Who determines the illegality of the gun? What is legal today may be illegal tomorrow and thanks to a gun registry the police know where to go to confiscate them.
Chicago requires all gun owners to have an FOID. If it should happen to expire (they do) or is otherwise revoked all of your registered firearms are confiscated.
What are the benefits of a gun registry to the gun owner and what are negatives. Not to the non-gun owner, just to the owners.
While [License Plates] are used by law enforcement they are not used solely as a law enforcement tool.
I seriously doubt that License plates on a car have ever been used as anything but a law enforcement tool by a government agency. Please name one purpose other than law enforcement that license plates serve. I include "taxation" as law enforcement, because taxes are laws.
What about custom "vanity" plates? Those serve as either puzzles, or identifying yourself to others on the road in a specific way. I don't see how that could possibly be interpreted as strictly law enforcement.
And you might say that you can serve the same purpose better with bumper stickers, but what if I don't want to put something with adhesive on the paint of my car?
What are the benefits of a gun registry to the gun owner and what are negatives. Not to the non-gun owner, just to the owners.
Y'know, you need to quit with the whole "Maybe not to non-gun owners" thing with me, dude. I used to own more than one, and I'm certainly not modest enough to avoid mentioning that I'm a pretty bloody good shot, too. I'm far from unfamiliar with what it's like and what it means to own a gun.
If a gun crime happens in your neighborhood, and you (innocent) are fingered as a possible suspect, your existing guns' microstamps can be used to at least prove that you didn't use any of said guns to commit said gun crime.
You are comparing two very different things. You are comparing acquiring and driving a vehicle on a public road to purchasing a gun. Further you are adding extra steps to the car side and ignoring all of the permitting involved in not just owning bit also carrying a gun in public.
Legaly buy a car: 1) have money to buy the car.
Legally buy a gun: 1) have money to buy the gun 2) have permit to own a gun (varies by jurisdiction) 3) pass a background check.
You are really, really stretching far to get some semantic bullshit argument and drive a wedge in between "buying" and "carrying/driving" which has absolutely no basis in how and to what end people actually obtain each for the vast majority of the cases.
While [License Plates] are used by law enforcement they are not used solely as a law enforcement tool.
I seriously doubt that License plates on a car have ever been used as anything but a law enforcement tool by a government agency. Please name one purpose other than law enforcement that license plates serve. I include "taxation" as law enforcement, because taxes are laws.
What about custom "vanity" plates? Those serve as either puzzles, or identifying yourself to others on the road in a specific way. I don't see how that could possibly be interpreted as strictly law enforcement.
And you might say that you can serve the same purpose better with bumper stickers, but what if I don't want to put something with adhesive on the paint of my car?
Again, this is piggybacking on license plates, not a reason why license plates exist in the first place. Whether your license plate reads "BDR529" or "OUTATIME" is completely irrelevant. They are just a way to identify a car.
You are comparing two very different things. You are comparing acquiring and driving a vehicle on a public road to purchasing a gun. Further you are adding extra steps to the car side and ignoring all of the permitting involved in not just owning bit also carrying a gun in public.
Legaly buy a car: 1) have money to buy the car.
Legally buy a gun: 1) have money to buy the gun 2) have permit to own a gun (varies by jurisdiction) 3) pass a background check.
You are really, really stretching far to get some semantic bullshit argument and drive a wedge in between "buying" and "carrying/driving" which has absolutely no basis in how and to what end people actually obtain each for the vast majority of the cases.
The real travesty is that it is easier to obtain a firearm than it is to obtain a car in the US, despite their utility suggesting the direct opposite.
Your original post made no mention of licensing just obtaining, which we all know is a losing argument. You then went on to compare purchasing AND licensing/registration of a car to purchasing a firearm. Completely ignoring
To get a car and drive it, rather than having it sit somewhere and admire it from time to time you need: * Be of a certain age * Money for driving lessons and the test * The time to take those lessons and study for the test * Pass the test * Pass mandatory safety training * Buy a mandatory insurance (unless you are in Virginia, New Hampshire or Mississippi) * Pay a license fee for the plates
To acquire a gun you need: * Be of a certain age * Pass a background check (passive) * Wait a couple of days (passive)
That is it as far as I can find. There are far greater restrictions and costs involved (excluding the respective cost of the car and the gun itself) in having the right to operate a vehicle than owning a gun.
You added in the paid driver training steps which are not required unless the applicant is a teenager while ignoring the licensing/permitting requirements to own a firearm (which can vary wildly by state) while also ignoring the fact that all states will accept a drivers license from any other state as valid which can not also be said about firearm licenses.
You have also ignored the fact that your right to own a firearm is far easier to lose than driving privileges. Not just a temporary suspension but loss for life.
