Supreme Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban

[quote name='speedracer']Cut its budget by 95%? How absolutely hilarious would that be, a pro-2nd-at-all-costs court debating the finer points of whether the 2nd guarantees that any ragtag band of idiots should be able to roll it at any time? You're totally right in your question in a totally hilarious and awesome way.[/quote]

I've always wondered why pro 2nd amendment types aren't vehemently opposed to a standing army.

If militias (unpaid people who worked with not for local governments to maintain order) owned arms up to tanks and short range fighters, why would there be a need for a military?

Even in this day and age, America is relatively isolated from its enemies.

Also, an enemy wouldn't invade a country where everybody owned guns.

Just some random thoughts, I guess.
 
[quote name='trq'] C'mon now. The conflict of state and federal rights are a huge part of this country's character. You honestly can't come up with any plausible scenario where the states might be in some kind of conflict with the federal government?[/quote]

Yes I can.
I was just saying that I had read somewhere that as part of this ruling, research was done one states at the time of the writing of 2nd amendment, and how they viewed guns. That was my only point. There was no Federal Government yet, so it is a pretty safe assumption that the leaders of the colonies forming the government would have had similar laws they liked in their states.

There are plenty of people who value the document and believe that the whole first half of the Second Amendment wasn't just put in there for shits and giggles, even if the current Supreme Court does.
Click to expand...
Militias are allowed to form and exist even today, it's just not nearly as popular as it was back then. You make it sound as if I was saying Militias are not part of the second amendment, I never said such a thing. I am merely stating that many anti-gun people interpret the second amendment as ONLY allowing militias to be armed.

but the fact of the matter is, in a conflict between the citizens and the government, this:
glock17.jpg

ain't gonna do jack against this:

LAND_M1A1_Baghdad_Currum_Ago_lg.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah? Then by that logic, conflict in Iraq should have been over practically overnight. Send that statement to soldiers over there and see if they agree with your assertion.

So what's the limit? Is there a limit at all? What, precisely, do people get to own and why? No scenarios where "half the army would totally changes sides, so then we'd have tanks too!"
Click to expand...

I think you grossly underestimate the power of widespread small arms in a populace. Look at Vietnam. Look at Iraq. The "enemy" in those countries were not nearly as armed as we were/are, did that make anything easy? Did that make it automatic win?

I am perfectly happy with the laws as they are. I do not think citizens need the rights to own tanks, stinger missiles, or nuclear warheads to be a considerable foe for any tyrannical force.

[quote name='speedracer']You mean the minority did. The majority did no such thing, well, not honestly anyway. In traditional Scalia fashion, he found what he was looking for to support his own political ideas.[/quote]
And, I assume you use pretty much the same logic for explaining decisions on the child rape and Guantanamo decisions recently?


It's called the National Guard.
Click to expand...
The national guard is not what was referred to in the 2nd amendment. The notion of a Federally run force, who's partial duty is to keep the Fed in check, is a laughable contradiction.

If you ever, ***EVER*** argue originalism, precedent, strict constructionism, separation of powers, states' rights, and/or the 10th amendment ever again, I'm laughing you out of the room.
We both know you have no legal insight outside of a meager, sub-layman level of understanding. Knowing why you can't ever even think about suggesting the above reasonings will take you far in understanding....
.. why you're full of it.
Click to expand...

Never, ***EVER***, post such condescending, meandering, drivel without substance, unless you follow up your accusations with reasoning. Otherwise you have to just be written off as another blathering idiot in these forums without trying to add anything.

PittPizza? Msut77? Is that you? Is this an alt? Are you a cousin? Are you mykevermin too drunk to write reason?

You all are the problem with America. None of you give a damn about the idea of it. You're interesting in forwarding your own narrow agenda.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Ok Mr smarty pants. What's the problem with America? What is my "narrow agenda"? And most importantly, what's this universal and undeniable "Idea of America" that you understand and think I don't?

Again, back up your accusatory bullshit with substantive reasoning or GTFO. You aren't impressing anyone with your holier-than-thou personal attacks minus anything concrete.
Take some notes from dmaul and Spazx, who can disagree with me and actually know how to back up their arguments with sound logic and sources.

Oh, and I don't care about guns one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Right. Given your post and tone, it's highly unlikely you are apathetic about yesterdays ruling.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I've always wondered why pro 2nd amendment types aren't vehemently opposed to a standing army.

If militias (unpaid people who worked with not for local governments to maintain order) owned arms up to tanks and short range fighters, why would there be a need for a military?

Even in this day and age, America is relatively isolated from its enemies.

Also, an enemy wouldn't invade a country where everybody owned guns.

Just some random thoughts, I guess.[/QUOTE]
The questions I'm interested in:

1. Why did the majority go so far out of its way to point out that it's still willing to apply restraints to the 2nd?

2. "Conservatives" are typically of the belief that the Constitution et al applies to the states and the federal govt. and that with few exception, citizens have no standing.* Why take this issue as "the" case? If anything, it strengthens individual standing, making liberal issues much stronger. Hell, even that piece of crap R v. W is suddenly very close to reasonable when viewed through this one.. My question is, do they give so little of a damn about the appearance of logic, or is Kennedy just that big an idiot?


*for the learned few, I apologize for the boiling down of the idea. The basics are there.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

If militias (unpaid people who worked with not for local governments to maintain order) owned arms up to tanks and short range fighters, why would there be a need for a military?[/quote]

I'd guess lack of control. The government seems to think they need the ability to force their military to do certain things under pang of dire consequence.

Even in this day and age, America is relatively isolated from its enemies.

Also, an enemy wouldn't invade a country where everybody owned guns.

Just some random thoughts, I guess.
Click to expand...

As usual, quit muddying the waters around here with sound reasoning.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']And, I assume you use pretty much the same logic for explaining decisions on the child rape and Guantanamo decisions recently?[/quote]
I found neither one interesting in the least. Perhaps you could give me the short version? I'm tethered right now and don't want to burn the kbs on something crappy from westlaw.

The national guard is not what was referred to in the 2nd amendment. The notion of a Federally run force, who's partial duty is to keep the Fed in check, is a laughable contradiction.
Click to expand...
The national guard is not run by the feds. They are probably funded in part by them (I don't know, I was active duty not NG), but the soldiers of the National Guard do not answer to the President of the United States. They answer to their governor. If the governor hands them over, that's on them, but they are expressly (at least at my basic training) told that they are responsible for something different from the rest of us.

Never, ***EVER***, post such condescending, meandering, drivel without substance, unless you follow up your accusations with reasoning. Otherwise you have to just be written off as another blathering idiot in these forums without trying to add anything.
Click to expand...
lulz. Have you even read the opinion?

Yeah? Ok Mr smarty pants. What's the problem with America? What is my "narrow agenda"? And most importantly, what's this universal and undeniable "Idea of America" that you understand and think I don't?

Again, back up your accusatory bullshit with substantive reasoning or GTFO. You aren't impressing anyone with your holier-than-thou personal attacks minus anything concrete.
Take some notes from dmaul and Spazx, who can disagree with me and actually know how to back up their arguments with sound logic and sources.
Click to expand...
The difference is that they aren't calling you out because they haven't read it either. I'm fine with them not doing so because they aren't spouting off absurdities as if they have any more insight than anyone else.

You, however, don't.

Prove me wrong right now. You read the decision?

Right. Given your post and tone, it's highly unlikely you are apathetic about yesterdays ruling.
Click to expand...
I like guns. I hate people that are full of it.
 
[quote name='trq']C'mon now. The conflict of state and federal rights are a huge part of this country's character. You honestly can't come up with any plausible scenario where the states might be in some kind of conflict with the federal government?[/quote]

Hey! I thought of one.

The many causes of the Civil War.
 
Fair enough. I have not read the entire opinion from beginning to end, I have read quoted from it in the media like this. That is only because in my quick breaks from work I have yet been unable to find the Opinion Scalia wrote (I assume that's what you refer to). All I can find is this. I don't have time to read all of that, nor do I believe I would need to in order to have full understanding of the ruling. If you have a direct link to the opinion, I'll be happy to read it from beginning to end (as long as it isn't that long).

I like what you said about the National Guard. Informative. I personally believe "militia" as referred to in the 2nd, is outside of any government (most likely). But that's highly debatable.

As for the other two rulings I mentioned, yes they are boring. Just further judgements along party lines (as usual), and not nearly as interesting as this!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah? Then by that logic, conflict in Iraq should have been over practically overnight. Send that statement to soldiers over there and see if they agree with your assertion.

