Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

I'm just unable to accept that. There is no way that I could not do something about it.I think just laying there and letting someone walk all over your right to your property perpetuates the problem. That the crook realizes that people probably aren't going to defend themselves anyway is a motivation to commit the crime.And like Legend says, you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why assume that they are not going to try to hurt you?I'm baffled by this line of thinking and just can't get myself to respect that attitude.

Out of the instances where an intruder enters an occupied home, how many of them were for burglary?Out of burglaries, how many were in occupied homes? How many of those were thought to be unoccupied? I wish a mutha-fucka would find me! j/kYou're attitude allows crime. I think its pathetic, no offense. Grow a pair and protect yourself. Don't let crooks walk all over you. I think the best course of action is to yell: "Hey, there's somebody here and I have a gun. Get the fuck out of my house!"Calling the police isn't going to help you. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. They come to take notes on what you lost or to draw lines around your body. They don't stop the crime. Again you're assuming, for no reason, that all he wants is your TV.If you hesitate and allow them to get the jump on you, then you could be done for. You might not even get a chance to call the police. Its better to be pro-active and to take the steps to protect yourself. Yeah, that's a stupid response that I'm not advocating. Quite possibly the strongest.But people have become sheep and crooks know that. You'll just cower behind your bed and let him take what he wants That's sad. You're lucky it wasn't an actual intruder! Don't shoot things that you don't know what or who they are, duh Who just starts blasting bullets like that!? Of course they will.Fuck the police. They don't do shit. And they want you to not be able to protect yourself (in case they have to be against you).That being their advice makes me want to do that less.In this discussions situation, I'll be calling the police and telling them either a crook just got scared out of my home or that they need to come pick up his body.

Why should someone have to give you a reason for you to own a gun?If you don't want one then don't get one.I bought one for recreational use and for home defense.I have a right to own one and I want one.Why shouldn't I have one?

Yes.You could take the legal limit down to 0.06 in the city limits and let it go up to 0.1 (or higher) in the country. Works best? For who? ...not The People.I'm not a fan of universal laws.Here in Illinois, we have a FOID card. It comes from Chicago area uban-mentallity ruling and it totally sucks for the rural folks in the southern end of the state. Its not helping us down here at all. Effective at what though?

No. Are you saying that its morally wrong to own a gun? Indeed. To me, they don't seem to suggest that. And shit all over people's individual rights? I suppose we should ban abortion too, if it caused net harm to society? Lame reason, imho.I want one and I enjoy shooting it. I don't think that me not having one is going to reduce the net harm to society.

Not if the laws are determined state-by-state. Honest question, I don't know: Is there a federal law against drinking and driving?I don't think so. I'm saying that universal (federal) laws should be minimalized.10th Amendment and all that. Because the people who don't regard the law aren't going to follow the rules anyway. You think the gang bangers have FOID cards? Or just all the responsible hunters who don't really need one in the first place?I got thrown out of a gun store for picking up a bullet when I didn't hav a FOID card. The law states that I'm unable to even handle one piece of ammunition without a FOID card unless under direct supervision of a person with a FOID card. The guy running the gun store didn't even know the letter of the law, and I was not breaking it because there he was supervising me holding the ammo. It shits on peoples' individual rights. And you think its working?

I see. Its clearer now. We should use a different word than "law" though, as that implies legislation. Lets say "rule". So then we don't need a federal law that says that there has to be state laws against drinking and driving!? Nobody is advocating lawlessness, but we do not need a federal law on gun control. It should be up to the individual states. A universal rule? Fine. An actual law? no. But the people who obey the laws are not the ones who are causing the problems. Fuck that! How do we protect ourselves from the government if they know where all the guns are?Registration leads to confiscation.Goodwin's gonna be pissed, but one of the first things Hitler did was register all the guns and ammo, and one of the second things he did was take them all away. Then there's no possibility of resistance. If they're under direct supervision of a person with a FOID card (i.e. the guy behind the counter), then they should be allowed to. There's nothing wrong with holding a bullet. Every? So its okay then? Are you not going ot argue against abortion because of the women's individual right because all laws shit on peoples' individual rights? Of course they're for the legal use. And since they're not working why would you want more of them?

I'd go with tougher punishments, because those only affect the people who break the law.More stringent doesn't help against people who aren't obeying the law in the first place.And what kind of laws do we actually see when it comes to gun control? More stringent ones passed by people who don't know anything about guns. Trigger locks, defining "assault weapon" by aesthetics alone, marking bullets, etc. Stupid bullshit! It doesn't matter how loud you shout when the cops are at your door demanding your guns. Rahvin, in Message 148, writes:

quote:

---

If this is the case (and the statistics shown in this thread seem to suggest it is), then ethically the best thing to do is to tighten gun control laws and reduce the net harm to society - possibly including banning personal gun ownership entirely (possibly with exceptions for hunting rifles, since those are difficult to use for home invasions, muggings, and other crimes).

---

What if you're a collector? Already exist. Not much of a problem although I don't see what purpose it serves. YES!!! You don't want the government to know where all the guns are. And if society decides that slavery should be legal again then you're gonna be all for it!? False. Unbelievable, ignorant, and stupid. As long as Big Brother is taking care of you, I guess. The proper analogy would be for them to keep building and trying to fly the same damned plane over and over again, Nobody's advocating that. The problem is that more laws don't do a good job affecting people who don't obey the laws.

I've seen claims like this from others too, that guns are only intended to kill.That's not true for all guns.Target competition guns are designed to put holes in paper, specialized skeet shooting guns are designed to break clay, and novelty collectors' items guns are designed to look good.

No, I'm not equivocating.We're talking about guns and only guns. I meant that others' statements specifically saying that guns are for killing are like your statement (sorry for the poor wording)Here's a specific one:Mod in Message 244:

quote:

---

Not at all. Some posters here -most notably RAZD- have argued for gun control on the basis of 'innocent' lives lost, i.e. people, children, accidentally killed by guns. So not a red herring at all.

It is a red herring. Yes, innocent lives lost (because of a lack of guns or because of their prevalence)is a statistic of import in the debate. But adding it to your sentence is irrelevant. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are designed to complete their job without killing people. Trying to spin it any other way looks pretty disingenuous to me.

---

emphasis added But that's not what they were designed for, which was my point:Not all guns are designed to cause harm. I meant fully functional decorative guns.I just wanted to quickly chime in to inform people that there are other guns that exist besides ones that are designed to kill or hurt people. They seem to be forgotten about in these debates.

Felon?

I dunno. Its none of my business, I was just curious.But I'll take your evasion as a yes

quote:

---

I'm not a paranoid who is afraid of the big bad government, and I also recognize that a hand gun a few rifles and a shotgun are going to be little deterence if the government decides it wants to take us out...for some reason that never seems to be articulated by those advancing this scenario.

---

You're not understanding the scenario....Its not that those of us that advance it think that we'd be able to win an all out war against the government, its that us having guns is a deterrant for the government to go in the first place.Plus it acts as a deterrent to invasion in general:

And if you think they wouldn't consider it at all then you are living in a dream land. That the citizens do have guns is one more reason to not go to war against them. Can't argue with incredulity! I think the counter argument is naive.

That would just destroy all the infrastructure and resources... they're not that dumb. Plus, the government has a vested interest in living people so they wouldn't want everyone to be dead. The only way to really do it would be with infantry. Because it'd be a huge thorn in their side if we did. Where did I say or imply that? An armed citizenry is a significant deterrent to invasion: Why wouldn't it be?