Thread: We need hammer control NOW!!!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, but you have to believe it. You are on the fence, and you said you don't care if the state exists and don't care if it tells people what to do. Anarchists care if the state exists and want it not to.

Read my posts with more care, please. Repeating myself is becoming very tedious.

Expressing uncertainty about whether something is true or not is not the same as being on the fence. I very clearly said I see no reason why a state MUST exist for there to be a maximally free society. If you still don't understand: I think we can achieve a maximally free society without a state. This is the core of the libertarian anarchist philosophy. But I recognize that I could be wrong. Maybe in order to have a maximally free society, we do need a minimal state. If that ends up being the case, then so be it, I'll be a minarchist. This is why I say I'm pro-liberty before anti-state. Your short-sighted dictionary definitions do this discussion no justice.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Do I need to clarify anything else?

Originally Posted by Xei

I have no interest in a discussion if you're just going to make blatant troll statements like this.

You didn't mention the relevant fact in your list of reasons for keeping hammers legal. Self-defense is a virtue. It is a reason to keep hammers legal, and it is a reason to keep guns legal.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Read my posts with more care, please. Repeating myself is becoming very tedious.

Expressing uncertainty about whether something is true or not is not the same as being on the fence. I very clearly said I see no reason why a state MUST exist for there to be a maximally free society. If you still don't understand: I think we can achieve a maximally free society without a state. This is the core of the libertarian anarchist philosophy. But I recognize that I could be wrong. Maybe in order to have a maximally free society, we do need a minimal state. If that ends up being the case, then so be it, I'll be a minarchist. This is why I say I'm pro-liberty before anti-state. Your short-sighted dictionary definitions do this discussion no justice.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Do I need to clarify anything else?

Yeah, those damn dictionary definitions screw up everything. Look at what I boldfaced. That is called being on the fence. Also, notice that you have said not one word of support for my points on the problems with gun control in any of my threads about it. You have only opposed me. You are not an anarchist, and you are not a libertarian. There is a reason that you are trying to pretend otherwise. What is it? You have been trying to play two roles that contradict each other lately, and it is not working.

Pro gun rights here because even if I don't carry a gun I don't want any potential muggers or home-invaders to know in almost complete certainty that I don't carry a gun. On the other hand, I'm perfectly comfortable if they're certain I don't own a dirty bomb or a flame thrower.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Pro gun rights here because even if I don't carry a gun I don't want any potential muggers or home-invaders to know in almost complete certainty that I don't carry a gun. On the other hand, I'm perfectly comfortable if they're certain I don't own a dirty bomb or a flame thrower.

Why would you need anything more than a small revolver for self defense? It makes no sense why so many states still allow assault weapons. I think a single bullet will do against an intruder, you don't need 40.
Same goes for shotguns, there is absolutely no reason anyone should use a shotgun for self defense.
I could really not care that much for taking guns off the people completely, I just find it absurd that so many states still have absolutely no regulation of their guns.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Why would you need anything more than a small revolver for self defense? It makes no sense why so many states still allow assault weapons. I think a single bullet will do against an intruder, you don't need 40.
Same goes for shotguns, there is absolutely no reason anyone should use a shotgun for self defense.
I could really not care that much for taking guns off the people completely, I just find it absurd that so many states still have absolutely no regulation of their guns.

What if you miss the burglar or attacker? What if there are five of them? What if there are ten of them? I want at least a semi-automatic for that situation. An automatic like an uzi would help a whole lot.

What does regulation do? Can you provide any evidence that it shuts down the underground market for criminals even one bit? It only works on people who care about the law, and that puts the good guys at a major disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You didn't mention the relevant fact in your list of reasons for keeping hammers legal. Self-defense is a virtue. It is a reason to keep hammers legal, and it is a reason to keep guns legal.

Self-defence is not the main reason that hammers are legal, nor rolling pins, nor flower pots. They are legal because they are a useful tool for hammering stuff. So far you haven't mentioned that hammers can also be used as paperweights. This doesn't demonstrate that you don't understand hammers can be used as paper weights. You're very bad at logical reasoning, or you were trolling. Pick one.