I think you grossly underestimate the power of widespread small arms in a populace. Look at Vietnam. Look at Iraq. The "enemy" in those countries were not nearly as armed as we were/are, did that make anything easy? Did that make it automatic win?[/QUOTE]

I think the guys over there would love to only have to deal with glocks. But they have to deal with AK-47s, RPGs, grenades, Dragunov sniper rifles, and more. And you know what? We still won, militarily.

[quote name='thrustbucket']The national guard is not what was referred to in the 2nd amendment. The notion of a Federally run force, who's partial duty is to keep the Fed in check, is a laughable contradiction.[/QUOTE]

This is what I was talking about. But it seems like Speedracer is taking care of the National Guard/police/militia angle, so enough from me on that.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Take some notes from dmaul and Spazx, who can disagree with me and actually know how to back up their arguments with sound logic and sources.[/QUOTE]

AHEM.

EDIT: Also, that dog's head thing is awesome.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Let me be as clear about this as possible. I'm talking about a robbery where a life-threatening weapon is involved. Someone can easily end your life if they so choose. What you're protecting is yourself and the shit on your person. So you would rather risk your life to keep somebody from taking your stuff? Your stuff is worth more than your life? [/quote]

According to you, only a small subset of robbers will kill. Thus, there's minimal risk.

BTW, in said life-threatening situation, what guarantee do you have that the person won't harm you if you comply?

[quote name='SpazX']Life and death situations coupled with irregularity makes the bully analogy fail horribly.[/quote]

The principle is the same. Do you kowtow to the criminal or fight back?

[quote name='dmaul1114']Give up your property, an no one gets hurt. Try to pull a gun, and someone is most likely going to get hurt. So I don't see the benefit of guns in that case.[/quote]

So what would you have a woman do when confronted by a rapist?

[quote name='dmaul1114']In the vast majority of robberies a gun will be on you before you have any idea what's going on. Trying to resist is just going to make things worse.[/quote]

Guns are first openly displayed "in the vast majority of robberies"? Got any proof to back that up?
 
[quote name='trq']Now I'm a big believer in the idea that "the people shouldn't be afraid of the government; the government should be afraid of the people" ... but the fact of the matter is, in a conflict between the citizens and the government, this:

glock17.jpg


ain't gonna do jack against this:

LAND_M1A1_Baghdad_Currum_Ago_lg.jpg
[/QUOTE]
Why isn't that possible here:
wg-usa-3622-400x300.gif


When it seems to be possible here:
Iraq_map.png



Groups of armed citizens defeating the greatest army in the world sounded just as preposterous in 1776 as it does today. But victory isn't always achieved by destroying your enemy's ability to fight. It can be won by destroying your enemy's will to fight. Britain had the resources to fight on but lacked the political will to do so because of the price we made them pay. An armed confrontation with American citizens would be politically unfathomable, however simply making people disappear that lack any credible ability to fight would be far easier to hide or make the populace accept.


Also... This simple notion seems to escape a lot of people. If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns. Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and they give criminals confidence that potential victims are likely unarmed.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']According to you, only a small subset of robbers will kill. Thus, there's minimal risk.

BTW, in said life-threatening situation, what guarantee do you have that the person won't harm you if you comply?[/quote]

If you comply there's less chance that someone will shoot you than if you try to pull a gun. Are you saying there isn't? I don't know how many robbers will kill, but I'm pretty sure the number is higher if you try to fight them or pull a gun on them when they already have a gun aimed at you.

The principle is the same. Do you kowtow to the criminal or fight back?
Click to expand...
This isn't a Chuck Norris movie. Would you risk your life trying to fight somebody so that they can't take your stuff? I really can't think of anything I would be carrying that someone could steal that I would be willing to die for, so I'm not going to risk my life to protect it.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']
So what would you have a woman do when confronted by a rapist?
[/quote]

The vast majority of rapes are date rape, acquaintance rape etc. Not like the woman is going to be packing to prevent that.

Mace would probably work just as well.

Guns are first openly displayed "in the vast majority of robberies"? Got any proof to back that up?
Click to expand...

The vast majority of armed robberies involve someone presenting a hand gun and saying "give me everything you got."

Proof? I'm a criminologist and do policing research, so I know first hand. Take it or leave it.

And if a gun isn't displayed and you shoot someone that was just doing a strong arm robbery you ought to get locked up for using excessive force.

So again, having a gun is useless in preventing yourself from being robbed. You prevent yourself from being robbed by staying out of sketchy areas and not walking around alone at night. If you have the misfortune of getting robbed then you just give up your shit and call the cops.

[quote name='SpazX']If you comply there's less chance that someone will shoot you than if you try to pull a gun. Are you saying there isn't? I don't know how many robbers will kill, but I'm pretty sure the number is higher if you try to fight them or pull a gun on them when they already have a gun aimed at you.
[/quote]

Exactly. Look at the numbers you (or someone else) posted on the last page. If every murder was from a robbery it would be 4% of robberies ending in murder. That's not the case. Far less than 1% of robberies end in murder. And almost all of those are cases where the person tried to fight the robber.

This isn't a Chuck Norris movie. Would you risk your life trying to fight somebody so that they can't take your stuff? I really can't think of anything I would be carrying that someone could steal that I would be willing to die for, so I'm not going to risk my life to protect it.
Click to expand...

Really, it's just stuff. Give it up and you have almost no chance of being harmed in anyway. People robbing people just need a quick buck to buy drugs, a bus ticket home or wheatever else. They're not out to kill.
 
[quote name='trq']I think the guys over there would love to only have to deal with glocks. But they have to deal with AK-47s, RPGs, grenades, Dragunov sniper rifles, and more. And you know what? We still won, militarily.[/quote]

Everything you listed minus the explosives are legal here. And explosives can be made rather easily.

That statement about winning militarily confuses me a bit. The correlation I was trying to make was how lots of small arms can create big problems for even the advanced military's. As is seen today in Iraq. I don't know what it means to have "won" militarily exactly, but the important point is that we are still there fighting a low-tech enemy.

Of course, any military actually willing to take off the gloves is a different story. But it seems it's nearly impossible for America, at least, to have the political will to ever do so.


AHEM.
Click to expand...

Actually I did mean to include you in that, sorry.
 
Warning: long semi-drunken ramble to follow.

[quote name='dafoomie']Groups of armed citizens defeating the greatest army in the world sounded just as preposterous in 1776 as it does today. But victory isn't always achieved by destroying your enemy's ability to fight. It can be won by destroying your enemy's will to fight. Britain had the resources to fight on but lacked the political will to do so because of the price we made them pay. An armed confrontation with American citizens would be politically unfathomable, however simply making people disappear that lack any credible ability to fight would be far easier to hide or make the populace accept.[/QUOTE]

You can destroy your enemy's will to fight without lifting a finger in violence -- MLK proved it. Gandhi proved it. We don't need the Second Amendment if our solution for keeping the government at bay is "make them look bad."

And while I think you're right that we're more likely to head down the road to tyranny in a subtler fashion than "indefinite martial law" -- the government will throw a bag over your head while you sleep, drag you across the border, and nobody will ever hear of your "terrorist aiding and abetting" ass ever again -- whether the people they're disappearing are armed doesn't matter one whit, because even if they fight back, they'll just be neatly branded as criminals, and they'll have no more success taking on the local police, the state troopers, the FBI, the BATF, the Marshals, Homeland Security, and the National Guard than any given schmuck on COPS.

So if it comes down to "the citizens vs the government," it's not a plinking contest. It's not like hunting. It's not even like checking downstairs for burglars. It's war. And I don't care if you're Patrick Swayze himself -- you don't take a bolt action rifle to war against Apache attack helicopters.

And people keep bringing up Iraq. Does anyone remember that Iraq had a decent-sized standing army that we completely steamrolled? Afghanistan, Viet Nam ... they all needed major weapon shipments from the outside to be able to resist their enemies, and the weapons they received weren't crates of Saturday Night Specials, I assure you. They were assault rifles, grenades, sniper rifles, mines, heavy machine guns, and shit to shoot down helicopters.

So here's the point: if the Second Amendment is meant to keep a tyrannical government at bay, it needs to ensure our ability to defend ourselves from the soldiers of that government. And the fact is, it takes a hell of a lot more than shotguns to do that against the modern American military, no matter how much you yell "Wolverines!" So either we need to decide that the amendment ensures everyone the right to own major, major hardware -- SAWs, TOWs, .50 cal Berettas, and right on down the line -- or we need to accept that a practical defense against the military isn't a viable angle to justify permitting unrestricted firearm ownership. That nobody has cowboyed up and taken the former angle ("Yes, we should all own flamethrowers") is a sign that it's pretty obvious that a Street Sweeper in every home is a recipe for disaster, even if the people who are used to simply taking the amendment to mean nothing more than "We get to own guns" are reluctant to admit it.