So even if you want to change the argument from "buying" to one of "usage" you still lose because it is far easier to use an automobile legally in the US than it is to legally use a firearm.
In the United States, you generally don't need to fire your gun to get to work, support your family, get from your neighborhood to anywhere else, etc. Cars, on the other hand...
In the United States, you generally don't need to fire your gun to get to work, support your family, get from your neighborhood to anywhere else, etc. Cars, on the other hand...
You don't need a lot of things in life but that doesn't change the fact that it is easier to legally obtain a car than it is to legally obtain a gun in the US.
Better comparison would be drivers license vs concealed carry permit. Both of those deal with using the item in public.
Is there any data (or anecdotal evidence) on tazers as self defense and/or home defense weapons instead of guns?
With a gun if I shoot someone they either die or suffer an injury that seriously inhibits their ability to threaten me. With a tazer they are temporarily incapacitated but what happens as they recover? Do I have to taze them again while waiting for cops to arrive?
Edit: from what I have read a tazer is a horrible self defense weapon. You are better off with mace or pepper spray if you want to go the non-lethal route.
Tasers are more effective than mace or pepper spray. They do have serious limitations including the clothing worn by the person being tased, the range, the spread of the barbs and that they need two good hooks by the barbs to be effective.
When working properly they are very effective, however they can only really be used on one person at a time. You can't Taze multiple people. After the taser stops doing it's things, if the barbs are still connected, you can pull the trigger again and initiate another session. So you could keep tasing the bad guy, but most likely you would threaten them with tasing.
Tasers are really a temporary incapacitant and then a pain compliance tool.
Finally what of that 30-foot knife argument that every die hard gun advocate pulls out eventually. My friend's uncle, same one that pulled out that revolver on me, was being held up at knife point at his mechanic shop. The guy had a lethal weapon and lethal intent and a demand for all his money. He gave the guy a $20 and a strong wording to leave. The attacker wasn't satisfied and applied lethal force. His uncle took his knife arm and stabbed his other arm with it before literally tossing him out of the shop. This last story was more hero worship to how much of a bad-ass he was.
I think I'm missing your point. I'm not sure what this example has to do with the right to own or carry a firearm in the US. The "21 foot rule", aka the Tueller Drill, is a widely accepted doctrine stating that within 21 feet a knife wielding attacker can close the distance between a person with a holstered handgun and effect a stab wound on the person with the gun before they can draw and use the handgun in a way that would stop the attack. From 21 feet many shooters can get a shot off, but not fast enough to stop the attack from still happening. The drill is easily replicated.
The point of defending myself with a gun against a knife wielding attacker is that in the US, you do not have to meet force with equal force, in the US you may use more force or deadly force against force. (assuming you had the right to use force in the first place).
I have been attacked by a person with a knife while I was carrying a gun and although I believe in the right to self defense and the use of a firearm to do so I didn't shoot the person. I kept the distance between us, put obstacles in the way and then was able to use other methods and other people to defuse the situation and eventually the person was arrested. I'm glad that's how it went down because I don't ever want to take anyone's life, but in another situation, in another place where I couldn't have gotten the distance I might have shot the person and they might have died and I don't loose sleep over that.
Not everyone has the same luxury of training and skill that I have and I do not expect people to sacrifice their safety by doing the same thing I did.
Fully automatic firearms are legal in at least 25 US States.
To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
FPS Russia gets newly made modern guns because he, or someone who actually owns those guns, is a NFA Dealer and those guns are Dealers samples of stuff he is selling to the government, not to regular joe public types.
In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. Approximately half were privatly owned and half were owned by police departments or other government agencies. I don't know how many of these were modern weapons versus WWII weapons (which are still perfectly usable of course).
As of today there have been two documented cases of legal machine guns being used in a homicide in the US.
It is possible to make an argument that the legal machine guns aren't being used in crimes because they are so expensive to purchase, it's also possible to say it's because legal gun owners don't use them in crimes, it's also possible to argue that there are so few of them so there isn't a chance to use them in crimes, thus showing the effectiveness of gun control.
The truth about machine guns is that they aren't used very often in crimes in the US. The gun of choice for crimes in the US is the semi auto handgun. Why? It's smaller, more portable, easier to conceal and in many ways easier to shoot, although it is harder to shoot well.
Illegal machine guns do turn up in crimes and gun seizures, however in every stat I've ever seen from any reputable source (the FBI, Justice Department, etc) they account for 1 percent or less than 1 percent of guns seized or used in crimes. This stat hasn't changed over time, it was true in the 1980's and has shown to be true in the 2010's.
If new machine guns were made legal to own again would we see an increase in their use in homicides? Maybe, but I don't believe so. They would still only be legal in half the states, would still require the investigation and registration with the government and local law enforcement. Every state that has seen concealed handgun licenses introduced in the last few years has said their would be a massive spike in murders, but it hasn't happened.
