will because of a desire to use the tool? If you feel that guns exist to kill people, and if a person has a gun they will use it to murder someone, how do you explain the extreme rarity in the United States that a gun actually kills another person?
That's an interesting point Belliger, I'm not sure I'd view the situation so binary myself, but, people perhaps tend to get polar on this situation. How much of it is subconscious projection? Perception? Influence of other behaviors, expectations, identity of self vs identity of society?
The disparity between those who own/use/support/accept firearms and those who do-not is usually pretty blatant; I find that there's not many in-betweeners. I don't think it falls down 'liberal' or 'conservative' (I still hate those words with extreme passion) political lines cleanly: yet public/peer pressure from those camps tends to drive the polarization regardless. I think your politics and your views of identity, self, society, responsibility, duty, etc are all too intermixed to really draw clean lines but, people will do as they see fit.
If I had to put out a point of view on it that tends towards the practical... Both sides of your proposed viewpoints are correct perspectives but they're only looking at their half of the beast and thus the whole picture is missed.
A weapon by itself is, let us say, simply a collection of matter; molecules, atoms, alloys and powders and engineering packed into a specific form. It is simply a thing. In some ways, a loaded gun possesses some kinetic energy, a certain amount of potential to by some means transform into a new configuration of matter; one where where the metal molecules have shifted, mercury and gunpowder grains have combusted, a mass of lead material has moved from Point A to some Point B on a ballistic trajectory. But at rest it is simply that, at rest. But once we add the human interpretation of a given recognizable pattern of matter, those groupings take on meaning and power in some form and suddenly hundreds of years of association is being factored as a result. But it is all in the minds of the observers.
There are different kinds of people. There are some that will take that thing and recognize it, but continue to do their things more-or-less normally. There are others who mentally feel the weight of the associations related to this totem they have, for good or bad, and it influences their behaviors. To someone with no weapon, there are ways of solving a problem or confrontation that are good and satisfactory where a weapon is never needed or considered. But if they had that item, a whole new branch of possibilities would then be present.
If I got into a tense situation with a cougar, let's say (not the MILF but the large cat) and I had no rifle, I'd probably be running, and maybe throwing things or carrying a big stick to keep it away. If, I had a hunting rifle, then I might try to get into a position to use it and shoot the beast as it would end my fear of it chasing me longer than I can run... it 'ends the circle of violence' (even if there's no violence explicitly) when one party is not ever coming back.
But then if I ran into another situation, maybe a deer or someone who wants to pick on me, while holding that weapon, it becomes a situation where 'to a hammer every problem looks like a nail'... do I decide I'm going to shoot, to stop the problem? I have this tool, (remember it's just an object, I call it a tool, or a weapon, because in our context, mentally it gets a label; but to the matrix or the universe, it is just bits of code, or strings, or so-on.) But yes to me, I have a tool, and one application of the tool is to put holes in things, and so there's the potential urge or propensity or conditioning to jump to that conclusion immediately as it is a definite, binary state of action to put holes in the thing I want to stop being a problem. Sure one could use words, or a stick, or headphones, or physical seperation, or groups of other humans, or loud noises to cause a dissolution of the problem but the presence of a 'handgun' or 'rifle' carries a lot of association towards being the immediate solution.
That's just one mindset or outlook, there's countless others. There are those who have never had the access to a weapon like a gun, and don't understand what it does and does not do. There are those who have many and have only dreamed of using them for the specific application of putting holes in someone, dissuaded only by some factor, morality or legality or opportunity or what-not. There's some who have used them and don't care, and one day their situation changes and the world view is different; now every problem looks like a screw and they only have hammers; or they saw problems as screws, but now they are VERY MUCH nails in need of hammering with their mighty, mighty hammer.
It takes self control, training, awareness, and probably some innate abilities, for someone to have something like a weapon but not jump to its use as the standard choice when the conditions for that to be used are not all met, despite the temptation.
That is the 'ideal condition' where gun-owners fancy themselves and the greater part of society when advocating concealed carry, weapons ownership, and so-forth: that we all will be trained, responsible, and accountable to ourselves and only ourselves: but according to that world view, as each man and woman and child should and must hold themselves to the highest standard, it will not be a problem.