Furthermore, it's increasingly clear that the Second Amendment could very well be the greatest smokescreen a prospective tyranny could wish for. So many people are cocksure that guns will ensure their rights that it's all that much easier to strip them of those rights, right from under their noses. "The government wants to listen to my phone calls without a warrant? Sure. Read my e-mail and check what books I've been buying? No prob. Habeus Corpus? What's that? I just know that the government won't take my rights, because I'll fend 'em off with my Colt." Eventually you've got nothing left but the Right to Bear a Placebo.

[quote name='dafoomie']Also... This simple notion seems to escape a lot of people. If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns. Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and they give criminals confidence that potential victims are likely unarmed.[/QUOTE]

Well, the cops would have guns too, but "If guns are illegal, only criminals and law enforcement personnel will have guns" doesn't have the same ring, I guess. What the criminals won't have are the same guns. In countries where firearms are rare, getting a hold of a few illegal pistols is a major ordeal. Here, LA gangs routinely roll with Mac-10s and Uzis. Let me put it another way: why don't criminals have grenade launchers? You'd better believe there are some straight up gangstas who'd love to fire a few 40 mm rounds at an armored car. So why don't they?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Everything you listed minus the explosives are legal here. And explosives can be made rather easily.

That statement about winning militarily confuses me a bit. The correlation I was trying to make was how lots of small arms can create big problems for even the advanced military's. As is seen today in Iraq. I don't know what it means to have "won" militarily exactly, but the important point is that we are still there fighting a low-tech enemy.

Of course, any military actually willing to take off the gloves is a different story. But it seems it's nearly impossible for America, at least, to have the political will to ever do so. [/QUOTE]

I'm just reserving this spot to give you a coherent response later.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Actually I did mean to include you in that, sorry.[/QUOTE]

De nada. :)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Fair enough. I have not read the entire opinion from beginning to end, I have read quoted from it in the media like this. That is only because in my quick breaks from work I have yet been unable to find the Opinion Scalia wrote (I assume that's what you refer to). All I can find is this. I don't have time to read all of that, nor do I believe I would need to in order to have full understanding of the ruling. If you have a direct link to the opinion, I'll be happy to read it from beginning to end (as long as it isn't that long).[/quote]

It's long, but the devil is in the details.

I like what you said about the National Guard. Informative. I personally believe "militia" as referred to in the 2nd, is outside of any government (most likely). But that's highly debatable.
Click to expand...
The thing is, and what's really pissing me off about all of this, is that you and I could probably come to an agreement that would be acceptable by 95% of the populace over a single lunch. What's reasonable and debatable between rational people means very little in the frame of the court, particularly this one.

I'll try to condense the problems with this ruling as quickly and dirty as I can.

1. This ruling reinforced something virtually everyone already believes. We can own guns. That in and of itself is not a victory for.. anyone really.
2. The holes presented by the Supreme Court are extremely wide ranging and can be easily taken advantage of by clever gun opponents. For example, the law struck down required that the gun be disassembled or otherwise made virtually unusable. But the idea of it being locked up was supported in the opinion. Well, what about being 2 locks then? or 7?
3. More ominously, someone forced Scalia's hand and demanded that he point out that the 2nd should still have significant barriers (registration, locks, etc.). It has to have been Kennedy, though a couple of em (the footnotes) might have been Thomas making noise behind the scenes. This is awful for everyone for a couple of reasons.
  • The high water mark for modern conservatism is obvious on the wall, and yet this was the "best" they could do. With every wind imaginable at their back, they still couldn't get this done.
  • The liberal wave is rising, and Kennedy seems to follow the national political tide. He will not be there when it comes to defending that which has been opened by this ruling. He will rule against gun owners for the next decade.
  • Liberals now have a blueprint for attack. They have shown themselves time and time again as being vastly superior in chipping away conservative issues in the court and now they know exactly where Kennedy's weaknesses lie.
  • Conservatives on the court will now be faced with two choices that will ultimately screw them: states' rights (which will invariably demand absurdly stringent gun laws somewhere) or federal rights' ala Raich that will only weaken their position on social issues, opening the door for the ***REALLY*** aggressive liberal ideas to take root.

The NRA in its infinite wisdom will only exacerbate the issue. They are predictably going to sue and by the time it reaches the bench, the world will look very different. They don't see the forest through the trees and in a stroke of irony enough to make Solomon blush, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot.

That's the problem, guys. There's also the question of incorporation which is so bad I don't even want to think about it.

I wish it was a victory worth having too. I think it's a distraction that's unnecessary and that we should we working on the real issues of this country. This has guaranteed a shit ton of dumb legislation and legal fights. It was there, it was within their grasp, and they screwed the pooch. This is the definition of pyrrhic victory.
[quote name='trq']So here's the point: if the Second Amendment is meant to keep a tyrannical government at bay, it needs to ensure our ability to defend ourselves from the soldiers of that government. And the fact is, it takes a hell of a lot more than shotguns to do that against the modern American military, no matter how much you yell "Wolverines!" So either we need to decide that the amendment ensures everyone the right to own major, major hardware -- SAWs, TOWs, .50 cal Berettas, and right on down the line -- or we need to accept that a practical defense against the military isn't a viable angle to justify permitting unrestricted firearm ownership. That nobody has cowboyed up and taken the former angle ("Yes, we should all own flamethrowers") is a sign that it's pretty obvious that a Street Sweeper in every home is a recipe for disaster, even if the people who are used to simply taking the amendment to mean nothing more than "We get to own guns" are reluctant to admit it.

Furthermore, it's increasingly clear that the Second Amendment could very well be the greatest smokescreen a prospective tyranny could wish for. So many people are cocksure that guns will ensure their rights that it's all that much easier to strip them of those rights, right from under their noses. "The government wants to listen to my phone calls without a warrant? Sure. Read my e-mail and check what books I've been buying? No prob. Habeus Corpus? What's that? I just know that the government won't take my rights, because I'll fend 'em off with my Colt." Eventually you've got nothing left but the Right to Bear a Placebo.[/QUOTE]

This is precisely what I mean. This is what this will boil down to. trq, you're so right it's painful. Every gun hater in America is licking their chops on this one. I guaran-goddamn-tee you there's a conference call going on right now with people laughing about how easy this is going to be. The majority walked away from originalism, so-called "strict constructionism", etc. etc, all those buzzwords they use to justify their own brand of judicial activism. They swore it would never happen again after Bush v. Gore, even going so far as to say this is not a precedent. Then they did it in Raich, and mumbled under their breath about states' rights. After this one, Kennedy isn't going to have anywhere else to hide. The other 8 will continue to do what they do, but the "Kennedy court" is alive and pumping, and Kennedy knows his ass is on the line from here out. It's already called the Kennedy court and said that "history is watching"... and nothing turns a moderate jurist into a liberal like history's real-time microscope.

Oh, and I edited out (but not fast enough to escape the quote) the nastiness I posted to thrust. It was uncalled for and my fault. As you can plainly see, the Supreme Court turns me into Dr. Jekyll.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The vast majority of rapes are date rape, acquaintance rape etc. Not like the woman is going to be packing to prevent that.

Mace would probably work just as well.[/quote]

You want a woman to use an ineffective area weapon against a close quarters attack? Talk about increasing the chances of violence.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Proof? I'm a criminologist and do policing research, so I know first hand. Take it or leave it.

And if a gun isn't displayed and you shoot someone that was just doing a strong arm robbery you ought to get locked up for using excessive force.[/quote]

You're a criminologist but you're unaware of the fact that strong arm robbery justifies lethal force in many states; furthermore, people are killed without weapons year after year (including those killed during strong arm robberies).

You should go back to school, you must have missed a few classes. While you're there, be sure to stop by a logic class and learn about inverse ad hominem.

[quote name='dmaul1114']So again, having a gun is useless in preventing yourself from being robbed. You prevent yourself from being robbed by staying out of sketchy areas and not walking around alone at night. If you have the misfortune of getting robbed then you just give up your shit and call the cops.[/quote]

In other words, you believe that people should kowtow to the criminals then hope that their attack will be in the 40% or so where the crook is actually arrested?

[quote name='dmaul1114']Far less than 1% of robberies end in murder. And almost all of those are cases where the person tried to fight the robber.[/quote]

Do you have any proof of that last part or are you going to continue with the inverse ad hominem fallacy?