If a gun crime happens in your neighborhood, and you (innocent) are fingered as a possible suspect, your existing guns' microstamps can be used to at least prove that you didn't use any of said guns to commit said gun crime.
That is certainly one good example of an argument for micro stamping.
Some of the arguments against micro stamping are:
Who holds the tested shells? In order for micro stamping to work we have to know who has the gun. A license plate on a car works because you have to get a license and register your car when you sell it. Then the title gets transferred to you. If there is no central registry for those micro stamps then it won't be effective once the gun is sold legally to someone else. Since registration isn't required in most states you have now introduced backdoor registration and that is something many gun advocates don't want to see.
Micro stamping only effects the good guys. Micro stamping is easily defeated, since you can replace the firing pin easily on any gun. You can alter the firing pin, etc etc. Bad guys can easily circumvent the micro stamp. It's utility to track and stop criminals is thus defeated. Since it is only tracking good guys it becomes an issue for those gun owners who don't want to be tracked.
If I have a gun that hasn't been fired that is easily tested. If a gun similar to mine has been used in a crime and mine hasn't been fired recently that is easily established. Bullets also have grooves and it would be easy to prove I didn't do the shooting based on that.
Do you know how many people who threaten someone with a knife WANT to kill their victim? Never. If they wanted the person dead in exchange for whatever they wanted to steal, they would kill the person first, and then take it.
But it turns out they don't want to kill anyone, even if they are threatening. They just want your money. And you should give them your money. Or, if you value YOUR health over your money, you should fight them for it.
Bullshit. You don't know the motivation of every person who robs someone with a knife, nor do you know the actions that person will take if I chose to not accept being robbed. How do you know that showing some aggression to them won't result in them trying to stab me? Do you know it because that happened to you one time? I'm glad your aggressor backed down, am I basing my belief system on your one incident, no.
But you have no right to value your money over THEIR life. That is fucked up.
Agree to disagree. Or not, it doesn't matter really. I have the right to not be a victim. If during my resistance to being made a victim the aggressor attacks me in a way in which my life is endangered or serious harm could happen to me then I will defend myself to try and prevent that. If that defense kills the other person that is on their head.
If a man pulls a knife on me do I just shoot them, no way... there are too many variable to answer that flat out, what's the distance, where is my gun located, can I draw it before I get stabbed, is someone else going to get hurt, etc etc.
In the end it boils down to a belief that I have the right to defend myself and do not have to accept being made a victim by someone else and if during my defense of myself I have to use deadly force to protect myself, so be it.
That you can't tell what they are thinking makes YOU the danger in this situation. Not them. You. You are the most dangerous person there.
What I did in the situation I was threatened with a knife was to turn around and walk away. You know what they did? Nothing. They didn't back up the threat at all.
Another time I was attacked by two people wanting to steal my camera? I shouted loudly and repeatedly for them to stop until other people came to break things up.
Last year, when someone tried to rob my girlfriend and I, I punched the guy hard in the face. Less than a minute later a bystander was chasing him down.
Years ago some people tried to rob my brother and I, and I got into a fight until the police turned up and brutally beat the robbers with sticks. I went to the hospital to have my nose xrayed.
Use force, as much as you want, but don't use deadly force.
Good for you in all those examples, I too have been attacked by someone who had a knife, who really wanted to stab me and they didn't get shot, even though I had a gun! Does my example of one mean that everyone should have guns always? Of course it doesn't. Your examples are not how we should base gun laws, gun rights and the laws about use of force in the United States.
Even in Germany I have a right to self defense and have no duty to retreat
English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesn’t understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the “stand your ground” law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.
I wonder how many pummeling deaths there are in Germany every year, my google search says there are "quite a number of beating deaths in Germany every year". Of course I don't have enough info on that statement to use it as any kind of tool in a debate about gun control or self defense rights, but you get where I am going with it.
Germany doesn't have a lot of guns per resident, 30 per 100,000. It doesn't have a lot of gun crime. It does have crime and people are killed in attacks every year with knives or with fists, sticks, etc. Did those people have a right to defend themselves. In at least some or most or maybe even all of those cases of course they did.
I live in the US and in the US I am allowed to use a gun to defend myself and I will do so if I determine it is justified. The court will then determine if I was correct.
In Germany you may defend yourself and hope that you're a better fighter than the other person. I hope you aren't female, weak, small or untrained.
Nope. The intent is not to kill, it is to stop the threat.
Yes, the intention is to stop the threat, to put it as you euphemistically do.
My intent would be to stop the threat. The person may die (or may not, handguns are pretty bad at actually killing people). If you don't accept that you may kill someone you shouldn't use the gun for self defense.
Stopping the threat is what people say so they don't get sued. Of course the gun shooter knew that the person might die, did they want to kill them. Maybe, but often they just wanted whatever prompted them to shoot to stop happening.