Originally Posted by Xei

Self-defence is not the main reason that hammers are legal, nor rolling pins, nor flower pots. They are legal because they are a useful tool for hammering stuff. So far you haven't mentioned that hammers can also be used as paperweights. This doesn't demonstrate that you don't understand hammers can be used as paper weights. You're very bad at logical reasoning, or you were trolling. Pick one.

What you didn't comprehend is that there are multiple reasons for guns and hammers to be legal and one of the key reasons guns need to be legal also applies to hammers. It is important that you understand the analogy parallels involved here. Do you understand that, or do I need to dumb it down for you even more?

Did you see the stats I posted concerning Switzerland? They have one of the highest rates per capita of gun ownership in the world and also the lowest violent crime rate per capita in the world. Is that just a coincidence? What is your analysis?

Can you explain how gun control substantially hinders underground gun markets? Also, why isn't gun control working in Mexico, Chicago, Detroit, or Washington?

I'm not giving any analysis and I'm not participating in this discussion any more. You posted an obvious and intentional logical fallacy, and rather than have the maturity to admit it you went on the offensive and tried to blame it on my own stupidity, however that works. Why do you think I would want to have a conversation with someone who's just going to be rude and disingenuous? It won't be pleasant and it certainly won't achieve anything. See you in another thread.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Why would you need anything more than a small revolver for self defense? It makes no sense why so many states still allow assault weapons. I think a single bullet will do against an intruder, you don't need 40.
Same goes for shotguns, there is absolutely no reason anyone should use a shotgun for self defense.
I could really not care that much for taking guns off the people completely, I just find it absurd that so many states still have absolutely no regulation of their guns.

While I want to bring up that I never actually condoned, specifically, the legalization (and deregulation) of big guns, shotguns are awesome for self defense. You get a wide spray so you don't need to aim and the shells have little chance of passing through walls and injuring neighbors (unlike an assault rifle).

I want a semi-automatic rifle one day, personally. I also want a sizable chunk of land to start my cult--er commune--intentional community--and I want to hunt it, and have the option of aiming at intruders from far away. And also, zombie apocalypse. Or, more likely, extreme water shortage or some other massive depopulating crisis that would cause people to attempt to raid my land and steal my stuff.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not giving any analysis and I'm not participating in this discussion any more. You posted an obvious and intentional logical fallacy, and rather than have the maturity to admit it you went on the offensive and tried to blame it on my own stupidity, however that works. Why do you think I would want to have a conversation with someone who's just going to be rude and disingenuous? It won't be pleasant and it certainly won't achieve anything. See you in another thread.

In other words, you're stumped. Your excuse is worthless because I countered your points about my supposedly fallacious comments and because I am not the only person reading this discussion.

StephL, I keep seeing you like comments that insult me although you make no comments regarding the discussions. I challenge you to chime in and give an analysis. Try to answer my questions that Xei can't answer.

It is a futile errand to attempt to prevent crimes and murders by controlling the means.

Rather than trying to control the means, we should be trying to address the will. The problem is not that people CAN violate one another's rights, but that they have the DESIRE to.

Human nature is the issue here, not human tools.

I agree. It reminds me of the war on drugs. That's another policy aimed at the supply of inanimate objects instead of the human demand to use them.

This is actually a quite difficult topic.
And you did it a disservice by bringing up this hammer-business, Universal Mind, and getting lost in arguing this artificial concept.

Being from Germany - that's probably going for most of Europe as well - I fail to really understand the importance Americans attribute to being personally armed. The culture of admiration for the strong man with his weapon ready for everything seems like having a life and dynamic of its own.