[quote name='dmaul1114']People robbing people just need a quick buck to buy drugs, a bus ticket home or wheatever else. They're not out to kill.[/quote]

So law-abiding citizens should just do nothing and continue to be walking ATMs for the dregs of society?

[quote name='trq']What the criminals won't have are the same guns. In countries where firearms are rare, getting a hold of a few illegal pistols is a major ordeal. Here, LA gangs routinely roll with Mac-10s and Uzis.[/quote]

Gangs have been importing illegal weapons from off-shore and through Mexico for a long time. Making guns illegal for law-abiding citizens certainly wouldn't stop the flow of illegal weapons coming in for the gangs.

[quote name='trq']Let me put it another way: why don't criminals have grenade launchers? You'd better believe there are some straight up gangstas who'd love to fire a few 40 mm rounds at an armored car. So why don't they?[/quote]

A - They do. In fact, past raids have even uncovered RPGs.
B - Not only are said weapons expensive on the black market, they also tend to bring a lot of heat when used. Using high explosives is a surefire way to get a lot of feds in the area. Thereby locking business down and putting a severe dent in the profits of everyone in the area.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']You want a woman to use an ineffective area weapon against a close quarters attack? Talk about increasing the chances of violence.[/quote]

Most are date rapes, again not like they're going to have a gun and be ready to use it in those cases. Stranger rapes are far to rare to really justify carrying a gun around all the time IMO.


You're a criminologist but you're unaware of the fact that strong arm robbery justifies lethal force in many states; furthermore, people are killed without weapons year after year (including those killed during strong arm robberies).

You should go back to school, you must have missed a few classes. While you're there, be sure to stop by a logic class and learn about inverse ad hominem.
Click to expand...

No need to be a condescending prick. I know laws very from place to place. My point is using lethal force in a strong arm robbery is unwarranted IMO. Give people what they want, and you'll be unharmed in 99% of the cases of robberies.

In other words, you believe that people should kowtow to the criminals then hope that their attack will be in the 40% or so where the crook is actually arrested?
Click to expand...

No, people should:

1. Look out for their own safety, not their property. Resisting a robbery VASTLY increases the chances you'll get hurt or killed, where there is almost no chance of being hurt or killed if you comply and give them all the useless crap we all carry around.

2. It's not people's jobs to take the law into their own hands. If you have no choice but to fight back, then do so. Otherwise just give them what you want, keep yourself and others safe and let the police do their job.

And at least with the police departments I work with the clearance rate for armed robbery is much higher than 40%. 75-85% among the several I've done research with. And it's probably higher it's pretty much a given that those arrested committed some of the other robberies that weren't' solved and just didn't admint to in and they couldn't tie them to those cases.


So law-abiding citizens should just do nothing and continue to be walking ATMs for the dregs of society?
Click to expand...

No. Again you prevent robberies through common sense. Don't walk alone at night. Stay the fuck out of the ghetto. Don't do stupid stuff like go to an ATM or check cashing place at night. And if you happen to get robbed, just play it safe, give them what you want and call the cops.

No sense in putting yourself and/or other in harms way to protect your stuff.

At any rate, ignore list +1. Not wasting any more time responding to your condescending ass.
 
I understand this guy's concerns dmaul. How am I to trust if that this robber isn't one of those pos who doesn't care if I live or die, which would make he/she a disgusting excuse for a human being since they wouldn't be respecting your right to exist.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I understand this guy's concerns dmaul. How am I to trust if that this robber isn't one of those pos who doesn't care if I live or die, which would make he/she a disgusting excuse for a human being since they wouldn't be respecting your right to exist.[/QUOTE]

My main point is that you are going to INCREASE your chance of harm if you resist. Particularly in an armed robbery as you generally don't know you are being robbed until you hear "give me all you got" and look down and see a gun pointed at you. Or feel something pressed up against your back (those are less common, robber has more control if they're in front of you and you can see clearly that they have a gun).

My other point is the one you're getting at. I couldn't live with myself shooting someone robbing me as I know that there's a 99% or higher that they'll just take my stuff and leave. I couldn't live with myself shooting someone, often someone very young, just for trying to take my shit. Could I be unlucky and get shot after they take my stuff--maybe. But I'll take that chance over having to live with shooting some 19 year old over some cash and my cell phone etc.

Like I said, I don't lose any sleep over a robber getting shot. Just not something I could bring myself to do. Moot point anyway as I'll never own a gun.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My main point is that you are going to INCREASE your chance of harm if you resist. Particularly in an armed robbery as you generally don't know you are being robbed until you hear "give me all you got" and look down and see a gun pointed at you. Or feel something pressed up against your back (those are less common, robber has more control if they're in front of you and you can see clearly that they have a gun).

My other point is the one you're getting at. I couldn't live with myself shooting someone robbing me as I know that there's a 99% or higher that they'll just take my stuff and leave. I couldn't live with myself shooting someone, often someone very young, just for trying to take my shit. Could I be unlucky and get shot after they take my stuff--maybe. But I'll take that chance over having to live with shooting some 19 year old over some cash and my cell phone etc.[/QUOTE]

It depends on intent. I'm referring to one's who don't care and decide to kill you regardless. I'm telling you if they did the gun thing and left, as soon as they started running, I would call the cops then shoot them in the leg or something. They didn't respect the right of me to my property so they deserve to get shot.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']They didn't respect the right of me to my property so they deserve to get shot.[/QUOTE]

See, that I just can't agree with. Not respecting property doesn't equal deserving serious bodily harm IMO.

As for the intent, I already clarified that above. You don't know their intent--that's not enough for me to shoot them. Especially since I know that far less than 1% of robberies where the person complies end in a shooting. If it is enough for you, so be it.

Like I said, I wouldn't lose sleep over it or call you a bad person or anything. The person brought it on themselves by committing a robbery. I don't think they deserve serious injury or death, but it's hard to fault someone shooting a criminal who just victimized them even though I wouldn't do the same.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']See, that I just can't agree with. Not respecting property doesn't equal deserving serious bodily harm IMO.

As for the intent, I already clarified that above. You don't know their intent--that's not enough for me to shoot them. Especially since I know that far less than 1% of robberies where the person complies end in a shooting. If it is enough for you, so be it.

Like I said, I wouldn't lose sleep over it or call you a bad person or anything. The person brought it on themselves by committing a robbery. I don't think they deserve serious injury or death, but it's hard to fault someone shooting a criminal who just victimized them even though I wouldn't do the same.[/QUOTE]

I gotta teach you the respect philosopohy that ultimately underlies stuff like no stealing, no killing, etc. Hopefully I might change your mind under it. With stealing they're insulting you greatly, not respecting your right to your property. The only living disrespect that goes further is Rape, the complete disrespect of someone's right to their own body, what they choose to do with it, that right taken away. Keep in mind this is especially disrespectful considering how invasive it is as well.
 
Sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that! I'm a firm believer of only using force as an absolute last resort to protect your life/physical well being in response to a clear threat against it.

To me robberies don't constitute that since they so rarely result in any physical harm. Others look at them differently and I'm not going to argue that point. To each their own their I guess.

As for the respect stuff, that sounds like a bunch of BS no offense. The criminal justice system is based on actual harm done, not some abstract concept of disrespect. The harm in robbery is fear/stress and losing some property. Getting shot isn't a proportional response to that harm IMO. I mean it's fine if you want to live by it, but that's not how the justice system works--and in turn not how I think individuals should justify their own responses to crime. But of course I don't think people should ever be taking justice into their own hands, apprehending criminals etc. Leave that to the cops and the courts.

Also be careful shooting people running away though, particularly if you aren't sure if they're armed. A guy here got a prison sentence (can't recall length, was 5 years or less though) for shooting someone in the back and killing them as they were running way after robbing him. The robber was 17 and turned out he didn't have a gun (just imitated one under his shirt IIRC. Of course, if you live in some bassackwards place like Texas you probably don't have to worry about that kind of stuff! ;)
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's long, but the devil is in the details.


The thing is, and what's really pissing me off about all of this, is that you and I could probably come to an agreement that would be acceptable by 95% of the populace over a single lunch. What's reasonable and debatable between rational people means very little in the frame of the court, particularly this one.

I'll try to condense the problems with this ruling as quickly and dirty as I can.

