RL gun copying Shadowrun: individualized safety., Or "$10,000 gun won't shoot when unless near an ugly watc Options

[Critias]

Well, I quoted your definition of "home invasion"...so I obviously did not mean your pathetic attempt to redefine home invasion from "hot burglary" to "any illegal B&E" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Right, my "pathetic attempt to redefine" it that also just happens to be in line with the definitions Nezumi found.

Because this is what we have been doing in this thread all along, only when it doesn't fit your argumentation any longer you suddenly get into the technicalities and says "but I didn't talk about firearms explicitly!!". Sure...

*sigh*

The entire home invasion side conversation came up because YOU claimed they weren't common or dangerous, or at least because you heavily implied it. You pointed out that random school shootings are statistical anomolies (as you may recall), I agreed and asked why they were still used as emotional appeals to justify gun banning, and you replied by laughing about how home invasions weren't that big a deal, either.

In response, I stopped talking distinctly about gun crime, and started talking more specifically about home invasions. When I said "armed," as such, I just meant armed. Period. I never said armed with a firearm. That was YOUR biais showing up, equating an armed criminal with a gunman. You can insist I'm backpedaling all you want to, but the simple fact is I never said -- or meant to somehow imply -- "armed with a gun." The possibility of all these armed home invaders toting guns was YOUR statement, not mine.

I didn't ask you, I told you that your argument "but not all home invasions fit into the 'violent crime' category" was a fallacy unless you redefined "home invasion" in a way nobody uses that word. Obviously that gave you an idea and you thought you might just get away with it...let's just say it didn't work out.

You said "nice try, but unless your definition of 'home invasion' is..." I replied with -- ta da! -- what my definition of home invasion was. That definition just happens to also be the definition everyone else in the world but you uses, but never mind that. I was obviously up to no good, verbal sneakery, and various clever tricks!

Of course if a gun control proponent used such statistics to "prove" a that firearms cause crime (say, by pointing out that America has far more rapes per capita than all European countries and ignoring all potential causes except gun ownership) you would scream bloody murder because the approach would be too single-minded, the person prejudiced, the statistics uneraliable yadda yadda...

But when it fits your agenda, such methods are completely OK and gun ownership becomes the single determining factor in crime rates.

So when I'm taking the time to link to the statistics I find, you imply that I make the statistics up. When I DO post a link to some statistics I find, you insist the statistics are worthless anyways. Wow, you're TOTALLY worth talking to.

I will just stop this here, arguing about statistics with someone who switches standards and definitons at will is simply pointless.

Please show me a single time where I switched a standard or definition, ever. Honestly. Find me a single example in this thread where I've defined something, and then redefined it later.

All I've done is clarify my standards and definitions in attempts to make it more clear where I'm coming from and what I'm talking about, in an attempt to bridge whatever massive communication gap might be leading to this level of hostility and disagreement. I'm used to talking about this stuff with Group of People A, and all of a sudden on Dumpshock I'm talking about it with Group of People B. When confusion or disagreement over a term has reared it's head, as such, I've clarified and expanded upon my arguments and terms in order to get us all "on the same page." And, in fact, the one time I've done so -- with the disagreement about what a home invasion consisted of -- the definition I was using was right in line with the definitions found all over the web by another poor bastard dragged into this conversation.

You being the type of person that takes that as me changing what I'm saying, switching things around, etc, says more about you than it does about me, I think.

[nezumi]

Impotant part highlited for you:

Actually, they meant occupied in contrast to abandoned. Someone lives in the house. Whether the occupant is *PRESENT* is a different matter. I searched in four different places for definitions (well, five, really), and only dictionary.com specified the owners being present. The Michigan law quoted by the legal dictionary, for instance, does not make any such statement in their definition - only that the house be owned by someone who generally lives at that address. None of the definitions (including dictionary.com) specifies a confrontation with the homeowner.

You've added two more sources for definitions (thank you!) Both of them do specify the resident being home and directly threatened. So it's clear there's a cultural divide which is causing this misunderstanding. I believe, and Critias can correct me if I'm wrong, that his understanding is any case where someone, without permission of the owner, breaks into a person's residence with intent to commit a crime (regardless as to whether the owner is present or aware of the intrusion). Critias didn't try to redefine the word, it's just you're both coming with your own definitions.