I am aware of the historical context - but going from my belly-feeling/intuition - it alienates me - it looks like national craziness.
For me this supposed threat you seem to feel lurking everywhere looks to be mainly paranoia.
Your argument is valid, though, that restriction of weapons in private hands would give the people who don't care about laws and use them for their criminal purposes anyway - headway in the "arms race".
But is it appropriate - realistic?
It's a vicious circle - being a criminal in America - you are well advised to go armed, because so many private people do not only own weapons, but feel it justified to shoot an intruder for example, without an actual violent threat being clearly at hand.
This is completely illegal over here and seen as lynch-justice - you are supposed to run the heck away if at all possible and call the cops.

How many criminals come into your home and don't want to only steal things, but rape your wife and kill the kids and you?
It is also quite likely that weapons get used accidentally against innocent people, being mistaken for vicious enemies or used in intra-family conflicts, even.

I needed to see numbers on how many people do use their private guns to actually protect themselves, and it works, and is justified as the only means, that would have been possible to the same effect.
And why a simple gun would not have been enough for that.
How many gangs come in on private people in bunches in order to do violence to them??
The usual intruder is going to try to not come across anybody and be undisturbed.

And you sound, as if all guns were about to become illegal - what is being discussed here, is if the ownership of heavy-duty stuff - automatic and assault weapons - so the thing seems to be blown out of proportion.

Remind me - what is it, that will actually change - besides the regulations you already have?

Maybe America is still wild west and completely different from say Germany and also Switzerland.
Switzerland doesn't have a standing army, but instead private people get drafted to practice with their own military gun regularly.
But Switzerland is a whole different can of worms than America - I've been living there (also in Chicago for several months by the way).
Not only is a mentality of trust in government and general law-abiding and duty-fulfilling, cleanliness and peacefulness something widely pervasive - it is an extremely rich country, it controls immigration very rigorously, and it is strictly regulated, how to store and secure your rifle and illegal to use it for anything than to defend yourself against armed violence.
One main factor, why the crime rate is so low in these few million people, is that people live in villages and really small towns - even Zürich is no comparison to Berlin or any American metropolis. People know each other and you don't get far.
These are much stronger arguments for the low crime-rate than private gun-ownership.

Maybe it is already too late - the constitutional right and historical pride and whatever else - has lead to this arms race - private people drawing on their own guns leads to criminals also going armed with more than knives or use blunt hammer-like things on the spot.
The threshold to actually use those is much higher, since it can only be done at close quarters.
Maybe it really deters potential assaulters - the knowledge, that they might be shot at.
More likely it doesn't deter them, but they will keep pace and get more and more heavy weapons of their own.
The more massive armament gets - the more incentive is there to use it, unfortunately.

I do agree with your opinion on the war on drugs by the way Universal Mind.
There is a much more powerful positive possibility - stopping the madness inherent in it - than how much firepower up to extremes an individual may have.
Concerning this very topic and concerning more aspects besides.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

While I want to bring up that I never actually condoned, specifically, the legalization (and deregulation) of big guns, shotguns are awesome for self defense. You get a wide spray so you don't need to aim and the shells have little chance of passing through walls and injuring neighbors (unlike an assault rifle).

I want a semi-automatic rifle one day, personally. I also want a sizable chunk of land to start my cult--er commune--intentional community--and I want to hunt it, and have the option of aiming at intruders from far away. And also, zombie apocalypse. Or, more likely, extreme water shortage or some other massive depopulating crisis that would cause people to attempt to raid my land and steal my stuff.

That's an argument - but in the meantime - there's no need, really.
If it comes to such a situation - either controls fall or fail and everybody uses the black market for anything anyway.
Good argument for shotguns and against assault rifles - the wall-penetration, by the way.



Okay - my fazit - America might have a problem at hand, which originates from several cultural aspects - and it might be, that it is too late to regulate the situation properly - but it really rings wrong to me to officially support an arms-race within the population.
And I feel the perceived threat is blown vastly out of proportion - but who am I to know..

Then please do the service of explaining why the analogy does not work. Hammers are used to kill more Americans every year than rifles are. "Assault weapons" are just one faction of rifles. Why do you think hammers should be legal?