1. This ruling reinforced something virtually everyone already believes. We can own guns. That in and of itself is not a victory for.. anyone really.
2. The holes presented by the Supreme Court are extremely wide ranging and can be easily taken advantage of by clever gun opponents. For example, the law struck down required that the gun be disassembled or otherwise made virtually unusable. But the idea of it being locked up was supported in the opinion. Well, what about being 2 locks then? or 7?
3. More ominously, someone forced Scalia's hand and demanded that he point out that the 2nd should still have significant barriers (registration, locks, etc.). It has to have been Kennedy, though a couple of em (the footnotes) might have been Thomas making noise behind the scenes. This is awful for everyone for a couple of reasons.
  • The high water mark for modern conservatism is obvious on the wall, and yet this was the "best" they could do. With every wind imaginable at their back, they still couldn't get this done.
  • The liberal wave is rising, and Kennedy seems to follow the national political tide. He will not be there when it comes to defending that which has been opened by this ruling. He will rule against gun owners for the next decade.
  • Liberals now have a blueprint for attack. They have shown themselves time and time again as being vastly superior in chipping away conservative issues in the court and now they know exactly where Kennedy's weaknesses lie.
  • Conservatives on the court will now be faced with two choices that will ultimately screw them: states' rights (which will invariably demand absurdly stringent gun laws somewhere) or federal rights' ala Raich that will only weaken their position on social issues, opening the door for the ***REALLY*** aggressive liberal ideas to take root.

The NRA in its infinite wisdom will only exacerbate the issue. They are predictably going to sue and by the time it reaches the bench, the world will look very different. They don't see the forest through the trees and in a stroke of irony enough to make Solomon blush, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot.

That's the problem, guys. There's also the question of incorporation which is so bad I don't even want to think about it.

I wish it was a victory worth having too. I think it's a distraction that's unnecessary and that we should we working on the real issues of this country. This has guaranteed a shit ton of dumb legislation and legal fights. It was there, it was within their grasp, and they screwed the pooch. This is the definition of pyrrhic victory.


This is precisely what I mean. This is what this will boil down to. trq, you're so right it's painful. Every gun hater in America is licking their chops on this one. I guaran-goddamn-tee you there's a conference call going on right now with people laughing about how easy this is going to be. The majority walked away from originalism, so-called "strict constructionism", etc. etc, all those buzzwords they use to justify their own brand of judicial activism. They swore it would never happen again after Bush v. Gore, even going so far as to say this is not a precedent. Then they did it in Raich, and mumbled under their breath about states' rights. After this one, Kennedy isn't going to have anywhere else to hide. The other 8 will continue to do what they do, but the "Kennedy court" is alive and pumping, and Kennedy knows his ass is on the line from here out. It's already called the Kennedy court and said that "history is watching"... and nothing turns a moderate jurist into a liberal like history's real-time microscope.

Oh, and I edited out (but not fast enough to escape the quote) the nastiness I posted to thrust. It was uncalled for and my fault. As you can plainly see, the Supreme Court turns me into Dr. Jekyll.[/QUOTE]

Well I appreciate you writing all that. It's given me a lot to think about.

Ultimately I still feel a tinge of victory in the ruling, simply because I personally enjoy having and collecting guns. And on the surface, I don't need to fear that ending in the near future.

But you've helped me realize that this issue is far more complicated than that. I guess my biggest question after reading your post is what SHOULD gun advocates be lobbying for? What SHOULD the next step be that you would feel is wise?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My point is using lethal force in a strong arm robbery is unwarranted IMO.[/quote]

The people who have been killed during a strong arm robbery would probably disagree with you. Of course they can't because they died as a result of choosing not to defend themselves.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Give people what they want, and you'll be unharmed in 99% of the cases of robberies.[/quote]

Unharmed? A robbery that doesn't result in physical harm will still cause harm financially and emotionally. There's no such thing as a robbery where the victim goes unharmed.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Resisting a robbery VASTLY increases the chances you'll get hurt or killed [/quote]

Are you going to provide some proof or are you still hanging onto that inverse ad hominem fallacy?

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not people's jobs to take the law into their own hands.[/quote]

Defending one's self against the threat of physical violence does not equal taking the law into their own hands.

[quote name='dmaul1114']And at least with the police departments I work with the clearance rate for armed robbery is much higher than 40%. 75-85% among the several I've done research with.[/quote]

Nationwide stats trump your anecdotal evidence. Heck, my guess was closer than your claim.

From the FBI's 2006 CIUS:

crimcleararr.gif



[quote name='dmaul1114'] As for the intent, I already clarified that above. You don't know their intent--that's not enough for me to shoot them.[/quote]

A person who threatens you with physical violence in order to get money has already stepped over the line. Since they've already threatened you with violence, it only makes sense to treat them as if they were going to try to make good on said threat. For some (you for instance) that means kowtowing and becoming their bitch. For others it means refusing to be a victim and fighting back.
 
Like I said, not wasting time responding to this nonsense again. I've made my points, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not providing sources to win arguments with nerds on a game forum. There are several published, peer reviewed studies out there on robbery that show physical harm is very rare if the person just complies. You can dig them up yourself. Or you can resist and get shot. I wouldn't lose any sleep over that either.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I guess my biggest question after reading your post is what SHOULD gun advocates be lobbying for? What SHOULD the next step be that you would feel is wise?[/QUOTE]
If I were the head of the NRA, I'd take a 3 prong approach.

1. They're going to sue what they consider the easiest targets; ie California, Mass, etc. (liberal cities and states). Don't. Those are hard targets with ideological warriors waiting for the chance. Find a state with an awful attorney general, hopefully ideologically opposed to guns so that they'll really choke all over it trying to get it done.

little side note here: Sodomy was declared illegal in Texas (Lawrence, a stellar look at the jurist's motives and thoughts were one looking for a place to start) just a couple of years ago. The plaintiffs' case wasn't particularly special, but they found an AG that they knew would hose it spectacularly and he came through in spades.

2. I would be leaning all over McCain to praise Kennedy, not just in public, but in a debate if possible (something with higher than normal media). I would demand it as the price of support. Without an explicit promise of maximum coverage for Kennedy, I would threaten to talk to Obama. Kennedy's "good deed" needs to be positively reinforced in the public mind to the point of being unassailable. Make Kennedy feel bound to this thing.

3. Sit down and have a damn hard look at Obama. How willing is he to play ball? Would NRA support seal the deal for him, and what is he willing to pay for it? Obama is an adept politician. One only need have seen Hillary kiss the ring to realize that. Would he guarantee a SC jurist nomination that supports gun rights? Though the pride would take a firm smash right in the jimmy, doesn't the NRA exist to keep gun owners owning?

4. Other than this, hope the liberals are too smug and self satisfied with the 2 houses of government in Nov. to remember guns.

That's all I got.
 
To get back on the main topic, the DC gun ban. It looks like DCs response is that the ruling only applies to guns in the home, and will still not allow guns in public. Seems like a reasonable interpretation as the law suit was by a guy suing as he couldn't' have a gun in his home. From what I've skimmed of the ruling, they say nothing about the banning of concealed weapons in public being unconstitutional.

That makes me even happier with the ruling. I strongly support the right of people to have guns in their home, but I don't like concealed weapons in public for all the reasons I've beat to death in this thread already.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
That makes me even happier with the ruling. I strongly support the right of people to have guns in their home, but I don't like concealed weapons in public for all the reasons I've beat to death in this thread already.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because criminals will stop carrying concealed if it's illegal. :roll:

I know you ultimately want to prevent a society having shootouts, and you tend to see it generally; that having more concealed guns in public can only = bad. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe making concealment illegal will ONLY affect good law-abiding citizens. And I don't buy that making it illegal would be a deterrent for criminals anymore than speed limits deter bank robberies.

Near where I live, about 2 years ago, a man walked into a mall with an assault rifle and started shooting random people. He had several magazines and tons of ammo. He was stopped short of killing more than 4 and wounding several others by a good guy packing a concealed handgun.

Now I know you will argue how rare that sort of thing is, and that's your right. But had concealment been illegal, that incident would have been much worse. I'd rather not punish good guys like that when criminals ignore laws.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not providing sources to win arguments with nerds on a game forum.[/quote]

That's because you don't have any.

[quote name='dmaul1114']There are several published, peer reviewed studies out there on robbery that show physical harm is very rare if the person just complies. [/quote]

Then name three. If there are so many, then naming three should be a simple act which would take less time than it took to type your last post.

[quote name='dmaul1114']You can dig them up yourself.[/quote]

Why would I go looking for items which are unlikely to exist? Because some internet criminologist says they do; but doesn't know what they're called?

