Extremist Militias in the US

[Oyipggy]

Personally, I would rather be in a place where I would never have to make that choice.

 

[Wheem]

...your ****wittery knows no bounds.

This from the self-proclaimed fascist that wants to order people to become doctors, and kill them if they don't comply?

Anyway, as I already pointed out to you before - there are ~2 million defensive uses of firearms in the US each year. Your, "An attacker will hit you from behind and therefore there's no way you'll win!" argument is simply false.

1) Not everyone who is attacked is instantly killed or incapacitated when jumped by criminals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wmy0Wybcd0 and http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=11985477 for some quick examples). People with guns can fight off attackers - even multiple attackers with weapons, including guns - despite goofy assertions to the contrary.

2) It's not always the person who is armed that gets attacked, and their weapon can be used to defend the innocent victim who does (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soZT__WQKsM - video starts at ~14 seconds in).

3) Not every victim is totally surprised or ambushed by their attacker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY).

Hey, let's do away with all restrictions on drugs and guns! Nothing could possibly go wrong!

Do you not realize that street gangs get the lion's share of their money from the sale/trafficking or drugs? And that this "easy" money is one of the biggest recruiting tools that they have? Ending drug prohibition would, especially over the long term, severely reduce the size and power of gangs; and a drop in violent crime will necessarily follow.

Given how they offed themselves at the end, I don't think being shot was any fear of theirs. The problem was their having guns, not other people's lack of them. And a huge ****ing problem it was.

Some criminals will be deterred by armed resistance (or even the prospect of it), and others won't be. It seems a bit odd to say that there is no problem posed by would-be victims not being armed, though. Surely you wouldn't be in favor of disarming police officers? It's readily apparent that they may encounter armed and violent assailants, and that their weapons are an effective - though not foolproof - method of defending against that threat. Why then, is it not also an effective method for persons who are not police officers? (Assuming of course that we're talking about an adult)

An armed teacher, administrator, gym coach, security guard, etc...might have been able to stop the Columbine shooting before it went as far as it did. Or they might not have; as I said before, having a weapon is not a guarantee of survival, or even an "improved outcome" over not having one. But I think it's hard to argue that having a weapon does not improve one's chances of adequate self defense.

 

[CJ1145]

This from the self-proclaimed fascist that wants to order people to become doctors, and kill them if they don't comply?

Archonsod-Palpatine 2012

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Surely you wouldn't be in favor of disarming police officers? It's readily apparent that they may encounter armed and violent assailants, and that their weapons are an effective - though not foolproof - method of defending against that threat. Why then, is it not also an effective method for persons who are not police officers? (Assuming of course that we're talking about an adult)

How does the armaments of a police officer defend against the threat? If they're in a position where the criminal has already drawn his or her gun and is demanding something, I don't think drawing their own is going to be a particularly good idea at that point. In other cases, if they get the first move, it's going to be a different story, but a person being mugged isn't likely to get a heads up about things like that.

 

[Evilknightz]

Personally, I would rather be in a place where I would never have to make that choice.

Hah! Good one, impossible, but good.

 

[Wheem]

Surely you wouldn't be in favor of disarming police officers? It's readily apparent that they may encounter armed and violent assailants, and that their weapons are an effective - though not foolproof - method of defending against that threat. Why then, is it not also an effective method for persons who are not police officers? (Assuming of course that we're talking about an adult)

How does the armaments of a police officer defend against the threat? If they're in a position where the criminal has already drawn his or her gun and is demanding something, I don't think drawing their own is going to be a particularly good idea at that point. In other cases, if they get the first move, it's going to be a different story, but a person being mugged isn't likely to get a heads up about things like that.

As I said in the post you're quoting from - not every confrontation with a criminal begins as a 1vs1 (or multiple vs1) where a gun is pointed at you right from the beginning. Even then, though, it's possible that having a weapon can save your life - just watch the very first video I posted.

 

[Archonsod]

The criminal might not instigate if he sees that you have a weapon of your own. Also, these crimes are usually not instantaneous. Most of the time the killer is after something more than just your life. In the case of the mugger, many will not attack until after confronting you.

The only difference them knowing you have a weapon will make is that they'll shoot first, and loot your corpse later. And even if they don't, the first clue you'll get that they intend to mug you is that they're pointing a gun in your face. Reckon you can draw, aim and fire quicker than they can pull the trigger?