There are people who just are not of the mindset to hold to that standard, either they know it, or they don't, but they aren't. We are therefore stuck between having to allow the expression of and encourage the potential for self-control and ultimate personal agency for those who strive to that: and having to account for millions more who can't or won't fit into that race: and demand a society in which they can safely sustain and express themselves without worrying about the stresses and repercussions. In that context each side of the arugment is asking the other party to change something that is significant.
I had more but, I've probably confused myself at this point.
Some responses to questions from a few pages back, now I'm slowly catching up.
At what point is your life more valuable than someone trying to kill you?
This is a good question, but a flawed way of looking at the situation. Attaching value to the life of someone else is fraught with difficulties, and danger, when the measurement of their value is your own life, and if you are doing the evaluation.
For example, in any situation, any at all, I believe my life to be more valuable than anyone else's life. This is whether they are trying to kill me or serving my dinner. I'm on the inside. I'm the opposite of impartial.
The second problem with the question is that you are asking about the hypothetical outcome of a current situation, and then judging the value of the life of the other person based on what you believe might be the possible outcome of the situation.
The only way to truly or impartially judge whose life is more valuable is by someone not-you, and at a time not-now but later.
Some examples...
Situation A: I think someone is trying to kill me. I shoot them dead. Outcome A: I killed someone. That person did not kill someone. Judgement A: I am the person who killed someone, and the other person is not the person who killed someone. A killer is has less value than a non-killer.
Situation B: I think someone is trying to kill me. I don't shoot them dead. They kill me. Outcome B: I didn't kill someone. That person did kill someone. Judgement B: In this case, my life is more valuable than the other person's. I am dead, of course, but now their punishment for SUCCEEDING in killing me can be decided as fairly as possible by a (hopefully) impartial judge or jury or other legal process.
Situation C: I think someone is trying to kill me. I DON'T shoot them dead. For some reason they decide not to kill me. This can be for any or many reasons. Like I don't fight back, or fight back enough so they stop trying, or I plead with them and they show mercy, or someone else intervenes, or they get bored and give up, or they see a shining light and turn to Jesus. Outcome C: I might be injured. The other person might be injured too. Nobody is dead. Judgement C: Punishment for attempted murder can be decided as fairly as possible by a decided as fairly as possible by a (hopefully) impartial judge or jury or other legal process.
Situation I think someone is trying to kill me. Turns out, because I didn't shoot them dead, they were just following behind me by coincidence, or on my porch due to being in a car accident near by and looking for help. Don't shoot them dead. Outcome Nobody is dead, nobody is hurt. Judgement We're all cool, right?
It might be weird to look at situations like this systematically, but it's the only way to come to any logical conclusion. If we take for granted that people not dying is better than people dying, then the best possible course of action for less death is you not shooting to kill someone.
I read through a list of as many "stand your ground" trial outcomes as the journalist could find. It contained some of the most depressing stories ever. For example, two guys got into a fight and fell in water. As one of the guys was climbing out of the water, with his back to the guy in the water, he was shot in the back and killed. This was clearly fell into a "C" situation from the above list, but ended up as a situation A.
And in so many of these stories, the outcome was one person dead for a crime they may or may not have committed in the future, on the say so of the possible victim of the hypothetical future crime, with the sentence carried out in the heat of the moment by that same utterly non-impartial judge.
I'm not saying you shouldn't fight back, ever. That's crazy. Before fighting back, get away from the situation as fast and soon as possible. If you have to fight back, you should. I'm saying that you should ALWAYS stop short of killing someone in self defense.
However, deciding on the value of someone else's life between the time it takes for you to feel threatened and the time it takes to pull a trigger to end that life?
That brings me to the second question.
If there is an escalation of violence to the point where it is kill or be killed, what does one do?
There's a big sticking point in this question for me, beyond the same issues it shares with the previous question:
The "point where it is kill or be killed" changes with different methods of killing.
If two people are holding just spoons, and one attacks the other, the time it takes to reach the "point where it is kill or be killed" is going to be measured in hours.
If two people are holding guns, and one attacks the other, the time it takes to reach the "point where it is kill or be killed" is going to be measured in seconds, or milliseconds.
This is the difference in escalation of violence when guns are involved. It takes literally no time nor effort to escalate violence to the death. It means that instead of there being a long process of consideration of the actions of your attacker, for you to decide if you've reached, or will soon reach, the "point", the "point" arrives before you even know it has, and either you are dead, or the other person is.