[quote name='dmaul1114']Or you can resist and get shot. I wouldn't lose any sleep over that either.[/quote]

You can not resist and continue to kowtow to crooks. Have fun with that if you ever get married and some guy is raping your wife in your bed while you do nothing but sit there and beg him to wear a condom while he eyes your daughters.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah, because criminals will stop carrying concealed if it's illegal. :roll:
[/QUOTE]

Of course not. They'll carry either way. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I've outlined several times why I think people packing does more harm than good and results in more shootings/deaths than it prevents. You feel differently.
 
[quote name='trq']You can destroy your enemy's will to fight without lifting a finger in violence -- MLK proved it. Gandhi proved it. We don't need the Second Amendment if our solution for keeping the government at bay is "make them look bad."[/quote]
Indians died by the thousands before they were granted independence. And MLK may have been nonviolent but the civil rights movement as a whole was not an entirely nonviolent movement. Black Panthers? Then theres this quote from Gandhi:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

[quote name='trq']So if it comes down to "the citizens vs the government," it's not a plinking contest. It's not like hunting. It's not even like checking downstairs for burglars. It's war. And I don't care if you're Patrick Swayze himself -- you don't take a bolt action rifle to war against Apache attack helicopters.

And people keep bringing up Iraq. Does anyone remember that Iraq had a decent-sized standing army that we completely steamrolled? Afghanistan, Viet Nam ... they all needed major weapon shipments from the outside to be able to resist their enemies, and the weapons they received weren't crates of Saturday Night Specials, I assure you. They were assault rifles, grenades, sniper rifles, mines, heavy machine guns, and shit to shoot down helicopters.

So here's the point: if the Second Amendment is meant to keep a tyrannical government at bay, it needs to ensure our ability to defend ourselves from the soldiers of that government. And the fact is, it takes a hell of a lot more than shotguns to do that against the modern American military, no matter how much you yell "Wolverines!" So either we need to decide that the amendment ensures everyone the right to own major, major hardware -- SAWs, TOWs, .50 cal Berettas, and right on down the line -- or we need to accept that a practical defense against the military isn't a viable angle to justify permitting unrestricted firearm ownership.[/quote]
You're thinking in conventional terms, while this is strictly a proposition of unconventional warfare. If a large amount of the populace decided they were going to resist a presumably tyrranical government, things would get very nasty, very fast. History is filled with examples of the populace using guerilla tactics very effectively against standing armies. The only way to fight that, whether you have tanks, planes, and helicopters or not, is to start killing everybody until no resistance is alive or willing to fight, as Stalin did. And at that point, I don't think you have a military willing to carry out those orders.

[quote name='trq']Well, the cops would have guns too, but "If guns are illegal, only criminals and law enforcement personnel will have guns" doesn't have the same ring, I guess. What the criminals won't have are the same guns. In countries where firearms are rare, getting a hold of a few illegal pistols is a major ordeal. Here, LA gangs routinely roll with Mac-10s and Uzis. Let me put it another way: why don't criminals have grenade launchers? You'd better believe there are some straight up gangstas who'd love to fire a few 40 mm rounds at an armored car. So why don't they?[/QUOTE]
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

The police are not there to protect you. They are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect you. They're there to respond to crimes after the fact. The legal and practical burden of your protection falls entirely upon you. You can not place the burden of protection upon the people, and then deny the people the means of protecting themselves.

Criminals DO have RPG's, AK's, bazooka's, etc. There are plenty of heavier weapons out there in non-military hands. They are not stupid enough to actually use them as they serve no practical purpose out on the street, they're not concealable and they draw attention.
 
I've been on the sidelines mostly b/c my points have been made by others. I'd just like to congratulate dmaul, trq, and speedracer especially for completely handing the opposition their ass.

Good thread, well done!

Thrust, take it from an attorney, speedracer (obviously another attorney) is right about your forfeiture of constitutional interpretational arguments, yet you may need to take a con law class to understand why. And you really ought to read the opinions before you start telling people what they say; it may help you look like less of an idiot and help you actually know what you're talking about.

Wow dafoomie, you really think cops are useless huh? They don't protect us? They're only there to respond to crimes after the fact eh? They just wait until they're over to do anything about em huh? The burden of protection falls ENTIRELY on you? Wow you have a great need for intellect, life experience, and common sense. Look, I dislike most cops too, but I still have a brain and realized they do serve a purpose.

And whoever said no robbery victim was ever not harmed (cannibalcrowley) I was robbed, and not harmed at all (physically or financially). The sole reason for this is because I cooperated and gave up my (my employer's) money. It was a piece of cake. Oh yeah, they were caught too.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

The police are not there to protect you. They are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect you. They're there to respond to crimes after the fact. The legal and practical burden of your protection falls entirely upon you. You can not place the burden of protection upon the people, and then deny the people the means of protecting themselves.

.[/quote]


Not sure about local/state Police Departments policies for Justification of Deadly Force but, I'm an MP and one of the justifications for use of deadly force is the protection of others, I'd assume its similiar for civilian agencies.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']
And whoever said no robbery victim was ever not harmed (cannibalcrowley) I was robbed, and not harmed at all (physically or financially). The sole reason for this is because I cooperated and gave up my (my employer's) money. It was a piece of cake. Oh yeah, they were caught too.[/QUOTE]

Same here, didn't lose much cash. No physical harm. No mental harm other than being pissed off about having to get new credit cards drivers licenses etc.

Same for the 6 other people I know who have been robbed (big problem in the DC area).

I just don't get his point, if somone has a gun on you already, there isn't shit you can do. Guess you could shoot them in the back as they were leaving--but I can't justify that when at that point it's clear they're not going to harm you. I couldn't shoot someone just for taking my posessions. But to each their own.

Got to love strawman arguments as well, not sure what the hell his rape scenario has to do with robbery. Of course you fight as hard as you can any time there's clearly going to be physical harm to you or your loved ones if you don't.

That doesn't mean you resist in something like a robbery where there is very little chance of their being any physical harm. If you want to shoot them when they run away, knock yourself out. Just be wary that you risk a voluntary manslaughter charge in some cases. Not likely to get it if the person really had a gun, but I've seen a few cases over the years where the person didn't have a gun and the victim ended up being charged (usually plead out to a lesser charge). A lot of prosecutors don't want people taking the law into their own hands.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']And whoever said no robbery victim was ever not harmed (cannibalcrowley) I was robbed, and not harmed at all (physically or financially).[/quote]

Nor emotionally? Your employer wasn't harmed financially?

[quote name='pittpizza']Wow dafoomie, you really think cops are useless huh? They don't protect us? They're only there to respond to crimes after the fact eh? They just wait until they're over to do anything about em huh? The burden of protection falls ENTIRELY on you?[/quote]

What exact point do you disagree with?
  • They aren't legally obligated to protect.
  • They primarily respond to crimes after the fact.
  • People are responsible for protecting themselves.
[quote name='homeland']Not sure about local/state Police Departments policies for Justification of Deadly Force but, I'm an MP and one of the justifications for use of deadly force is the protection of others, I'd assume its similiar for civilian agencies.[/quote]

It's the same for civilians whether they're LEOs or not. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that police aren't legally obligated to protect.
 
Quite possibly the most useless poster on CAG, and has me on ignore, but I'm bored on a Sunday morning...

[quote name='pittpizza']I've been on the sidelines mostly b/c my points have been made by others. I'd just like to congratulate dmaul, trq, and speedracer especially for completely handing the opposition their ass. [/quote]
There was an opposition?
Leave it to pp to find conflict where there isn't any. Typical bad-lawyer logic.


Thrust, take it from an attorney, speedracer (obviously another attorney) is right about your forfeiture of constitutional interpretational arguments, yet you may need to take a con law class to understand why. And you really ought to read the opinions before you start telling people what they say; it may help you look like less of an idiot and help you actually know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

First of all, trying to address someone everyone knows you have on your ignore list because you can't handle debating with, shows how prepubescent and immature your mind really is. Your like the pussy's in school that stick anonymous notes into lockers of people they don't like. Your point becomes overshadowed by the size of your vagina.

Second, if your reading comprehension was worth a damn you'd have seen that we agreed on most points. The biggest disagreement was simply that I am, on the surface, happy with the ruling because I like to have guns. Dmaul, and maybe others, have no issue with guns in houses, but don't like them out in public legally. Big deal. Oh and you obviously missed the part where I admitted mistakes and asked for clarifications.
But I agree with all the points about what the holes left open.

Quit reverting back to the role of contrary dumbass.

Once again, pp finds and tries to color conflict where there really wasn't any.

Wow dafoomie, you really think cops are useless huh? They don't protect us? They're only there to respond to crimes after the fact eh? They just wait until they're over to do anything about em huh? The burden of protection falls ENTIRELY on you? Wow you have a great need for intellect, life experience, and common sense. Look, I dislike most cops too, but I still have a brain and realized they do serve a purpose.
Click to expand...