If we accept this, then your (Sengir's) numbers don't follow. Someone breaking into my house, while armed, in order to pee on my couch, and who then leaves without threatening me, would not fall under the category of a violent crime. i.e. - being armed does not imply the crime is violent. For you to get the proper numbers, you would have to focus of all instances of criminal trespassing on residential property, which you have not brought up yet, and note in which cases are the person armed. I do not know that an armed cat burglar would register as a violent crime, even though it meets Critias's definition. edit - which is complicated by the fact that whether one is armed may change in the process of the invasion itself. A person who picks up your kitchen knives to steal them has, under the Michigan law quoted, just gone from being an unarmed home invader to an armed one, even though that was not his intent. But really, since people can kill one another with their fists or soft pillows, I really don't know that it's worth arguing the point.

[Sengir]

Actually, they meant occupied in contrast to abandoned.

No, that is what the word "dwelling" says (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If we accept this, then your (Sengir's) numbers don't follow. Someone breaking into my house, while armed, in order to pee on my couch, and who then leaves without threatening me, would not fall under the category of a violent crime.

And it would also not show up in the DOJ statistics about armed criminals, which he claimed to be his source. Those statistics only register armed violent crime.

And I might again point out that this statistic constantly gets referenced (just google one of the sentences from the original posting) as "the DOJ says", but nobody gives a better source, let alone provides the actual statistic

[Warlordtheft]

BTW-The statistics can be apple and oranges then cause the definitions and methodologies for collecting it may not be consistent.

Example: Cit A wields gun against crook b. Crook B runs away. Cit A does not report incident as that would be more trouble than it is worth (He may get more hassle than the crook).

Example: Cit A wields gun against crook b. Crook B gets shot when he does not back down. Would get reported.

Example: Cit A wields gun against crook b. Wife of A gets shot when scuffle ensues. Would get reported.

So if this was the case, based on gun use statistics then 50% of the time a gun was used defend onself the wife gets shot. Also trying to argue a POV based on stats usually leads to one side or the other picking and choosing the numbers that best supports their case.

Regardless, here in the US, we have the right to defend ourselves enshrined in many state constitutions and laws and arguably the 2nd amendment as well. This is not the case in the rest of the world where YMMV. This was a result of the founding fathers realizing the a free state has to have means to defend itself from tyranny. This includes foreign and domestic enemies of that freedom.

[KarmaInferno]

Regardless, here in the US, we have the right to defend ourselves enshrined in many state constitutions and laws and arguably the 2nd amendment as well. This is not the case in the rest of the world where YMMV. This was a result of the founding fathers realizing the a free state has to have means to defend itself from tyranny. This includes foreign and domestic enemies of that freedom.

This bit, I've mentioned before, is what lot of non-US folks don't grasp.

A lot of Americans, especially our founding fathers, specifically distrust authority.

Our Constitution isn't so much a governing document as it is a list of Things Our Government Isn't Allowed To Do.




-karma

[pbangarth]

Regardless, here in the US, we have the right to defend ourselves enshrined in many state constitutions and laws and arguably the 2nd amendment as well. This is not the case in the rest of the world where YMMV. This was a result of the founding fathers realizing the a free state has to have means to defend itself from tyranny. This includes foreign and domestic enemies of that freedom.

Well... this was a result of 1) your founding fathers believing that a free state has to have means to defend ... [snip] ... and then 2) implementing that belief in ways with which, as you point out, others do not agree, and 3) that ideology being as indoctrinated into your cultural mindset as the opposing ideology has been indoctrinated into others' belief systems.

Yes, I know. But every once in a while I have to go post-modern, too.

[Warlordtheft]

Yeah, I now that is a U.S. perspective-especially being the libertarian that I am. But then again we are the center of the universe.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif) .

I laugh every time the UN says that the number of small arms in the world should be strictly controlled. When you have workshops in the tribal areas of pakistan and other areas making modern firearms by hand (of various quality though)---and corrupt offficials selling off military surplus weapons to organized crime syndicates rather than destroying them, you realize that gun control is pretty much futile in its stated goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals/terrorists.