If you have a gun, and the other person has a gun, the "point" has already arrived! If you think you are justified, even slightly, on your opinion of your own worth, the most rational thing to do is pull the trigger.
And so, in almost every situation, the ONLY reason there was even the consideration reaching the "point where it is kill or be killed" is because BOTH parties had guns. When both sides have guns, and any kind of violence seems imminent, someone will probably die. This happens so often that it isn't even news.
But when one person has a gun, and they feel even slightly threatened, and they think the other person might have a gun, the same logic (applied to a faulty premise) leads to sooooo many stories about someone killing someone else because they THOUGHT they had reached the "point" already. But, on even a slightly impartial look at the situation, and in hindsight, they were a long way from it. As in, the other person had no way to kill them as quickly as they were killed by a gun.
The best logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, neither party has a gun.
The second best logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, one party has a gun (either person) but that they also KNOW that the other party has no gun.
The second worst logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, both parties have a gun, but one party is unsure if the other party has a gun or not.
The worst logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, both parties have a gun, both parties know the other party has a gun, and that they both ACT ENTIRELY RATIONALLY.
Which brings me to the conclusion that nobody should be allowed to carry or use guns for any self-defense reasons. If you should carry for self defense, you are either ignorant, an idiot, or a psychopath.
Comments
This isn't the old days, where outnumbering the other guy 3 to 1 meant that you were going to win.
@Luke: I agree with some of what your saying. The idea that an untrained and unscreened person can be walking around with a handgun makes me sick to my stomach. If I could magically wave a wand and make all guns and attendant crime disappear I would, but that's not the world we live in.
Churba summed up the whole,"if your going to shoot, shoot to kill" thing better than I was going to, but I feel it's worth expanding the point a little further. If you are threatened enough by someone that you are going for a weapon, then it damned well better be one that can finish the encounter. A an improvised weapon can go too far, or not far enough. More than one person has accidentally killed someone with a baseball bat to the head, and more than one person has been beaten to death with their own bat by someone they thought was down.
That lethality you pointed out about a gun is the whole point. Any situation where someone is going for any type of weapon is a situation where a gun should serve. If a situation calls for anything less than lethal force then there shouldn't be a weapon out at all.
*Personally i'd like to see more development of chemical sprays and tasers and other less-lethal alternatives. When someone can hand me a phaser with a stun setting then we can kiss this whole issue good by.
The only problem with using the Taser rounds is that they're made to fill that space beyond the effective range of regular dart-line tasers. They've got about the same muzzle velocity as a baton round. Hit someone with one of those at close range, and the current will be the least of their worries. But, it's certainly possible to make one with less oomph, for home defense, even if they don't right now.
Also, as a side note since you mention the Serbu Super shorty - in BF4, they allow you to equip it as a pistol. Which is sick as fuck.
That said, it'd be even cheaper to start with a donor gun(Not a Doner gun, but fuck wouldn't it be cool if it was), since the base gun is usually a Mossberg Maverick, if memory serves. Most of the cost is labor cost - because despite that they start with another gun that's already made, they do have to take it apart and modify it pretty extensively, using their custom parts which are machined in-house.
Also, it's not a $200 stamp, it's an A.O.W since it's a smoothbore pistol rather than a short barrel shotgun, according to law, so it's a $5 stamp instead.
You live in a relatively isolated village in rural Alaska. Shops in your little village are small and have limited selection -- often lacking in fresh foods, especially in the winter. The nearest supermarket is an hour away by small airplane (think Cessna 182s, 206s, and such). The nearest pizza delivery place is also an hour away by the same small airplane. For six months out of the year, you're pretty much stuck in your village unless you either own a plane, can afford a charter on one of those planes, or are willing to risk freezing to death by driving a snowmobile for a day or two to get to the next village -- and even then they may not be better off than you. However, there is plenty of fish and game for you to hunt just outside your village. So you load up your hunting rifle and bag yourself a moose or caribou and give yourself enough meat to last the entire winter.
I imagined you making guns in your basement while I was making model star ships.
I'm just trying to work out needs for guns based on my own experiences. I didn't think of climate differences.