Thoughts aren't evil. Actions are evil. Although I was explaining why Scott would call someone evil, not calling him/her evil. Implying someone is a disturbing cunt is not calling them evil.
I think some thoughts are evil, planning on killing people, getting off on torturing someone, fantasizing about child molestation... seems evil to me, but I get your point. Actions are where evil shows itself clearly.
Thoughts aren't evil. Actions are evil. Although I was explaining why Scott would call someone evil, not calling him/her evil. Implying someone is a disturbing cunt is not calling them evil.
I think some thoughts are evil, planning on killing people, getting off on torturing someone, fantasizing about child molestation... seems evil to me, but I get your point. Actions are where evil shows itself clearly.
Thoughts are only evil when they cause evil actions.
Nope. The intent is not to kill, it is to stop the threat.
Yes, the intention is to stop the threat, to put it as you euphemistically do.
My intent would be to stop the threat. The person may die (or may not, handguns are pretty bad at actually killing people). If you don't accept that you may kill someone you shouldn't use the gun for self defense.
Stopping the threat is what people say so they don't get sued. Of course the gun shooter knew that the person might die, did they want to kill them. Maybe, but often they just wanted whatever prompted them to shoot to stop happening.
Man, America is weird.
But yeah, that's the base point as to why I'm saying what I've said to the guy - because you remember, you draw on someone in self defense, you're intending to kill them. You don't have to carry that through, you don't have to be successful, that that's what you should be intending to do - for exactly the reason you say, so you don't kill someone you shouldn't - or legally shouldn't, at least, since we can clearly debate the morals and ethics of it for days around here.
Still, it's super weird to me. I mean, assuming that you're in a situation that's provably self defense, and you were completely legally justified in your actions, people will try to sue you for being blunt, rather than using a euphemism? That's crazy.
AaronC, you can't argue that what I think is wrong based on what current law says anywhere, as I don't agree with those laws and think they should be changed. Saying "Stand your ground laws in Florida are now closer to what they are in Europe" is a fucking dumb argument against me.
Stating exactly the thing I think should change, and the the single most egregious example of why I think it SHOULD change is not going to help you at all.
You know what previously led me to state my non-killing absolutist stance in this thread previously? The awful outcome of the Florida stand your ground law changes.
Let me ask you this, clearly: what do you carry around on your person on a daily basis that is so valuable that is worth killing for? What do you have that is so irreplaceable that you would rather give someone a bullet or two to the chest than handing over?
This is not a hypothetical question. Tell me. What item do you think is worth killing a person to keep?
I have not nor will I ever say you or your arguments are fucking anything.
I do not believe your beliefs are wrong based on laws anywhere, I believe you are wrong because my understanding of your belief in self defense does not allow for taking of human life in any circumstance and I disagree for that.
I don't need help, we aren't ever going to change each others opinions. I was quoting an article written by Germans for Germans in the wake of the Zimmerman shooting. I do find it interesting that German self defense laws along with most of continental Europe do not require a duty to retreat, something even some US states DO require before deadly force can be used legally.
I am not going to dodge your question, nor will I equivocate, I'm confident in my position and while I am sure that it is easy to be misunderstood on an internet forum I will always to my best to be clear. I will give you the benefit of the doubt at times and I hope you do the same for me.
I don't have anything on my person except my personal well being that is worth the life of another.
At the same time I have no obligation to be a victim of another person and I believe that I have a right to resist that form of aggression. I'm not going to hand over my wallet without a fight if I believe I have a chance of resisting without being seriously hurt.
If someone tried to rob me I would have to make several decisions and I might just throw them my wallet. When traveling in other countries I have carried a drop wallet for that purpose. If another person tries to victimize me and I defend myself and they escalate past that point to something more serious I am prepared to defend myself further. If it becomes serious enough that they have a chance of really hurting me or killing me then I have no qualms shooting them (or hitting them in the head or stabbing them, or hitting them with a chair or something else that has the chance of killing them as a byproduct of defending myself).
If I have a gun on me I don't use that as an excuse to get in fights, to go to places I shouldn't be, to cuss guys out in a bar, to resist a robber or any other situation where I can get into a defensive position where I could shoot someone and try to justify it legally.
But yeah, that's the base point as to why I'm saying what I've said to the guy - because you remember, you draw on someone in self defense, you're intending to kill them. You don't have to carry that through, you don't have to be successful, that that's what you should be intending to do - for exactly the reason you say, so you don't kill someone you shouldn't - or legally shouldn't, at least, since we can clearly debate the morals and ethics of it for days around here.
Still, it's super weird to me. I mean, assuming that you're in a situation that's provably self defense, and you were completely legally justified in your actions, people will try to sue you for being blunt, rather than using a euphemism? That's crazy.
