The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[Balagor]

>snip<

 

This being the case, 'human nature' would thus be a misinterpretation of ordinary animal behavior, not a predisposition to maim and kill. That relates to gun rights issues in that, since humans are not creatures of violence by nature, allowing people to arm themselves will not result in a rise in violent offenses.

 

>snip<

 

So basically we could have no restriction for guns at all.

I can agree that most people are non violent by nature. I wonder if this also will be the case in a spontanious fight? If we are drunk? Temporary loss of sanity? Jealousy? etc?

[Aurielius]

>snip<

 

This being the case, 'human nature' would thus be a misinterpretation of ordinary animal behavior, not a predisposition to maim and kill. That relates to gun rights issues in that, since humans are not creatures of violence by nature, allowing people to arm themselves will not result in a rise in violent offenses.

 

>snip<

 

So basically we could have no restriction for guns at all.

I can agree that most people are non violent by nature. I wonder if this also will be the case in a spontanious fight? If we are drunk? Temporary loss of sanity? Jealousy? etc?

Balagor just because you get into a fist fight and happened to be armed does not mean you are going to whip out your gun and use it, have easily had too much too drink on occasion when carrying...it never occurred to me to use the handgun to get the next round for free. Since I always have been at least clinically sane, cannot answer as to what that type of individual will do if armed, but even if unarmed that type of person is dangerous and could use the proverbial 'blunt force object'. I could go on to refute all given examples as well as you could dredge up more, violence is possible under any and no circumstance...depends on the person doesn't it?

[Balagor]

>snip<

 

This being the case, 'human nature' would thus be a misinterpretation of ordinary animal behavior, not a predisposition to maim and kill. That relates to gun rights issues in that, since humans are not creatures of violence by nature, allowing people to arm themselves will not result in a rise in violent offenses.

 

>snip<

 

So basically we could have no restriction for guns at all.

I can agree that most people are non violent by nature. I wonder if this also will be the case in a spontanious fight? If we are drunk? Temporary loss of sanity? Jealousy? etc?

Balagor just because you get into a fist fight and happened to be armed does not mean you are going to whip out your gun and use it, have easily had too much too drink on occasion when carrying...it never occurred to me to use the handgun to get the next round for free. Since I always have been at least clinically sane, cannot answer as to what that type of individual will do if armed, but even if unarmed that type of person is dangerous and could use the proverbial 'blunt force object'. I could go on to refute all given examples as well as you could dredge up more, violence is possible under any and no circumstance...depends on the person doesn't it?

 

Let me put it another way then. The said research that was referred to, was about sane people in a stable mood. The everyday is not like that. We do have emotions and mood swings. I have seen youngsters in fights when they are just about to loose the fight, they will draw a knife. Had they a gun they wood certainly draw that. The gun is not to blame here, the person is, I am aware of that, but if acess to guns were more difficult, it would not be an issue in the first place. This person, though twisted, who becomes so heavily aggresive that he would pull a gun, would even regret it after he had cooled down after some seconds. Guns are dangerous tools in the wrong moment in the wrong hands.

[marharth]

>snip<

 

This being the case, 'human nature' would thus be a misinterpretation of ordinary animal behavior, not a predisposition to maim and kill. That relates to gun rights issues in that, since humans are not creatures of violence by nature, allowing people to arm themselves will not result in a rise in violent offenses.

 

>snip<

 

So basically we could have no restriction for guns at all.

I can agree that most people are non violent by nature. I wonder if this also will be the case in a spontanious fight? If we are drunk? Temporary loss of sanity? Jealousy? etc?

Balagor just because you get into a fist fight and happened to be armed does not mean you are going to whip out your gun and use it, have easily had too much too drink on occasion when carrying...it never occurred to me to use the handgun to get the next round for free. Since I always have been at least clinically sane, cannot answer as to what that type of individual will do if armed, but even if unarmed that type of person is dangerous and could use the proverbial 'blunt force object'. I could go on to refute all given examples as well as you could dredge up more, violence is possible under any and no circumstance...depends on the person doesn't it?

 

Let me put it another way then. The said research that was referred to, was about sane people in a stable mood. The everyday is not like that. We do have emotions and mood swings. I have seen youngsters in fights when they are just about to loose the fight, they will draw a knife. Had they a gun they wood certainly draw that. The gun is not to blame here, the person is, I am aware of that, but if acess to guns were more difficult, it would not be an issue in the first place. This person, though twisted, who becomes so heavily aggresive that he would pull a gun, would even regret it after he had cooled down after some seconds. Guns are dangerous tools in the wrong moment in the wrong hands.

1. Don't get in fist fights, that could solve a lot of issues.

 

2. Who carries around a fully loaded pistol that is easy to just whip out and fire? It would take time to pull it out.

 

3. Using a knife would be just as deadly as using a gun in a fist fight.

 

4. USA troops have guns and they use them wrong all the time, want to disarm the military?

[Aurielius]

 

1. Don't get in fist fights, that could solve a lot of issues.

 

This point is rational and I agree.