The basic point I think he was trying to make is if someone breaks into your house, wishing you ill intent, to rob you, cops simply can't prevent that. Nor can they "protect" you. Because it's all over within 5 minutes. Which is true. If the robber blows your head off, or rapes your wife, the cops are blameless, because they aren't there.

YOU really are the first line of defense for YOU. It's just up to each of us individually how to interpret that.

If someone breaks into your house with a gun and wants to rape your wife and steal from you, do you wish for a phone in your hand or a gun?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Same for the 6 other people I know who have been robbed (big problem in the DC area).[/quote]

*gasp* Robbery is a big problem in an area that banned concealed carry and even the ownership of handguns. How many years were they the murder capital of the country?

[quote name='dmaul1114']but I can't justify that when at that point it's clear they're not going to harm you. I couldn't shoot someone just for taking my posessions. But to each their own.[/quote]

That's the point that's so far over your head. When someone robs you, they're doing it through violence or the threat thereof. In doing so they've communicated that their intent is to harm you. Defending yourself when threatened is quite sensible.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Got to love strawman arguments as well, not sure what the hell his rape scenario has to do with robbery. Of course you fight as hard as you can any time there's clearly going to be physical harm to you or your loved ones if you don't.[/quote]

You've repeatedly stated that when someone demands something and backs up that demand with the threat of force, that one should give it to them and cooperate fully. Are you now modifying said stance?
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']
You've repeatedly stated that when someone demands something and backs up that demand with the threat of force, that one should give it to them and cooperate fully. Are you now modifying said stance?[/QUOTE]

I think dmaul's position is more that having a gun, and potentially using it, in a robbery at gunpoint makes it far more dangerous for you. And it's a very valid point, because it's true.

I think where you and I might agree, though, is that some of us would rather not try to play the statistics when we are in a threatening situation, because we refuse to be victims, even if victims are safer.

We'd rather at least have the option available to us to dish out defense and/or justice if we feel our lives are in danger, instead of being FORCED into simply having faith in statistics, praying to whatever god, and ultimately being a victim that may or may not live through it.

I do understand dmaul's point though. It makes perfect logical sense, if you value your life, statistically, to just do nothing and let them have their way and hope they leave. There is nothing wrong with that. It really just comes down to personality differences and life view differences.

I think more and more that in this argument, it comes more down to personal preference and choice rather than being "right". I feel like we are all arguing which is a prettier color, blue or purple.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']*gasp* Robbery is a big problem in an area that banned concealed carry and even the ownership of handguns. How many years were they the murder capital of the country?
[/quote]

Nothing to do with it. The problems is as bad (or worse) in Maryland (where I live and was robbed) which had none of those bans.

Bluntly, anyone who thinks having guns around reduces crime knows nothing about crime. You'll find few if any supporters of that idea among those who study crime for a living. Many people support the rights to have guns, but they're not supporting them for reasons of reducing crime.

That's the point that's so far over your head. When someone robs you, they're doing it through violence or the threat thereof. In doing so they've communicated that their intent is to harm you. Defending yourself when threatened is quite sensible.
Click to expand...

I understand that totally. I just don't think anyone who commits any crime against me deserves to be shot.

The intent of robbery is not to harm somone, it's to get someone to give you their belongings by threatening to harm them. If you try to resist you just vastly increase the chances of being harmed.

The legal definition of robbery is "the taking of someone's property through force or threat of force." It's not to harm someone and take their shit.

The robber just needs some cash, and wants to get it quickly. They don't have the mindset to hurt or kill someone, they just want to scare someone and get them to hand over their wallet.

If you want to resist when someone has a gun on you and up your chances of being harmed, then knock yourself out.

Cops always tell people in neighborhood watch meetings and other such functions that when robbed to just give them what they want and not to resist. It's just common sense.

You've repeatedly stated that when someone demands something and backs up that demand with the threat of force, that one should give it to them and cooperate fully. Are you now modifying said stance?
Click to expand...

Not at all. As I said above if someon has a gun on you and is asking for your wallet, you'd be a fucking idiot not to just give it to them. If you give it to them and they don't leave right away, then maybe you should do something.

But if you try to resist someone who already has a gun pointed at you, you're just asking to be shot. But again, that's your decision and I'm not going to feel all that bad for someone hurt in robbery as a result of not wanting to give up their shit.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think dmaul's position is more that having a gun, and potentially using it, in a robbery at gunpoint makes it far more dangerous for you. And it's a very valid point, because it's true.

I think where you and I might agree, though, is that some of us would rather not try to play the statistics when we are in a threatening situation, because we refuse to be victims, even if victims are safer.

We'd rather at least have the option available to us to dish out defense and/or justice if we feel our lives are in danger, instead of being FORCED into simply having faith in statistics, praying to whatever god, and ultimately being a victim that may or may not live through it.

I do understand dmaul's point though. It makes perfect logical sense, if you value your life, statistically, to just do nothing and let them have their way and hope they leave. There is nothing wrong with that. It really just comes down to personality differences and life view differences.

I think more and more that in this argument, it comes more down to personal preference and choice rather than being "right". I feel like we are all arguing which is a prettier color, blue or purple.[/QUOTE]

That's it in a nutshell. I think you have to be fucking stupid to increase your risk of injury or death by not just giving up your stuff.

If you guys want to be tough guys and resist just for the principle of not giving into criminals, be my guest. I think it's stupid, but hey the less gun toting conservatives walking around the better. ;)

But I'd bet anything that both of you internet tough guys would just give up your shit to someone who had a gun on you if faced with a real life armed robbery. Some of my guy friends that got robbed always talked a ton of shit about how they'd fight the person off. Faced with the real situation they gave up their wallets and called the cops. It's easy to be tough when you're not looking down the barrel of a gun.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I would also like to ask this question to everyone:

Should off-duty police officers be legally allowed to conceal carry?

Why or why not?[/QUOTE]

Yes. They have experience on the use of weapons in tense crime situations. A citizen with a concealed weapons permit does not.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's it in a nutshell. I think you have to be fucking stupid to increase your risk of injury or death by not just giving up your stuff.

If you guys want to be tough guys and resist just for the principle of not giving into criminals, be my guest. I think it's stupid, but hey the less gun toting conservatives walking around the better. ;)

But I'd bet anything that both of you internet tough guys would just give up your shit to someone who had a gun on you if faced with a real life armed robbery. Some of my guy friends that got robbed always talked a ton of shit about how they'd fight the person off. Faced with the real situation they gave up their wallets and called the cops. It's easy to be tough when you're not looking down the barrel of a gun.[/quote]

I think you already forgot that I said that being in the same situation you were in when you got robbed, I'd have done the same thing. For some reason, though, the mugging example keeps coming up. For me, it's a poor example, because I likely wouldn't use my gun if I were jumped as you described.

But the point I'm poorly trying to make is that having a gun on you makes you feel like you don't have to be a victim all the time. It is very liberating to always know that you are as capable of your protection as if a cop were there. Having the CHOICE to use it or not, and suffer the consequences or save a life is important to us.

And, like I've said before, simply HAVING a gun, I believe, saves lives. It makes you behave differently, and it makes you handle tense situations differently. If things get bad enough, it can be simply displayed, and it WILL defuse situations. I strongly believe that I can save lives with a gun by never firing it. In fact, I believe that so strongly, that I'd say 99% of the time I would ever feel the need to pull out a gun, I would never use it.

This notion that having people with conceal carry permits that DO go through training, DO have background checks, and ARE taking on greater legal responsibility; are just more guns running around that are more likely to shoot people in anger, and make the world more dangerous in general, is just silly and totally not backed up by any statistical evidence.

As a side note - Having a concealed carry permit is a big responsibility. I am legally obligated to show it just being pulled over for a traffic violation. I had to pay a lot of money, go to classes, and have extensive background checks to make sure I have never committed a crime. The times I have been pulled over, or been confronted by a cop, when I show them my permit they immediately treat me almost like one of their own, because it's basically a "good guy" card. Oh and it's important to note that if I ever committed a crime with my concealed carry permit, I'd suffer higher consequences.

Oh and I've never met a cop that didn't display some type of appreciation for the fact that I had a gun in my car or my ccp. IF cops like it, it can't be so bad, right? ;)


Yes. They have experience on the use of weapons in tense crime situations. A citizen with a concealed weapons permit does not.
Click to expand...
Not rookies. And not very many cops, nationwide, statistically speaking, have pulled a gun much if at all.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think you already forgot that I said that being in the same situation you were in when you got robbed, I'd have done the same thing. For some reason, though, the mugging example keeps coming up. For me, it's a poor example, because I likely wouldn't use my gun if I were jumped as you described.
[/quote]

I know. My posts are more aimed at the other guys repeated posts basically saying people that don't resist armed robberies are pussies and kowtowing to criminals. You have some common sense, he doesn't.