[Sengir]

I laugh every time the UN says that the number of small arms in the world should be strictly controlled.

The UN wants more control of international gun trafficking, not limitation of national gun sales/ownership. The average civil war is not fought with homemade muzzleloaders, but rather with the officially destroyed weapons you mentioned

[kzt]

No, the United Dictators wants to prevent their people from being armed too. It's hard to organize a good pogrom when the targets can shoot back.

[Sengir]

Nah, that's just the agenda of the reptiloid fraction, but so far the South Pole Nazis have vetoed it

[nezumi]

While I wouldn't go so far as to assume the UN wants to actively rule these countries, their disarmarment attempts have allowed for mass genocide. Really, third world countries (IMO) are the LAST place I'd want to institute firearm restrictions, because those people have the least recourse from government violence, and are the most likely to face it.

A fascinating article on the topic here:
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/gun-ba...nd-genocide.htm

[Sengir]

The genocide in Darfur, Sudan, is the direct result of the types of gun laws which the United Nations is trying to impose all over the world. Millions of people have already died because of such laws, and millions more will die unless the U.N. is stopped.

One of those moments when you don't know whether to laught or just shake your head...if the army shoots civilians, it's because civilians are civilians. Riiiightt...


The walking pharmacy that must be that guy's bloodstream sure sounds interesting, but I wouldn't let him own anything more dangerous that a cake spoon

[Critias]

One of those moments when you don't know whether to laught or just shake your head...if the army shoots civilians, it's because civilians are civilians. Riiiightt...

The walking pharmacy that must be that guy's bloodstream sure sounds interesting,

Of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be on drugs, right?

...but I wouldn't let him own anything more dangerous that a cake spoon

Good thing it's not up to you to decide who has the basic human right to self defense then, huh?

[Warlordtheft]

The UN wants more control of international gun trafficking, not limitation of national gun sales/ownership. The average civil war is not fought with homemade muzzleloaders, but rather with the officially destroyed weapons you mentioned

No, nowadays most wars are fought with AKs (China sells to any dictator, dictatorships have alot of government corruption and lost shipments). Their cheap, reliable and easy to find. BTW-home made AK's do exist.


PS:How do you average a civil war??

[Sengir]

No, nowadays most wars are fought with AKs (China sells to any dictator, dictatorships have alot of government corruption and lost shipments).

...and when those AKs should be destroyed because the current dictator has made the usual promises of peace, they end up in the hands of people who could not even buy them in China. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


And I'm still fascinated by the idea of this Kopel guy...just have the noncombatans form an army and they can legally be killed, no massacres on civillians any more. Just like piracy around Somalia would disappear if we just declared war on them, taking prizes is fully legal then (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[hyzmarca]

And I'm still fascinated by the idea of this Kopel guy...just have the noncombatans form an army and they can legally be killed, no massacres on civillians any more. Just like piracy around Somalia would disappear if we just declared war on them, taking prizes is fully legal then (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Sengir, don't be an asshole. There is no need to deliberately misconstrue someone's arguments. There are other avenues of attack (some of which are horrifically racist, others not so much).

It is a common tactic for governments to selectively enforce weapons laws to enable the persecution of unpopular minorities. They don't have to directly participate in the persecution themselves. They usually don't, not directly. But they implicitly condone it.

When the Catholic King James II came to power in Britain he attempted to disarm all the Protestants while arming the Catholics, because he was Catholic himself (this was a monumentally stupid idea because the Protestants had the advantage in numbers alone and it directly led to the Glorious Revolution). After the Glorious Revolution, Parlament passed a Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Protestants the right to bear arms ut systematically disarmed the Catholics.
In the American South before and during the Civil Rights movement, what gun control laws existed tended to be enforced primitively against blacks. Gun control laws that didn't exist also sometimes tended to be enforced against blacks. Meanwhile, KKK members and other murders were routinely acquitted even when the evidence against them was overwhelming.

Disarm your hated minorities and let implicitly endorsed paramilitaries handle the problem. It gives you plausible deniability. That's exactly what's happening in Darfur. That's what's happened in a lot of places throughout human history. It's a classic because it works. The great thing is that it doesn't even cost much money, since the racist paramilitary forces are doing their thing pro-bono. You just have to look the other way.