 

2. Who carries around a fully loaded pistol that is easy to just whip out and fire? It would take time to pull it out.

 

Anyone who has a concealed arms permit, and about three seconds would be my time delay from intent to being able to fire.

 

3. Using a knife would be just as deadly as using a gun in a fist fight.

 

Never bring a knife to a gunfight, old axiom but true.

 

4. USA troops have guns and they use them wrong all the time, want to disarm the military?

 

As usual your disdain out paces your actual knowledge, ever see a standard Marine shoot? They are all trained marksman.

[Balagor]

>snip<

 

1. Don't get in fist fights, that could solve a lot of issues.

 

2. Who carries around a fully loaded pistol that is easy to just whip out and fire? It would take time to pull it out.

 

3. Using a knife would be just as deadly as using a gun in a fist fight.

 

4. USA troops have guns and they use them wrong all the time, want to disarm the military?

 

1. That´s impossible to avoid, since mankind do have fragile emotions.

 

2. If not fully loaded, and it takes time to to pull out, I fail to see what kind of protection it offers against real villians. We can then ban the gun anyway. :wink:

 

3. If you are fast (and lucky) you can avoid a knife. A pull on the tricker, aimed on the head, you are dead in less than a frag of a second.

 

4. Yes, I wanted so in the -70th, when I was a young hippie, but I have grown less naive and found that project impossible now.

[ginnyfizz]

Look what running down and largely disarming the military did for Europe in the 1930's. Before being sent out with the ill fated BEF and to his death during the retreat to Dunkerque, one of my uncles had trained with a broom handle instead of a rifle - he only got one of those on embarkation. I am constantly amazed that anyone can think of military disarmament as EVER being desirable after such a lesson, even when in their flower child phase. Come to think of it, that's also a pretty salutary lesson for all those who, like the hysterical ones in my country who react to incidents as described in that excellent essay linked by Wrath_of_Deadguy01 with "OMG let's ban all guns". Let's not forget that at one time it was considered normal, even in peacetime, for citizens to be trained in the use of arms. They made a better fighting force when the need arose. This is what the US Founding Fathers recognised. And it would be a darned fine idea now.

 

And as Aurelius says, where concealed carry is allowed, it would be pretty quick to pull a loaded pistol if you knew what you were doing. Were it allowed here, even I with my arthritic hands could have it levelled in seconds, judging by the short time it takes me to bring up a long weapon and fire.

[marharth]

 

1. Don't get in fist fights, that could solve a lot of issues.

 

This point is rational and I agree.

 

2. Who carries around a fully loaded pistol that is easy to just whip out and fire? It would take time to pull it out.

 

Anyone who has a concealed arms permit, and about three seconds would be my time delay from intent to being able to fire.

 

3. Using a knife would be just as deadly as using a gun in a fist fight.

 

Never bring a knife to a gunfight, old axiom but true.

 

4. USA troops have guns and they use them wrong all the time, want to disarm the military?

 

As usual your disdain out paces your actual knowledge, ever see a standard Marine shoot? They are all trained marksman.

 

I never said anything about them being bad with a gun, I said they use them wrong. By that I mean they kill a bunch of innocent civilians.

 

The saying in never bring a knife to a gun fight, not never bring a knife to a fist fight...

 

You can do a lot in 3 seconds... At close range it shouldn't be too hard to disarm someone.

[Aurielius]

 

I never said anything about them being bad with a gun, I said they use them wrong. By that I mean they kill a bunch of innocent civilians.

 

You make that statement as if that was their original intent, which under the current ROE is not the case. The military goes by the axiom of return fire when fired upon. Fire Fights in urban areas are not akin to a shooting range one cannot be sure where all the rounds will end up.

 

The saying in never bring a knife to a gun fight, not never bring a knife to a fist fight...

 

I never advised either course of action, actually the best policy with an impending altercation is to walk away.

 

 

You can do a lot in 3 seconds... At close range it shouldn't be too hard to disarm someone.

 

You would like to bet your life on your ninja skills? There was no precondition of standing still during that elapsed time frame. Real life combat between trained military reflexes and someone who practices at the Dojo is not really a contest at all. It is not the ability that comes into play but rather the instinctual patterned reflex which only occurs after much training and real life application of such. Most all people hesitate when confronted with absolute violence. It is a natural reaction, the difference is that a trained individual will not, and that is all the edge that is required to survive versus being foolhardily dead.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

This site is an excellent self-defense resource. You might note that very little this guy has to say involves guns at all- in fact, most of it is centered on conflict avoidance and much of the rest on how to de-escalate and escape. He also devotes a lot of time to the lethality of knives.

 

The assumption that knives are somehow less lethal than guns is a mistaken one. Knives have been around longer than language. They're one of our most useful tools, but sharp edges served mankind as killing implements well enough for tens of thousands of years before guns came along... it is unwise to underestimate their potential.