It is not about some macho contest. We really do have a violence problem over here, not just with guns. Nobody ever explains how gun control will keep guns away from violent criminals. Can you? My brother has been robbed at gun point twice, my sister was assaulted in a bar parking lot and got her ribs broken, my cousin was shot in a bar parking lot for talking to his ex-girlfriend, my dad's friend's wife was shot in the hand at a stop light, my dad stopped two intruders with a gun when my mother and sister were in the house, one of my sister's best friends was a stop light when a gang of thugs went up to his car and one of them smashed out his driver's window with a HAMMER, I know several women who have been raped, and this stuff goes on with other people. Am I really paranoid for acknowledging that? This stuff goes on. Attackers and intruders are a threat to a victim's life. Intruders do rape women sometimes, and they do murder people sometimes. Guns are excellent for defense against that scum. If you take them or any type of them away from the good guys, you take away an important choice.

Not everybody can run away, and the police can take a really long time to get to a person's house. Not everybody has a chance to call the cops. Why screw up the last line of defense? The intruders and attackers are still going to have their guns. They don't even buy them legally as it is. They buy them on the streets.

Stats Prove Gun Control Does Not Work

Attachment 6781

Attachment 6782

Attachment 6783

Attachment 6784

Attachment 6785

Suicides account for most gun deaths | Pew Research Center

Do you think not being able to find a gun would stop somebody from committing suicide? Guns are just a convenient way to do it. They definitely are not necessary for suicide.

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

shot burglar - YouTube

The Man Who Would Be "Rapist" shot 9 times by his would-be victim | Christopher di Armani.com





I don't understand your "mentality of trust in government." You're German? Are you aware of how the German government has gone wrong in the past? The Nazis, then the Soviets. German public trust in government is what allows such things to happen. Next time, you should all get guns and tell the totalitarians to fuck off. That's our mentality, and it is part of why we have never been taken over. We have rules the government has to follow. This is one of them:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That makes gun control out of the question. What you are saying has that obstacle. We would have a second revolution before we would ever give up the Second Amendment.

I am glad you agree with me on the war on drugs. If you realize that drug control does not work, what makes you think gun control does? How is it working in Mexico? What about Washington, Chicago, and Detroit?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/me...tighter-gun-co

https://gunowners.org/sk0601.htm

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/chi...d-gun-control/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22...of-gun-control

I want to mention one more thing. The very liberal leaning art district of my city is called Fondren, and it is near another neighborhood called Belhaven that is named after the college in the neighborhood. It is a liberal area too. Those two neighborhoods are getting their asses robbed blind. It's because the people who live there put themselves out there as people who think they are above guns. That makes them targets. Meanwhile, the redneck neighborhoods don't get screwed with because everybody knows there are more guns than people in them. If you rob a house or try to break in and rape a woman in one of them, you won't just be dealing with the people who live in the house. The whole neighborhood is ready to come out and blow somebody's brains out for pulling something like that. This truth is well known. That makes them safe neighborhoods.

gun law kennessaw.jpg

gun laws switzerland.jpg

gun stats.jpg

Please note that this mentality I was talking about was about Switzerland.
I really find, I was quite sympathetic with my above post, by the way.
Once more - hammers, same as knifes, have a much higher threshold to use them as weapons.
Somebody has to be within your reach and you in his.
You support my conceding that it might be too late for sensible intervention with your horror-stories.

You're from Germany but live in Switzerland? There might be an advantage to the village arrangement, but that and the other factors you mentioned could not explain by themselves why Switzerland has almost no violent crime in a country where such a large faction of the population owns guns. Most gun control arguments would suggest that Switzerland should be an extremely violent country. Reality is that very few people want to screw with people they know are armed.

No matter what the threshold for using hammers is, they are used in more killings than rifles every year in the U.S.

Not any more - I am German and live there - but I spent almost two years in Switzerland.
I find this threshold an important argument in your analogy - if you want to hold on to it. And consider, that it's not only hammers as in a tool for hammering, which killed so many people - there are blunt other things included - say base-ball-bats or lamps and what not.
What can I say?
Stop that stupid war on drugs and both sides will feel much less need for guns - besides it has effects even over here - our treaties with the US force us to classify substances the way the US does, and that hinders science considerably - therapeutic potential of psychedelics for example.
Switzerland is independent and has a lot to show meanwhile in that sector - you need a strongroom and a policeman in front and years to fight for your project, if you want to do something here - and what is the main hindrance - these treaties with the US.
All the luck with that!