Can arming persecuted civilians help? Most certainly, racist paramilitary organizations tend to suffer from morale issues when faced with armed opposition. It's very easy to pick on the weak and helpless. It's far more difficult to pick on someone your own size (or someone far smaller than you who has an Ak-47). The fact of the matter is that arming potential targets does make racist paramilitary organizations avoid those targets most of the time.

Now, can arming persecuted civilians make things worse? Hell yes, and this is the argument you should be going for instead of beating on a cardboard cutout of a strawman. Genocides in Africa aren't a matter of bad guys attacking defenseless good guys. Each side is usually no better or worse than the other. Genocides in Africa are a matter of primitive tribal societies that still believe that totally annihilating the other tribe is a valid goal in warfare before forced into the modern era at gunpoint and then abandoned with insufficient infrastructure and no supervision. Giving weapons to the victims of genocide in such situation might just (probably will) result in them forming genocidal paramilitary groups of their own and slaughtering civilians whose ethnicity they don't like.

[Wounded Ronin]

Oh FFS, the UN gun control thing came up.

Here is my pre-emptive blurb on that subject....

For some reason the NRA has a real mad-on for the UN. I've said it before and I've said it again. The UN is not looking to regulate private firearms ownership in the US. My dad worked for the UN his whole adult life, I've spent a lot of time hanging out with actual UN personnel, and I've done lots of research and writing for school and other activities about the UN.

Now, I'm not saying that if you look hard enough you won't find one or two folks in the UN who seem to have a mad-on for handguns. But what I am saying is that privately owned handguns in the US are absolutely not in any real way a priority or concern for the UN. The UN tends to be more worried about things like landmines, micronutrient deficiency, TB and HIV co-infection, genocide, etc.

I'm a NRA member, I support the NRA, but unfortunately the NRA is sometimes just a two-bit mouthpiece for the Republican party and all this anti UN stuff is just fear mongering to the base.

http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55173

[nezumi]

There's still the concern of unintended consequences. The UN may not be interested in domestic arms sales in the US, but that doesn't mean the resolutions will be worded such that it avoids ramifications there. And given that the UN has participated in large-scale gun confiscations in other war zones without providing the resources necessary to then protect those unarmed civilians, resulting in those civilians being literally massacred, seems to imply that, regardless as to their intentions, UN firearm resolutions may still be worth opposing.

[Sengir]

There is no need to deliberately misconstrue someone's arguments.

Unless I got something wrong, the argument is "if everybody was armed (as opposed to just the rebel groups who allege fighting for the region/ethnicy), there would be no genocide".
Critias said I shouldn't assume that the guy is just high, so I assumed he did not mean that there would be world peace the instant everyone is armed. I mean, we are talking about Afrika, and who in his right mind would talk about Afrika and at the same time claim that different armed groups will not go at each other's throats?
That leaves just one option, the one I suggested: The killing does not stop, but it's not a genocide anymore. *thumbs up*

@Ronin: Oh come on, the reason is kinda obvious: Lobby organizations need to keep up the impression that they are actually doing something, ie. there is something they oppose and they are (successfully) working to stop it. So what do you do if no threat exists? Create one, get worked up on it, and when the imaginary threat does not materialize because it was just imaginary claim the credit for that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Wounded Ronin]

@Ronin: Oh come on, the reason is kinda obvious: Lobby organizations need to keep up the impression that they are actually doing something, ie. there is something they oppose and they are (successfully) working to stop it. So what do you do if no threat exists? Create one, get worked up on it, and when the imaginary threat does not materialize because it was just imaginary claim the credit for that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Well I always thought the UN stuff was "out there", but even without a UN boogeyman the NRA fulfills a legitimate political function for people within the US who don't want more gun control laws. This is because even though gun control legislation seems less popular than ever there are always a few politically powerful people, like Nancy Pelosi, or Mayor Bloomberg, who for whatever reason seem committed and determined to creating more gun control laws. As long as you have a lobbyist one way you need a counter-lobbyist to balance things out.