Mostly true, it is quite possible to draw on someone and not want to or intend to kill them. Police do it all the time when they have someone at gunpoint (and yes I know I'm not a cop). The difference in belief is that you have to be willing to use the gun if you draw it, and hope that you don't.
There are contested stats that show that more gun incidents happen where the "good guy" doesn't shoot that "bad guy" when the gun is drawn that incidents where the "bad guy" gets shot.
People have been sued for having hollow point bullets. The argument is that you wanted to kill the person so you got bullets that made it easier to kill... well duh, what are handguns for... not hunting animals (although they can be used for that and some are only practical for that). Of course people carry hollow points, they do a better job at stopping the person being shot from being a threat... but saying that makes you sound (in a court) like you wanted to kill.
I am headed to bed now, I will look for all the responses in the morning.
Mostly true, it is quite possible to draw on someone and not want to or intend to kill them. Police do it all the time when they have someone at gunpoint (and yes I know I'm not a cop). The difference in belief is that you have to be willing to use the gun if you draw it, and hope that you don't.
Well yeah, of course. If I pick up a hammer, I intend to strike something with it, but that doesn't mean I've any obligation to if I decide that I can get it done another way. Don't worry, I get where you're going with this - we fundamentally agree, we're just coming at the issue using slightly different words, from slightly different positions.
There are contested stats that show that more gun incidents happen where the "good guy" doesn't shoot that "bad guy" when the gun is drawn that incidents where the "bad guy" gets shot.
People have been sued for having hollow point bullets. The argument is that you wanted to kill the person so you got bullets that made it easier to kill... well duh, what are handguns for... not hunting animals (although they can be used for that and some are only practical for that). Of course people carry hollow points, they do a better job at stopping the person being shot from being a threat... but saying that makes you sound (in a court) like you wanted to kill.
I can understand where they're coming from, when you put it like that - Probably the number one person you don't want carrying a firearm for self defense is the guy looking to kill - but it doesn't strike me as any less odd.
I have not nor will I ever say you or your arguments are fucking anything.
I do not believe your beliefs are wrong based on laws anywhere, I believe you are wrong because my understanding of your belief in self defense does not allow for taking of human life in any circumstance and I disagree for that.
As I have stated in this thread before, my stated belief is that the best situation is that no deadly weapons (meaning a device designed primarily to kill, not as a device that might accidentally lead to someone dying) should ever be employed against anyone ever.
To put it simply, if you are carrying a gun for ANY reason other than target shooting, hunting or other sport, you should be arrested and charged much in the same way as drunk drivers are charged. In other words, you are an unsafe person for the rest of society, and need to be persuaded to act otherwise.
No deadly weapons used in any self defense, ever. My position is totally rational and consistent.
The default position of the police will be if a person is carrying a gun in public, the person is already a criminal. The person should be arrested before they can threaten anyone with the gun. Police may carry weapons, and use them.
It will be very difficult to get from how the USA is now to how I would like it to be (you know, way more like the rest of the civilized world) but that doesn't mean it isn't a good goal to aim for.
Why shouldn't every bit of technology and legislation and new non-deadly or non-violent self defense weapons or devices be applied with any other goal in mind except the goal of having less people die?
With any other goal, where there are grey areas, or where it's sometimes considered okay for people to die, or for people to be killed, either intentionally or accidentally, then the aim isn't high enough.
You seem to think that you live in a world where statistics and probability doesn't exist. They do. You having a gun makes it more likely for more deaths to occur in a population. You only care about your death not happening, rather than the reduction of death overall. That's understandable, but also utterly ignorant. There's a reason we vaccinate against deadly diseases. There's a reason we don't allow drunk driving. There's a reason we don't let people make and sell cheese made in baths or drink unpasteurized milk.
I know you won't change my opinion, because I can prove how it is logically and morally superior to anything you've stated so far.
But what I'd love from you is to lay out how you would like society to be. Go on, explain your end goal, and then we can properly judge your proposed rule changes, or your objections to the rule changes other in this thread have proposed. So far I can't work out any coherence except things like:
"I'm not going to hand over my wallet without a fight if I believe I have a chance of resisting without being seriously hurt."
All of your arguments seem to stem from the fact that you want the power of life and death over anyone who threatens to inconvenience you. And really, that's all that losing a wallet is these days, a mild inconvenience. There is nothing in your wallet, ever, that can't be sorted out with a few phone calls, with the only noticeable annoyance being a few days of not having credit cards.
Is someone's life REALLY so trivial to you? Is this how you want society to work? The lives of others are less valuable than the avoiding of mild inconveniences?
No deadly weapons used in any self defense, ever. My position is totally rational and consistent.
I am 100% serious with my next question.