Good counterpoint, however probably don't need a semi-automatic, automatic or burst shot rifle for hunting though.
In Australia there aren't really aren't any pests that can kill your livestock and the feral animals such as foxes and cats which could cause problems are kept off by farm dogs. The farmers I came across looked down on other farmer's abilities to make appropriate fences if wildlife came wondering in.
The worst I saw were a bunch of emus that got into a sheep paddock that was being rested (grain/grass allowed to regrow and parasites to die off). Plus the morning kangaroos wandering around.
Can you imagine a Pokemon game set in Australia? Everything would be a poison Pokemon!
Seriously, didn't realize you were only referring to Australian farmers.
Those that live on the edge of the sea or on islands, however, they get some bigger stuff. They need to be able to hunt seals and whales, so they're permitted to use explosive tipped harpoons and the guns necessary to fire them. That is admittedly a more extreme case and only those who need that stuff to hunt whales and seals typically get to use it.
Somewhat related, do any of you know what a "bobby gun" is? I watched a VICE video the other day about a guy who sold guns on TOR in Europe. He said he bought legal "bobby guns" and converted them into real guns. Are they just deactivated guns, or maybe blank guns?
I've seen accounts of them being sold in Eastern Europe and the like.
Converting one is likely possible with a new barrel, but I wouldn't trust the slides or frames to be able to handle real ammo for long: maybe one mag? Not bad for a throwaway carry piece for a gangster or something, no real practical civilian use like that.
Here are some punctuation marks that you can add above to make it make sense: ,,,...!!???,,,;;:: ...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
With the two sides of the gun control debate, I have been thinking the distinction between the two comes down to how each view free will. Here is what I mean.
Gun supporters feel each person has complete free will and agency over their actions. A person will decide to do something, then find a tool to accomplish the task. They will decide to break a window, or build a bird hose, then find a hammer to accomplish the task. And if you give a person with no motivations a hammer, it will neither cause them to build a bird house, or break a window. This is because the hammer in just an inanimate object that does not affect a person agency over their own actions.
Gun control supporters have the viewpoint that our decisions result from our situation and circumstances. If you have a person who would normally not break a window, you give them a hammer, and the persons viewpoint is that hammers are for breaking windows. That person will then use the hammer to break a window, where as if they had not had the hammer there would not have been a desire to do so. Because gun control supporters think that guns are for killing people then if you give a person a gun, they will use it to kill someone. And if they did not have a gun, they would not hurt/kill anyone.
Sk0pe gave an example where he feels that had there been guns, people would be dead, and because there were not everyone was okay. This is an example of the mindset that a person looses their agency over their own actions because the gun takes it away. The gun is there so it needs to be used to kill someone, instead of the gun being a tool that a person can decide to use or not use. With Sk0pes example, he feels that had the other party had a gun, they would have killed him, where as because they did not, he just got beat up.
In the United States in 2010 according to the CDC there were 11,078 murders by firearms; according to the FBI there were 8,775; and according to the Congressional Research Service there were 9,812. Let us average the number to 9,888 murders by firearm in 2010.
According to numbers from the National Institute of Justice in 2009 there was 310 million firearms in the united states. This means that in 2010 only 0.000031% of all firearms in the united states were used to murder someone.
My question is what do people think about the idea that free will is total and not influenced by tools? Or the idea that tools take away our free will because of a desire to use the tool? If you feel that guns exist to kill people, and if a person has a gun they will use it to murder someone, how do you explain the extreme rarity in the United States that a gun actually kills another person?
References:
Congressional Research Service - Gun Control Legislation 2012
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf Pages 12-14
FBI Uniform Crime Statistics
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
CDC - National Vital Statistics Reports
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf Page 42
The disparity between those who own/use/support/accept firearms and those who do-not is usually pretty blatant; I find that there's not many in-betweeners. I don't think it falls down 'liberal' or 'conservative' (I still hate those words with extreme passion) political lines cleanly: yet public/peer pressure from those camps tends to drive the polarization regardless. I think your politics and your views of identity, self, society, responsibility, duty, etc are all too intermixed to really draw clean lines but, people will do as they see fit.
If I had to put out a point of view on it that tends towards the practical... Both sides of your proposed viewpoints are correct perspectives but they're only looking at their half of the beast and thus the whole picture is missed.