As an side the NRA is actually a very moderate organization as far as gun control laws go, in the sense that it actually supports a certain amount of gun control laws. There are other lobby groups that are more extreme than the NRA in that they lobby for less gun control laws. The NRA is kind of like the big generic centrist gun lobby that everyone can sign onto and support.

EDIT: Oh, as long as we're on this subject, I really think something happy and positive should come out of this subject. I'm going to link to an Oleg Volk photo gallery featuring beautiful athletic naked women (actually two forum members from bullshido.net) and their firearms; NSFW obviously. Sengir, are you European? As I understand it in European culture sensual nudity is more socially acceptable than in the US. http://olegvolk.net/gallery/friendsandstrangers/fighters/

EDIT 2: I actually know a fellow who was a refugee who fled to the US after a major war. He witnessed the victorious side in that war wholesale massacre people from the losing side. He told me about having to hide and the absolute terror of having to hide from groups of armed people who want to kill you. Because of this today he is very pro-gun-ownership. I think that being helpless, being forced to hide, and waiting to be executed is one of the most mentally cruel states a person can endure. You can also read about this in Dostoyevsky novels; Dostoyevsky had been subjected to a mock execution and seeing as that specific experience seems to come up in his writing it's obvious that he was profoundly traumatized by it. I think that psychologically speaking most people would say, "If I'm going to die anyway I'd rather die fighting than hiding and unable to help myself in any way."

[Wounded Ronin]

There's still the concern of unintended consequences. The UN may not be interested in domestic arms sales in the US, but that doesn't mean the resolutions will be worded such that it avoids ramifications there. And given that the UN has participated in large-scale gun confiscations in other war zones without providing the resources necessary to then protect those unarmed civilians, resulting in those civilians being literally massacred, seems to imply that, regardless as to their intentions, UN firearm resolutions may still be worth opposing.

But the US already pretty much ignores anything the UN says that it doesn't like. For example, the US is one of the few industrialized nations that didn't sign onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I believe this was in order to avoid any sort of liability on the part of the federal government if there were an instance where the directives of the Convention weren't adhered to within the US.

That's why while UN disarmament, carried out by loaner peacekeepers from developing countries, could arguably be bad news for potential genocide victims, I really don't think the UN would be able to make something happen in the US that large numbers of US citizens would be completely outraged over.

As an aside, when I was a little kid I actually went to a UN school. As a child they were teaching me all about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We used to sing UN songs and everything. So for years I couldn't understand why the US didn't sign the convention, but I believe that I understand now, and don't really have a problem with it anymore.

[Penta]

It doesn't really look good that everybody but Somalia and the US has signed it, though.

Yes, some of the Committee's decisions are boneheaded (no spanking your kids?), but much of it makes sense.

[Wounded Ronin]

It doesn't really look good that everybody but Somalia and the US has signed it, though.

I agree. Like I said it took me years to understand. Probably it makes most non-Americans spit their coffee if you tell them while they're drinking their coffee.

The most concise answer I'd be able to give someone if they asked me about it would be, "The US has a very litigious society and signing a legal document, treaty, or something similar can have tremendously burdensom and complex impacts on government liability and internal legal issues, unlike a lot of other places where it would be easy for a government to sign that convention and then completely ignore it later."

[Sengir]

[...]but even without a UN boogeyman the NRA fulfills a legitimate political function for people within the US who don't want more gun control laws.

Sure, that's what lobby orgs do and certainly completely legitimate. I only have a problem with people who define their work exclusively by opposing X all the time, which naturally means that if no X is in sight they need to make up something.

[Wounded Ronin]

Sure, that's what lobby orgs do and certainly completely legitimate. I only have a problem with people who define their work exclusively by opposing X all the time, which naturally means that if no X is in sight they need to make up something.

That's the nature of the beast. Once you have a mechanism set up and funding and all that kind of thing it's hard to close up shop. Actually that is probably true of a lot of things besides for lobbyists.

Although IMO at this time if there's anyone who should close up shop due to being irrelevant, it'd more likely be the US gun control lobby, seeing as they are less popular than ever, and seeing as after all these decades they still apparently don't know any more about firearms than they did starting out. (LOL @ "assault weapon".)