Do you apply this even to resistance to institutionalized or military violence? Is there any difference between self-defense against individual crime/harm, and self-defense against Nazis? (Let's still exclude contrived literal HIM OR ME 100% certainty situations).
Would the Armenians have been justified in using deadly force to prevent their deadly relocation?
I do believe that individual self defense is an entirely separate case from armed resistance to institutional/military violence. I don't think it's fair or useful to include both in the same argument.
However, I do want to know your opinion. Were the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto justified in using deadly force to resist? Would you have done the same in any general sense?
I'd also like to know where the line is drawn between a random and a known individual.
For example is it OK for the President of the USA to have a bodyguard kill an attacker? What about a Senator or Congressperson? A court judge? Does this deadly force right somehow only benefit the elite? Because the way i see your absolute ban on deadly weapons for self defense it would have to apply to world leaders as well as peasants.
Sure. I'm not actually a pacifist in that sense. I have no problems with armed resistance to existential threats, or however you want to term it.
However, as you said yourself, the question of armed militias or stockpiles of guns held against future unknowable threats from within or without your country is a very different question, with different answers, to the carrying of guns for the purpose of self defense.
A quick look at guns in Switzerland shows how there the two questions can be solved in different ways. There really IS a well regulated militia. If my country was going to be invaded by a group bent on genocide, I'd far rather be in a country like Switzerland than in a place where guns are not allowed at all. But who gets to carry a loaded gun otherwise in Switzerland? Police, some security personnel, and pretty much nobody else. And, checking that page, every gun is registered.
Comments
Chicago requires all gun owners to have an FOID. If it should happen to expire (they do) or is otherwise revoked all of your registered firearms are confiscated.
What are the benefits of a gun registry to the gun owner and what are negatives. Not to the non-gun owner, just to the owners.
And you might say that you can serve the same purpose better with bumper stickers, but what if I don't want to put something with adhesive on the paint of my car?
If a gun crime happens in your neighborhood, and you (innocent) are fingered as a possible suspect, your existing guns' microstamps can be used to at least prove that you didn't use any of said guns to commit said gun crime.
Again, this is piggybacking on license plates, not a reason why license plates exist in the first place. Whether your license plate reads "BDR529" or "OUTATIME" is completely irrelevant. They are just a way to identify a car.
You have also ignored the fact that your right to own a firearm is far easier to lose than driving privileges. Not just a temporary suspension but loss for life.
So even if you want to change the argument from "buying" to one of "usage" you still lose because it is far easier to use an automobile legally in the US than it is to legally use a firearm.
Better comparison would be drivers license vs concealed carry permit. Both of those deal with using the item in public.
When working properly they are very effective, however they can only really be used on one person at a time. You can't Taze multiple people. After the taser stops doing it's things, if the barbs are still connected, you can pull the trigger again and initiate another session. So you could keep tasing the bad guy, but most likely you would threaten them with tasing.
Tasers are really a temporary incapacitant and then a pain compliance tool.
The point of defending myself with a gun against a knife wielding attacker is that in the US, you do not have to meet force with equal force, in the US you may use more force or deadly force against force. (assuming you had the right to use force in the first place).
I have been attacked by a person with a knife while I was carrying a gun and although I believe in the right to self defense and the use of a firearm to do so I didn't shoot the person. I kept the distance between us, put obstacles in the way and then was able to use other methods and other people to defuse the situation and eventually the person was arrested. I'm glad that's how it went down because I don't ever want to take anyone's life, but in another situation, in another place where I couldn't have gotten the distance I might have shot the person and they might have died and I don't loose sleep over that.
Not everyone has the same luxury of training and skill that I have and I do not expect people to sacrifice their safety by doing the same thing I did.
In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. Approximately half were privatly owned and half were owned by police departments or other government agencies. I don't know how many of these were modern weapons versus WWII weapons (which are still perfectly usable of course).
As of today there have been two documented cases of legal machine guns being used in a homicide in the US.
It is possible to make an argument that the legal machine guns aren't being used in crimes because they are so expensive to purchase, it's also possible to say it's because legal gun owners don't use them in crimes, it's also possible to argue that there are so few of them so there isn't a chance to use them in crimes, thus showing the effectiveness of gun control.
The truth about machine guns is that they aren't used very often in crimes in the US. The gun of choice for crimes in the US is the semi auto handgun. Why? It's smaller, more portable, easier to conceal and in many ways easier to shoot, although it is harder to shoot well.
Illegal machine guns do turn up in crimes and gun seizures, however in every stat I've ever seen from any reputable source (the FBI, Justice Department, etc) they account for 1 percent or less than 1 percent of guns seized or used in crimes. This stat hasn't changed over time, it was true in the 1980's and has shown to be true in the 2010's.