The mugging example keeps coming up as that's how most street robberies of an individual occur. Some one or some people jump out in front of you, present a weapon (or grab you if it's a strong arm robbery) and ask for your stuff. There's really not much you can do in terms of resisting that which won't increase your chance of injury. You understand that, the other guy not so much. Or maybe he just wants to have a gun to shoot the person in the back when he leaves. Whatever.

But the point I'm poorly trying to make is that having a gun on you makes you feel like you don't have to be a victim all the time. It is very liberating to always know that you are as capable of your protection as if a cop were there. Having the CHOICE to use it or not, and suffer the consequences or save a life is important to us.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I don't want the choice, but depending on local laws you have a right to.

This notion that having people with conceal carry permits that DO go through training, DO have background checks, and ARE taking on greater legal responsibility; are just more guns running around that are more likely to shoot people in anger, and make the world more dangerous in general, is just silly and totally not backed up by any statistical evidence.
Click to expand...

Drop the act. You keep talking in threads like you actually know the research literarture. It's your opinion that it doesn't make things worse. Others think (and have shown with stats--albeit stats to take with a big grain of salt) that having concealed guns widespread leads to more shootings.

But the research their is crappy, so I'm not going to pass my opinion off as fact. I just don't like guns in public as I think they are more likely to cause problems than to solve them. We'll never know what the true case is as it's a near impossible topic to get accurate data on.


Not rookies. And not very many cops, nationwide, statistically speaking, have pulled a gun much if at all.
Click to expand...

True, but most have been in crime situations, have had better training than the typical concealed weapons classes etc.

But that's a fair point. Maybe there should be an experience requirement before they can care off duty. 5 years or more on the job or something.
 
alright now that you are all happy about your 2nd amendment rights "returning", how about we look into returning our 4th amendment rights and stopping wiretapping without warrants. Lets see how many lovers of freedom actually care about this.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think dmaul's position is more that having a gun, and potentially using it, in a robbery at gunpoint makes it far more dangerous for you. And it's a very valid point, because it's true.[/quote]

Actually, his point is that you should comply in every robbery situation. He has even specifically mentioned kowtowing to unarmed robbers.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Should off-duty police officers be legally allowed to conceal carry?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Yes, as long as they apply like any other citizen and no special circumstances are given due to their profession. Any other method creates a "some animals are more equal than others" situation.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Nothing to do with it. The problems is as bad (or worse) in Maryland (where I live and was robbed) which had none of those bans.[/quote]

Maryland's "may issue" law is so draconian that it does practically ban the legal carry of concealed handguns.

[quote name='dmaul1114']They don't have the mindset to hurt or kill someone, they just want to scare someone and get them to hand over their wallet.[/quote]

Some do and some don't. Compliance puts your life and well-being in the hands of the violent criminal who just threatened you.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Bluntly, anyone who thinks having guns around reduces crime knows nothing about crime. You'll find few if any supporters of that idea among those who study crime for a living.[/quote]

Crime in general, no. Violent crime, yes.

From CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUNS (pdf)
V. Conclusion
​
Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant
mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears
to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in
accidental deaths. If the rest of the country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,414 murders and over 4,177
rapes would have been avoided. On the other hand, consistent with the notion
that criminals respond to incentives, county-level data provides evidence
that concealed handgun laws are associated with increases in property
crimes involving stealth and where the probability of contact between
the criminal and the victim is minimal. The largest population counties
where the deterrence effect from concealed handguns on violent crimes is
the greatest also experienced the greatest substitution into property crimes.
The estimated annual gain in 1992 from allowing concealed handguns was
over $5.74 billion.

The study provides the first estimates of the annual social benefit from
private expenditures on crime reduction, with an additional concealed handgun permit reducing total victim losses by up to $5,000. The results imply
that permitted handguns are being obtained at much lower than optimal
rates in two of the three states for which we had the relevant data, perhaps
because of the important externalities that are not captured by the individual
handgun owners. Our evidence implies that concealed handguns are the
most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists,
providing a higher return than increased law enforcement or incarceration,
other private security devices, or social programs like early educational
intervention.70

The data also supply dramatic evidence supporting the economic notion
of deterrence. Higher arrest and conviction rates consistently and dramatically
reduce the crime rate. Consistent with other recent work,71 the results
imply that increasing the arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual
conviction, imposes a significant penalty on criminals. Perhaps the
most surprising result is that the deterrent effect of a 1 percentage point
increase in arrest rates is much larger than the same increase in the probability
of conviction. Also surprising is that while longer prison lengths usually
implied lower crime rates, the results were normally not statistically
significant.
Click to expand...

[quote name='dmaul1114']Some one or some people jump out in front of you, present a weapon (or grab you if it's a strong arm robbery) and ask for your stuff. There's really not much you can do in terms of resisting that which won't increase your chance of injury. You understand that, the other guy not so much.[/quote]

From the abstract of Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery:

Self-protection (SP) of any kind apparently reduces the probability of the robbery being completed, i.e., the robber getting away with the victim's property. Armed resistance is more effective than unarmed resistance, and resistance with a gun, though relatively rare, is the most effective victim response of all. Resistance with a gun also appears to reduce the likelihood of the victim being injured, while two types of resistance appear to increase it: (1) unarmed physical force against the robber and (2) trying to get help, attract attention, or scare the robber away. The robber's possession of a gun appears to inhibit victim resistance, which can sometimes provoke a robber to attack; robber gun possession thereby reduces the probability of victim injury. However, even controlling for victim resistance, robber gun possession, is associated with a lower rate of injury to the victim. Finally, robbers with handguns are much more likely to complete their robberies, and those with knives and other weapons are somewhat more likely to do so, compared to unarmed robbers.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']alright now that you are all happy about your 2nd amendment rights "returning", how about we look into returning our 4th amendment rights and stopping wiretapping without warrants. Lets see how many lovers of freedom actually care about this.[/QUOTE]

This might be worthy of another thread. But in short: absolutely.

While we are at it, why don't we dust off the 10th amendment too.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
Drop the act. You keep talking in threads like you actually know the research literarture. It's your opinion that it doesn't make things worse. Others think (and have shown with stats--albeit stats to take with a big grain of salt) that having concealed guns widespread leads to more shootings.

But the research their is crappy, so I'm not going to pass my opinion off as fact. I just don't like guns in public as I think they are more likely to cause problems than to solve them. We'll never know what the true case is as it's a near impossible topic to get accurate data on.[/quote]

I am not passing my opinion off as fact either. For the record here is a disclaimer: everything I say is my opinion unless I specifically cite sources.

The only "fact" we have to deal with in this regard is that there is no strong evidence for either side to show that concealed carry's do any good or do any harm. So all we have is opinion.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']alright now that you Americans are all happy about your our 2nd amendment rights returning, how about we look into returning our 4th amendment rights and stopping wiretapping without warrants. Lets see how many lovers of freedom actually care about this.[/quote]

Fixed.
 
And here's an abstract that backs me up.

http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ewn005v1


Although the incidence of robbery has declined sharply since the early 1990s, the proportion of robberies resulting in victim injury has increased and the rate of victim resistance has remained relatively stable. We provide a theoretical explanation for these trends. Deterrence policies that make robbery more costly for offenders result in a decline in the incidence of robbery through the exit of those with the best outside options. The group of robbers who exit consists disproportionately of those who would have fled in the face of victim resistance, and hence, the pool of remaining robbers is more likely to respond violently to noncompliance by victims. This effect is reinforced by what we call victim hardening: a change in the distribution of attributes in the victim pool that makes resistance more likely. This can arise, for instance, through an increase in crime avoidance by the most compliant victims. Deterrence and victim hardening both result in lower robbery rates and greater violence conditional on resistance but have opposing effects on the rate of resistance, thus accounting for its relative stability over time."
Click to expand...

In my reading of the literature on robbery, I came across more studies reporting those types of findings about victim resistance than finding that it reduced odds of violence by the robber.

But I'm going to bow out now as I'm tired of arguing criminology on my day off!! :D Plus no one is going to budge here. Gun lovers like you guys are going to always assert it's a good thing to carry them (and some that you should always use them to thwart a crime), and people like me aren't going to give up our view that guns in public are bad. So time to agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top