Anyway, as I already pointed out to you before - there are ~2 million defensive uses of firearms in the US each year. Your, "An attacker will hit you from behind and therefore there's no way you'll win!" argument is simply false.

The only place I can find quoting that figure tends to be pro-gun sites. Although from the JD, it looks like that figure a) includes the use of guns against wild animals and b) includes self reported uses not investigated by law enforcement (which tends to indicate there was no crime going on in the first place).

People with guns can fight off attackers - even multiple attackers with weapons, including guns - despite goofy assertions to the contrary.

You could have a greater effect on public safety by giving everyone their own personal lightning conductor - the scenario in which it proves useful is far more prevalent.

It's not always the person who is armed that gets attacked, and their weapon can be used to defend the innocent victim who does

Yup, because the average bystander has cyber recognition goggles which instantly identify whether someone is innocent or guilty at a mere glance.

Not every victim is totally surprised or ambushed by their attacker

Wooh! Small and statistically insignificant scenarios, we can totally justify bull**** with that!

Ending drug prohibition would, especially over the long term, severely reduce the size and power of gangs; and a drop in violent crime will necessarily follow.

Because they totally wouldn't move on to something else. And of course violent crime tends to be a gang caused problem. It's not quite what they mean when they say most murders happen within the family.

Surely you wouldn't be in favor of disarming police officers?

Because an unarmed police force is bound to fail, right?

But I think it's hard to argue that having a weapon does not improve one's chances of adequate self defense.

According to Kellerman, it's 43% more likely to result in your death.

 

[Ashmond]

No. I didn't suggest anything. I was simply pointing out a flaw in what MrMeat wrote.

However, it does logically follow that nobody having guns would, in fact, lead to nobody being shot.

So, you weren't suggesting anything and if I understand correctly from newer posts, you aren't even claiming a position.  So I'm gonna have a go at your second statement.

You can't follow from this point because you've taken a huge leap from the points where this idea stems.  Nobody having guns is out of the question and in fact, is out of hand in this situation.  There will always be firearms (civil rights to bear them being irrelevant), there will always be criminal elements in any government at every level.  Firearms are currently leaked to the underworld on a regular basis for high profits, imagine the ramifications of them being illegal.  The only difference is that any potential street buyer would have to beg, borrow or steal more in order to get one while gun traffickers gain even more wealth and power.  Average Joe probably won't bother, but the person already taking risks to achieve a criminal goal isn't going to think twice about taking more risks in obtaining and carrying the firearm.

Sadly, if a perfect world where were to exist and there were no firearms and nobody is getting shot, I guess there would then be the hyper debates about cutlery, and how it should all be smelted into perfectly round ornaments in order to reduce the stabbing/cutting statistics.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

As I said in the post you're quoting from - not every confrontation with a criminal begins as a 1vs1 (or multiple vs1) where a gun is pointed at you right from the beginning. Even then, though, it's possible that having a weapon can save your life - just watch the very first video I posted.

All I can say about that is the extremely poor execution of the robbers. First of all, if what the victim said is true that they had no intent of letting him live afterward, why did they even bother to tell him to surrender in the first place. If you're goal is to rob someone and not leave that person alive afterward, getting behind a person and putting one in the skull seems much better in every conceivable way than coming face to face, asking the person, and then start shooting.
It would seem more likely that the first shot that hit the victim's hand is a warning shot with the perpetrators having no intent of actually killing him. Whatever went through the mind of the victim though was the opposite. The robbers were probably shooting for their own lives at that point.

 

[Finzi]

No. I didn't suggest anything. I was simply pointing out a flaw in what MrMeat wrote.

However, it does logically follow that nobody having guns would, in fact, lead to nobody being shot.

You can't follow from this point because you've taken a huge leap from the points where this idea stems.  Nobody having guns is out of the question and in fact, is out of hand in this situation.  There will always be firearms (civil rights to bear them being irrelevant), there will always be criminal elements in any government at every level.  Firearms are currently leaked to the underworld on a regular basis for high profits, imagine the ramifications of them being illegal.  The only difference is that any potential street buyer would have to beg, borrow or steal more in order to get one while gun traffickers gain even more wealth and power.  Average Joe probably won't bother, but the person already taking risks to achieve a criminal goal isn't going to think twice about taking more risks in obtaining and carrying the firearm.

Sadly, if a perfect world where to exist and there were no firearms and nobody is getting shot, I guess there would then be the hyper debates about cutlery, and how it should all be smelted into perfectly round ornaments in order to reduce the stabbing/cutting statistics.