If new machine guns were made legal to own again would we see an increase in their use in homicides? Maybe, but I don't believe so. They would still only be legal in half the states, would still require the investigation and registration with the government and local law enforcement. Every state that has seen concealed handgun licenses introduced in the last few years has said their would be a massive spike in murders, but it hasn't happened.
Some of the arguments against micro stamping are:
Who holds the tested shells? In order for micro stamping to work we have to know who has the gun. A license plate on a car works because you have to get a license and register your car when you sell it. Then the title gets transferred to you. If there is no central registry for those micro stamps then it won't be effective once the gun is sold legally to someone else. Since registration isn't required in most states you have now introduced backdoor registration and that is something many gun advocates don't want to see.
Micro stamping only effects the good guys. Micro stamping is easily defeated, since you can replace the firing pin easily on any gun. You can alter the firing pin, etc etc. Bad guys can easily circumvent the micro stamp. It's utility to track and stop criminals is thus defeated. Since it is only tracking good guys it becomes an issue for those gun owners who don't want to be tracked.
If I have a gun that hasn't been fired that is easily tested. If a gun similar to mine has been used in a crime and mine hasn't been fired recently that is easily established. Bullets also have grooves and it would be easy to prove I didn't do the shooting based on that.
If a man pulls a knife on me do I just shoot them, no way... there are too many variable to answer that flat out, what's the distance, where is my gun located, can I draw it before I get stabbed, is someone else going to get hurt, etc etc.
In the end it boils down to a belief that I have the right to defend myself and do not have to accept being made a victim by someone else and if during my defense of myself I have to use deadly force to protect myself, so be it.
Good for you in all those examples, I too have been attacked by someone who had a knife, who really wanted to stab me and they didn't get shot, even though I had a gun! Does my example of one mean that everyone should have guns always? Of course it doesn't. Your examples are not how we should base gun laws, gun rights and the laws about use of force in the United States.
Even in Germany I have a right to self defense and have no duty to retreat I wonder how many pummeling deaths there are in Germany every year, my google search says there are "quite a number of beating deaths in Germany every year". Of course I don't have enough info on that statement to use it as any kind of tool in a debate about gun control or self defense rights, but you get where I am going with it.
Germany doesn't have a lot of guns per resident, 30 per 100,000. It doesn't have a lot of gun crime. It does have crime and people are killed in attacks every year with knives or with fists, sticks, etc. Did those people have a right to defend themselves. In at least some or most or maybe even all of those cases of course they did.
I live in the US and in the US I am allowed to use a gun to defend myself and I will do so if I determine it is justified. The court will then determine if I was correct.
In Germany you may defend yourself and hope that you're a better fighter than the other person. I hope you aren't female, weak, small or untrained.
Stopping the threat is what people say so they don't get sued. Of course the gun shooter knew that the person might die, did they want to kill them. Maybe, but often they just wanted whatever prompted them to shoot to stop happening.
But yeah, that's the base point as to why I'm saying what I've said to the guy - because you remember, you draw on someone in self defense, you're intending to kill them. You don't have to carry that through, you don't have to be successful, that that's what you should be intending to do - for exactly the reason you say, so you don't kill someone you shouldn't - or legally shouldn't, at least, since we can clearly debate the morals and ethics of it for days around here.
Still, it's super weird to me. I mean, assuming that you're in a situation that's provably self defense, and you were completely legally justified in your actions, people will try to sue you for being blunt, rather than using a euphemism? That's crazy.
Stating exactly the thing I think should change, and the the single most egregious example of why I think it SHOULD change is not going to help you at all.
You know what previously led me to state my non-killing absolutist stance in this thread previously? The awful outcome of the Florida stand your ground law changes.
Let me ask you this, clearly: what do you carry around on your person on a daily basis that is so valuable that is worth killing for? What do you have that is so irreplaceable that you would rather give someone a bullet or two to the chest than handing over?
This is not a hypothetical question. Tell me. What item do you think is worth killing a person to keep?
I do not believe your beliefs are wrong based on laws anywhere, I believe you are wrong because my understanding of your belief in self defense does not allow for taking of human life in any circumstance and I disagree for that.
I don't need help, we aren't ever going to change each others opinions. I was quoting an article written by Germans for Germans in the wake of the Zimmerman shooting. I do find it interesting that German self defense laws along with most of continental Europe do not require a duty to retreat, something even some US states DO require before deadly force can be used legally.
I am not going to dodge your question, nor will I equivocate, I'm confident in my position and while I am sure that it is easy to be misunderstood on an internet forum I will always to my best to be clear. I will give you the benefit of the doubt at times and I hope you do the same for me.
I don't have anything on my person except my personal well being that is worth the life of another.
At the same time I have no obligation to be a victim of another person and I believe that I have a right to resist that form of aggression. I'm not going to hand over my wallet without a fight if I believe I have a chance of resisting without being seriously hurt.