A weapon by itself is, let us say, simply a collection of matter; molecules, atoms, alloys and powders and engineering packed into a specific form. It is simply a thing. In some ways, a loaded gun possesses some kinetic energy, a certain amount of potential to by some means transform into a new configuration of matter; one where where the metal molecules have shifted, mercury and gunpowder grains have combusted, a mass of lead material has moved from Point A to some Point B on a ballistic trajectory. But at rest it is simply that, at rest. But once we add the human interpretation of a given recognizable pattern of matter, those groupings take on meaning and power in some form and suddenly hundreds of years of association is being factored as a result. But it is all in the minds of the observers.
There are different kinds of people. There are some that will take that thing and recognize it, but continue to do their things more-or-less normally. There are others who mentally feel the weight of the associations related to this totem they have, for good or bad, and it influences their behaviors. To someone with no weapon, there are ways of solving a problem or confrontation that are good and satisfactory where a weapon is never needed or considered. But if they had that item, a whole new branch of possibilities would then be present.
If I got into a tense situation with a cougar, let's say (not the MILF but the large cat) and I had no rifle, I'd probably be running, and maybe throwing things or carrying a big stick to keep it away. If, I had a hunting rifle, then I might try to get into a position to use it and shoot the beast as it would end my fear of it chasing me longer than I can run... it 'ends the circle of violence' (even if there's no violence explicitly) when one party is not ever coming back.
But then if I ran into another situation, maybe a deer or someone who wants to pick on me, while holding that weapon, it becomes a situation where 'to a hammer every problem looks like a nail'... do I decide I'm going to shoot, to stop the problem? I have this tool, (remember it's just an object, I call it a tool, or a weapon, because in our context, mentally it gets a label; but to the matrix or the universe, it is just bits of code, or strings, or so-on.) But yes to me, I have a tool, and one application of the tool is to put holes in things, and so there's the potential urge or propensity or conditioning to jump to that conclusion immediately as it is a definite, binary state of action to put holes in the thing I want to stop being a problem. Sure one could use words, or a stick, or headphones, or physical seperation, or groups of other humans, or loud noises to cause a dissolution of the problem but the presence of a 'handgun' or 'rifle' carries a lot of association towards being the immediate solution.
That's just one mindset or outlook, there's countless others. There are those who have never had the access to a weapon like a gun, and don't understand what it does and does not do. There are those who have many and have only dreamed of using them for the specific application of putting holes in someone, dissuaded only by some factor, morality or legality or opportunity or what-not. There's some who have used them and don't care, and one day their situation changes and the world view is different; now every problem looks like a screw and they only have hammers; or they saw problems as screws, but now they are VERY MUCH nails in need of hammering with their mighty, mighty hammer.
It takes self control, training, awareness, and probably some innate abilities, for someone to have something like a weapon but not jump to its use as the standard choice when the conditions for that to be used are not all met, despite the temptation.
That is the 'ideal condition' where gun-owners fancy themselves and the greater part of society when advocating concealed carry, weapons ownership, and so-forth: that we all will be trained, responsible, and accountable to ourselves and only ourselves: but according to that world view, as each man and woman and child should and must hold themselves to the highest standard, it will not be a problem.
There are people who just are not of the mindset to hold to that standard, either they know it, or they don't, but they aren't. We are therefore stuck between having to allow the expression of and encourage the potential for self-control and ultimate personal agency for those who strive to that: and having to account for millions more who can't or won't fit into that race: and demand a society in which they can safely sustain and express themselves without worrying about the stresses and repercussions. In that context each side of the arugment is asking the other party to change something that is significant.
I had more but, I've probably confused myself at this point.
Some responses to questions from a few pages back, now I'm slowly catching up. This is a good question, but a flawed way of looking at the situation. Attaching value to the life of someone else is fraught with difficulties, and danger, when the measurement of their value is your own life, and if you are doing the evaluation.
For example, in any situation, any at all, I believe my life to be more valuable than anyone else's life. This is whether they are trying to kill me or serving my dinner. I'm on the inside. I'm the opposite of impartial.
The second problem with the question is that you are asking about the hypothetical outcome of a current situation, and then judging the value of the life of the other person based on what you believe might be the possible outcome of the situation.
The only way to truly or impartially judge whose life is more valuable is by someone not-you, and at a time not-now but later.