Actually, the street buyer wouldn't beg and commit more crime in order to gain fireams. Instead they would probably just resort to cheaper and less lethal weapons such as knives, blunt instruments, fists etc.

In my country Australia, where guns are heavily restricted there's a pretty low rate of crime, especially gun-related. In fact, most assaults or muggings happen with less lethal weapons as noted above. The only criminals who really have access to guns are very organised, professional organised criminals, who generally have a smaller impact on the average person.

 

[Ashmond]

No. I didn't suggest anything. I was simply pointing out a flaw in what MrMeat wrote.

However, it does logically follow that nobody having guns would, in fact, lead to nobody being shot.

So, you weren't suggesting anything and if I understand correctly from newer posts, you aren't even claiming a position.  So I'm gonna have a go at your second statement.

You can't follow from this point because you've taken a huge leap from the points where this idea stems.  Nobody having guns is out of the question and in fact, is out of hand in this situation.  There will always be firearms (civil rights to bear them being irrelevant), there will always be criminal elements in any government at every level.  Firearms are currently leaked to the underworld on a regular basis for high profits, imagine the ramifications of them being illegal.  The only difference is that any potential street buyer would have to beg, borrow or steal more in order to get one while gun traffickers gain even more wealth and power.  Average Joe probably won't bother, but the person already taking risks to achieve a criminal goal isn't going to think twice about taking more risks in obtaining and carrying the firearm.

Sadly, if a perfect world where to exist and there were no firearms and nobody is getting shot, I guess there would then be the hyper debates about cutlery, and how it should all be smelted into perfectly round ornaments in order to reduce the stabbing/cutting statistics.

Actually, the street buyer wouldn't beg and commit more crime in order to gain fireams. Instead they would probably just resort to cheaper and less lethal weapons such as knives, blunt instruments, fists etc.

In my country Australia, where guns are heavily restricted there's a pretty low rate of crime, especially gun-related. In fact, most assaults or muggings happen with less lethal weapons as noted above. The only criminals who really have access to guns are very organised, professional organised criminals, who generally have a smaller impact on the average person.

That sounds very reasonable, but I wander if availability would make a difference, as in more resources from a much higher volume of smuggled goods?

 

[Finzi]

No. I didn't suggest anything. I was simply pointing out a flaw in what MrMeat wrote.

However, it does logically follow that nobody having guns would, in fact, lead to nobody being shot.

So, you weren't suggesting anything and if I understand correctly from newer posts, you aren't even claiming a position.  So I'm gonna have a go at your second statement.

You can't follow from this point because you've taken a huge leap from the points where this idea stems.  Nobody having guns is out of the question and in fact, is out of hand in this situation.  There will always be firearms (civil rights to bear them being irrelevant), there will always be criminal elements in any government at every level.  Firearms are currently leaked to the underworld on a regular basis for high profits, imagine the ramifications of them being illegal.  The only difference is that any potential street buyer would have to beg, borrow or steal more in order to get one while gun traffickers gain even more wealth and power.  Average Joe probably won't bother, but the person already taking risks to achieve a criminal goal isn't going to think twice about taking more risks in obtaining and carrying the firearm.

Sadly, if a perfect world where to exist and there were no firearms and nobody is getting shot, I guess there would then be the hyper debates about cutlery, and how it should all be smelted into perfectly round ornaments in order to reduce the stabbing/cutting statistics.

Actually, the street buyer wouldn't beg and commit more crime in order to gain fireams. Instead they would probably just resort to cheaper and less lethal weapons such as knives, blunt instruments, fists etc.

In my country Australia, where guns are heavily restricted there's a pretty low rate of crime, especially gun-related. In fact, most assaults or muggings happen with less lethal weapons as noted above. The only criminals who really have access to guns are very organised, professional organised criminals, who generally have a smaller impact on the average person.

That sounds very reasonable, but I wander if availability would make a difference, as in more resources from a much higher volume of smuggled goods?

Well I think availability would probably be an issue. Obviously it is much more difficult to smuggle things into Australia than the USA because we are an island.

Nevertheless, I think tightening of gun laws would still result in decrease in serious violent crime, even in a country where it's easier to smuggle arms.

 

[Archonsod]

Actually, the street buyer wouldn't beg and commit more crime in order to gain fireams. Instead they would probably just resort to cheaper and less lethal weapons such as knives, blunt instruments, fists etc.