If someone tried to rob me I would have to make several decisions and I might just throw them my wallet. When traveling in other countries I have carried a drop wallet for that purpose. If another person tries to victimize me and I defend myself and they escalate past that point to something more serious I am prepared to defend myself further. If it becomes serious enough that they have a chance of really hurting me or killing me then I have no qualms shooting them (or hitting them in the head or stabbing them, or hitting them with a chair or something else that has the chance of killing them as a byproduct of defending myself).
If I have a gun on me I don't use that as an excuse to get in fights, to go to places I shouldn't be, to cuss guys out in a bar, to resist a robber or any other situation where I can get into a defensive position where I could shoot someone and try to justify it legally.
There are contested stats that show that more gun incidents happen where the "good guy" doesn't shoot that "bad guy" when the gun is drawn that incidents where the "bad guy" gets shot.
People have been sued for having hollow point bullets. The argument is that you wanted to kill the person so you got bullets that made it easier to kill... well duh, what are handguns for... not hunting animals (although they can be used for that and some are only practical for that). Of course people carry hollow points, they do a better job at stopping the person being shot from being a threat... but saying that makes you sound (in a court) like you wanted to kill.
I am headed to bed now, I will look for all the responses in the morning.
To put it simply, if you are carrying a gun for ANY reason other than target shooting, hunting or other sport, you should be arrested and charged much in the same way as drunk drivers are charged. In other words, you are an unsafe person for the rest of society, and need to be persuaded to act otherwise.
No deadly weapons used in any self defense, ever. My position is totally rational and consistent.
The default position of the police will be if a person is carrying a gun in public, the person is already a criminal. The person should be arrested before they can threaten anyone with the gun. Police may carry weapons, and use them.
It will be very difficult to get from how the USA is now to how I would like it to be (you know, way more like the rest of the civilized world) but that doesn't mean it isn't a good goal to aim for.
Why shouldn't every bit of technology and legislation and new non-deadly or non-violent self defense weapons or devices be applied with any other goal in mind except the goal of having less people die?
With any other goal, where there are grey areas, or where it's sometimes considered okay for people to die, or for people to be killed, either intentionally or accidentally, then the aim isn't high enough.
You seem to think that you live in a world where statistics and probability doesn't exist. They do. You having a gun makes it more likely for more deaths to occur in a population. You only care about your death not happening, rather than the reduction of death overall. That's understandable, but also utterly ignorant. There's a reason we vaccinate against deadly diseases. There's a reason we don't allow drunk driving. There's a reason we don't let people make and sell cheese made in baths or drink unpasteurized milk.
I know you won't change my opinion, because I can prove how it is logically and morally superior to anything you've stated so far.
But what I'd love from you is to lay out how you would like society to be. Go on, explain your end goal, and then we can properly judge your proposed rule changes, or your objections to the rule changes other in this thread have proposed. So far I can't work out any coherence except things like:
"I'm not going to hand over my wallet without a fight if I believe I have a chance of resisting without being seriously hurt."
All of your arguments seem to stem from the fact that you want the power of life and death over anyone who threatens to inconvenience you. And really, that's all that losing a wallet is these days, a mild inconvenience. There is nothing in your wallet, ever, that can't be sorted out with a few phone calls, with the only noticeable annoyance being a few days of not having credit cards.
Is someone's life REALLY so trivial to you? Is this how you want society to work? The lives of others are less valuable than the avoiding of mild inconveniences?
Do you apply this even to resistance to institutionalized or military violence? Is there any difference between self-defense against individual crime/harm, and self-defense against Nazis? (Let's still exclude contrived literal HIM OR ME 100% certainty situations).
Would the Armenians have been justified in using deadly force to prevent their deadly relocation?
I do believe that individual self defense is an entirely separate case from armed resistance to institutional/military violence. I don't think it's fair or useful to include both in the same argument.
However, I do want to know your opinion. Were the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto justified in using deadly force to resist? Would you have done the same in any general sense?
For example is it OK for the President of the USA to have a bodyguard kill an attacker? What about a Senator or Congressperson? A court judge? Does this deadly force right somehow only benefit the elite? Because the way i see your absolute ban on deadly weapons for self defense it would have to apply to world leaders as well as peasants.
However, as you said yourself, the question of armed militias or stockpiles of guns held against future unknowable threats from within or without your country is a very different question, with different answers, to the carrying of guns for the purpose of self defense.
A quick look at guns in Switzerland shows how there the two questions can be solved in different ways. There really IS a well regulated militia. If my country was going to be invaded by a group bent on genocide, I'd far rather be in a country like Switzerland than in a place where guns are not allowed at all. But who gets to carry a loaded gun otherwise in Switzerland? Police, some security personnel, and pretty much nobody else. And, checking that page, every gun is registered.