Some examples...
Situation A: I think someone is trying to kill me. I shoot them dead.
Outcome A: I killed someone. That person did not kill someone.
Judgement A: I am the person who killed someone, and the other person is not the person who killed someone. A killer is has less value than a non-killer.
Situation B: I think someone is trying to kill me. I don't shoot them dead. They kill me.
Outcome B: I didn't kill someone. That person did kill someone.
Judgement B: In this case, my life is more valuable than the other person's. I am dead, of course, but now their punishment for SUCCEEDING in killing me can be decided as fairly as possible by a (hopefully) impartial judge or jury or other legal process.
Situation C: I think someone is trying to kill me. I DON'T shoot them dead. For some reason they decide not to kill me. This can be for any or many reasons. Like I don't fight back, or fight back enough so they stop trying, or I plead with them and they show mercy, or someone else intervenes, or they get bored and give up, or they see a shining light and turn to Jesus.
Outcome C: I might be injured. The other person might be injured too. Nobody is dead.
Judgement C: Punishment for attempted murder can be decided as fairly as possible by a decided as fairly as possible by a (hopefully) impartial judge or jury or other legal process.
Situation
Outcome
Judgement
It might be weird to look at situations like this systematically, but it's the only way to come to any logical conclusion. If we take for granted that people not dying is better than people dying, then the best possible course of action for less death is you not shooting to kill someone.
I read through a list of as many "stand your ground" trial outcomes as the journalist could find. It contained some of the most depressing stories ever. For example, two guys got into a fight and fell in water. As one of the guys was climbing out of the water, with his back to the guy in the water, he was shot in the back and killed. This was clearly fell into a "C" situation from the above list, but ended up as a situation A.
And in so many of these stories, the outcome was one person dead for a crime they may or may not have committed in the future, on the say so of the possible victim of the hypothetical future crime, with the sentence carried out in the heat of the moment by that same utterly non-impartial judge.
I'm not saying you shouldn't fight back, ever. That's crazy. Before fighting back, get away from the situation as fast and soon as possible. If you have to fight back, you should. I'm saying that you should ALWAYS stop short of killing someone in self defense.
However, deciding on the value of someone else's life between the time it takes for you to feel threatened and the time it takes to pull a trigger to end that life?
That brings me to the second question.
There's a big sticking point in this question for me, beyond the same issues it shares with the previous question:
The "point where it is kill or be killed" changes with different methods of killing.
If two people are holding just spoons, and one attacks the other, the time it takes to reach the "point where it is kill or be killed" is going to be measured in hours.
If two people are holding guns, and one attacks the other, the time it takes to reach the "point where it is kill or be killed" is going to be measured in seconds, or milliseconds.
This is the difference in escalation of violence when guns are involved. It takes literally no time nor effort to escalate violence to the death. It means that instead of there being a long process of consideration of the actions of your attacker, for you to decide if you've reached, or will soon reach, the "point", the "point" arrives before you even know it has, and either you are dead, or the other person is.
If you have a gun, and the other person has a gun, the "point" has already arrived! If you think you are justified, even slightly, on your opinion of your own worth, the most rational thing to do is pull the trigger.
And so, in almost every situation, the ONLY reason there was even the consideration reaching the "point where it is kill or be killed" is because BOTH parties had guns. When both sides have guns, and any kind of violence seems imminent, someone will probably die. This happens so often that it isn't even news.
But when one person has a gun, and they feel even slightly threatened, and they think the other person might have a gun, the same logic (applied to a faulty premise) leads to sooooo many stories about someone killing someone else because they THOUGHT they had reached the "point" already. But, on even a slightly impartial look at the situation, and in hindsight, they were a long way from it. As in, the other person had no way to kill them as quickly as they were killed by a gun.
The best logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, neither party has a gun.
The second best logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, one party has a gun (either person) but that they also KNOW that the other party has no gun.
The second worst logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, both parties have a gun, but one party is unsure if the other party has a gun or not.
The worst logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, both parties have a gun, both parties know the other party has a gun, and that they both ACT ENTIRELY RATIONALLY.
Which brings me to the conclusion that nobody should be allowed to carry or use guns for any self-defense reasons. If you should carry for self defense, you are either ignorant, an idiot, or a psychopath.