In my country Australia, where guns are heavily restricted there's a pretty low rate of crime, especially gun-related. In fact, most assaults or muggings happen with less lethal weapons as noted above. The only criminals who really have access to guns are very organised, professional organised criminals, who generally have a smaller impact on the average person.

Yup. As soon as you move guns to the black market it tends to price out anyone but the more organised, hardcore criminal element. Important thing to remember is why they use the gun in the first place - it's not for a shootout, it's just a tool to intimidate the victim. A baseball bat or knife works just as well, is much cheaper and more importantly ownership of one isn't grounds for an arrest in and of itself.
Plus a lot of street criminals are on drugs. Given the option between an illegal gun or smack, I'll let you guess where their $1000 is more likely to go.

 

[Ashmond]

As I stated before, the next step would be to remove cutlery.  Then I guess we can all put on diapers and walk around in sufficiently high shockproof bubbles.

=
Also, I'd like to add that black markets work just like any other market.  Volume and demand are required for it to be successful and a consideration of the costs/risks.  Therefore, a country that banishes the right to carry firearms, especially the larger states, will do nothing but increase the market's volume and demand simutaineously.  The pricing isn't going to suddenly make guns only accessible to the more orgianized criminals for ****'s sake.  It's the orgianzied criminals that already have massive supplies and will turn that over to the streets to get that high profit margin! 

The only way that the "pricing the little guy out" scenario would work is if all countries banned the manufacturing of arms by private organizations. In turn, if they made the manufacturing the sole responsibility of thier military along with high level security and kept access points heavily guarded.  Even then, somebody somewhere would smuggle the arms out of greed or some other self righteous reason.  At that point, I could probably agree that guns would then be effectivley kept off of the streets. 

Furthermore, I have to say that I'd be a bit more worried were access to guns limited to the highly organized and connected criminal rings.  They'd be taking over cities and towns for sure then, rather than sticking to third-world slums as it is now.  We'd be left to carrying knives and bats to a gunfight and relying on our respective governments to take our wellbeing into account and fight them off for us.  And a joke that would be.

 

[Devercia]

My cousin was murdered by an addict that first begged for money, got it, and robbed him for more. He pointed the gun at him at point blank which provoked a reactionary struggle. Unfortunately my cousin lost. This was in his front yard with his father right there.

Any use this example for your arguments if you wish.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

If he had a large attack dog, he probably wouldn't have died.

 

[Devercia]

It was pretty irritating when the media got all self righteous about how he should have just given him the money, as if someone wouldn't initiate a struggle when suddenly looking down a barrel.

[me=Devercia]attempts to kill the thread[/me]

I have to say Arch, its not the first time your US crime statistic - gun law argument has been shot down for being just a correlation and not a cause. I would have thought you would retire it. It is cultural. there are alot of guys like this that arm themselves, not always with guns, becuase they are the sort to provoke and engage in violence.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

You don't need guns you need attack dogs- big black ones that are hard to see in the dark. You can't intimidate a dog the same way you intimidate a human, leading to the only sensible action of shooting it instead of the person. Thus letting the person get away.

 

[Devercia]

Ban dog whistles!

 

[Archonsod]

As I stated before, the next step would be to remove cutlery. 

Would you like more straw for that man?

The pricing isn't going to suddenly make guns only accessible to the more orgianized criminals for ****'s sake.  It's the orgianzied criminals that already have massive supplies and will turn that over to the streets to get that high profit margin! 

Yup, selling them to their competitors is definitely a smart business move

The only way that the "pricing the little guy out" scenario would work is if all countries banned the manufacturing of arms by private organizations.

Which explains why gun crime is so prevalent in nations which have restrictive gun controls. Oh wait...

Furthermore, I have to say that I'd be a bit more worried were access to guns limited to the highly organized and connected criminal rings.  They'd be taking over cities and towns for sure then, rather than sticking to third-world slums as it is now. 

Yup, not a town in the UK isn't under control of criminal gangs. Although we refer to them as politicians.

I have to say Arch, its not the first time your US crime statistic - gun law argument has been shot down for being just a correlation and not a cause. I would have thought you would retire it. It is cultural. there are alot of guys like this that arm themselves, not always with guns, becuase they are the sort to provoke and engage in violence.

Yes. The point you seem incapable of grasping is that the point is to reduce the lethality, not to reduce the crime. The UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US in some areas, yet the murder rate is almost a fifth. Primarily because it's a damn sight harder to kill someone with a knife or baseball bat.