We can agree that the war on drugs is the major problem behind the U.S. violence problem. Our welfare state is another big factor. Blaming it on the tools the psychopaths use instead of the psychopaths themselves is absurd.

I don't agree with everything about the Swiss government. I don't agree with Kennessaw, Georgia's former gun ownership requirement either. I just used those to make a point about gun ownership's affect on crime. I believe in the right to own guns, but I also believe in the right not to own guns.

The following numbers paint a quite different picture, when it comes to gun ownership - problems far outweigh "benefits" for the public:
Surgeon general nomination: Vivek Murthy on guns and public health | New Republic

As Olga Khazan pointed out at The Atlantic, suicide rates are higher in states where gun ownership is more common.

In 2010, 19,392 people took their own lives with guns, while “justifiable homicides”—self-defence shootings that may have saved a life—numbered only 230.

Over two-thirds of homicides and over half of successful suicides involve the use of a gun, and accidental gun deaths average about two a day.

Then there are the less obvious health effects of gun violence: Lead in the ground from ammunition. Loss of hearing from gunshots. Widespread PTSD that effects everyone from shooters, to victims, to bystanders. “Gun violence traumatizes whole communities,” Hemenway told me. This creates a cycle: “People with PTSD in inner cities often don’t have good access to mental health care, and it makes them more likely to be aggressive.”

When was the last time a hammer got up off the table on its own accord and came over and killed a person without anyone making it do so?

Originally Posted by StephL

The following numbers paint a quite different picture, when it comes to gun ownership - problems far outweigh "benefits" for the public:
Surgeon general nomination: Vivek Murthy on guns and public health | New Republic

As Olga Khazan pointed out at The Atlantic, suicide rates are higher in states where gun ownership is more common.

In 2010, 19,392 people took their own lives with guns, while “justifiable homicides”—self-defence shootings that may have saved a life—numbered only 230.

Over two-thirds of homicides and over half of successful suicides involve the use of a gun, and accidental gun deaths average about two a day.

Then there are the less obvious health effects of gun violence: Lead in the ground from ammunition. Loss of hearing from gunshots. Widespread PTSD that effects everyone from shooters, to victims, to bystanders. “Gun violence traumatizes whole communities,” Hemenway told me. This creates a cycle: “People with PTSD in inner cities often don’t have good access to mental health care, and it makes them more likely to be aggressive.”

The article says nothing about the deterrent factor. There mere knowledge of common gun ownership keeps a lot of communities safe. That is something the gun prohibition advocates never acknowledge.

What is your explanation for why mandatory gun ownership always lowers crime rates substantially?

The prevalence of guns does not cause suicide. A person determined to commit suicide does it. There are many ways to do it, and guns are not necessary at all for it. I have been suicidal, and whether or not I could find a gun had zero to do with whether or not I was going to go through with it. A gun is just a convenient instrument to use. If one can't be found, it changes nothing but the means. Correlation does not prove causation, though sometimes it results from it. Common gun ownership could result from the same factors that are making people more suicidal.

Plus, people would have a right to at least have a chance at defending themselves even if the deterrence factor and the occurrence of self-defense with a gun were extremely low, which they are not.

I want to stress again that gun prohibition would make bad guys with guns much more dangerous. We can't give them the advantage.

Originally Posted by DeadDollKitty

When was the last time a hammer got up off the table on its own accord and came over and killed a person without anyone making it do so?

Exactly. And it's good to see you again.

Politicians telling a state or nation that they want just a little bit of gun control are like a womanizer telling a hot woman that he just wants to give her a back rub.




This U.S. Senator says flat out what her goal is.

Check out this peculiar choice of words:



Here is another fascinating bit of talk: