This.
Printable View
Well, no need to worry...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
"Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986."
From your link...
Rather than arguing over the definition of assault rifle, I think we should address the issue of why such guns should be banned. There is no rational reason for assuming that civilians shouldn't have a semi-automatic rifle, in particular if police and military are allowed to have them. (As someone noted earlier, people have a right to defend themselves against the government if it becomes necessary.) For that matter, there's not an ounce of evidence that banning assault rifles makes anyone 'safer.' It's purely a matter of paranoia about guns that are scary looking. I'm not going to touch the subject of fully automatic rifles given that 1. They're heavily regulated and very difficult to obtain and 2. You can count the number of murders caused by legally owned automatic rifles for the past 90 years or so on one hand.
On a related note, the idea that Canada has less rapes than the US is false.
And let me conceal my amazement that Bien is pro-gun (pro-gun Christians, one of America's greatest ironies).
Christian fundamentalists tend to be full of contradictions. They see abortion as an abomination, but once you're born, it's another story altogether. They often take the Neo-Con position on universal health care, ignoring the millions whose lives are affected by the lack of insurance. They are also quite commonly pro-gun and pro-death penalty.
I have several friends who have plenty of assault rifles, legally. The only law around here is that they can't be automatic, which is silly, as it's possible to make them automatic on your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I feel the need to worry is warranted.
In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.
Do you honestly think this has any bearing at this point in time? How long do you think a populace armed with handguns and rifles could hold out against the full forces of the US military?
Ask Al Qaeda that question. Guerrilla warfare is particularly effective, even when the side engaging in those tactics are under-armed compared to the opposition. For that matter, it's not rational to essentially argue, 'Well, **** it, we're going to lose, so we may as well give up our right to defend ourselves!'Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I didn't assume any one thing. But it seems that you already have passed judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Are you insinuating that I'm racist? Totally uncalled for...
Rather than arguing over the definition of assault rifle, I think we should address the issue of why such guns should be banned. There is no rational reason for assuming that civilians shouldn't have a semi-automatic rifle, in particular if police and military are allowed to have them.
Yes... and let's not stop there. Let's take this to the logical conclusion. Why aren't citizens allowed to own fully functioning tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear warheads? The government has them. I can't feel truly safe until I have one too.
:shocked::patriot::goof:
Again, provide an ounce of evidence that assault rifles should be banned instead of just using 'OOOOH, THOSE GUNS LOOK SCARY' fear tactics, and you might have a case. (Good luck. A team assembled by Bill Clinton to prove that the assault weapons ban was a Good Thing was not able to find evidence that it saved so much as a single life. The latest attempt by the Obama administration to prove the need for an assault weapons ban by forcing gun shops to sell to straw buyers so the guns could be sent to Mexico didn't work out well, either.) If you wish for something to be banned, the onus is on you to give reasons why it should be banned, not just assume it should be and act as if anyone who doesn't like the idea of giving up their rights or privileges is insane.
Ask Al Qaeda that question. Guerrilla warfare is particularly effective, even when the side engaging in those tactics are under-armed compared to the opposition.
Is it really... or is it only effective if the Guerrillas are particularly driven to continue the fight... in spite of their losses, while the other side is not willing to employ the full capabilities of their forces (as a result of political pressure) and not willing to accept excessive losses? How long would the war in Iraq have lasted had the US employed the same strategies as WWII: carpet bombing, the complete obliteration of cities, etc...?
Of course what you are arguing in favor of is what we term as "terrorism" when employed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, the PLO, or the Irish.
It's what I believe. I don't think people should have assault rifles. I see nothing wrong with people having a reasonable amount of handguns or hunting rifles/shotguns. An assault rifle's main purpose is to be a better killing instrument than your average gun. The average gun is enough--it's good enough at killing people.
If you wish for something to be banned, the onus is on you to give reasons why it should be banned, not just assume it should be and act as if anyone who doesn't like the idea of giving up their rights or privileges is insane.
Where in the constitution is the right to bear fully automatic weapons, tanks, jet fighters, or nuclear weapons spelled out? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are documents that are 200+ years old. They were written based upon the world as it then existed. That not specifically spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of rights is dealt with by the body of laws at a federal, state, and local level. Common sense is usually enough reason for limiting, restricting, or banning any number of things ranging from the Smallpox virus, and Anthrax, to Heroin, Crack Cocaine, Plutonium, Uranium, child pornography, or machine guns and other fully automatic weapons.
Ha, ha. From an outside perspective (of the US) to hear people in favour of "a reasonable amount of handguns" or that the onus is on other people to prove that "assault rifles" should be banned, is really quite hard to put into words how crazy all of that sounds.
Imagine someone genuinely arguing for the continuation of personal weapons of mass destruction/chemical weapons and you have about the same idea of how I feel when I see such often repeated thoughts, in regards to the US affinity with guns.
I saw a stat the other day, in the Guardian I think, that said for every 100 Americans there are 90 guns!?!
I'm not passing judgment. I just thought I'd share an outsider perspective on the argument, hope you don't mind? Take it or leave it. But it is all a bit crazy to me.
I tend to agree with StLukes when it comes to the constitutional issue (now I'll let you all conceal your amazement). One of the principle ideas of the constitution is that it was meant to be able to change. If it wasn't, blacks would still be seen as three-fifths of a person. Not everything written then is applicable to today. I can't help but think a lot of them would've rethunk the vague wording if the "arms" of the day weren't limited to muzzle-loaded muskets.
I'm not one of those all-guns-should-be-banned people, but, come on, let's use some common sense here. A person doesn't need a ton of guns. If one wants a handgun for the house to protect himself and his family, fine. Same with hunting. I don't think someone should have 30 guns, or some more extravagant number.
Moving away from gun control back to the topic...
This is wrong. The problem is she may think she's stronger because she has a gun, but she's still a woman with a weapon, which could be taken away by the stonger man, if he's so inclined. Then you have a pissed-off man, inclined to rape anyway, with a weapon and a woman in front of him who dared to threaten him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
"Most"? I'd love to see some independent stats on the effects of armed female victims on would-be rapists and muggers: Attempt thwarted vs. dead/injured would-be offender vs. dead/injured victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
This is another one I'd like to see some independent corroboration on: Violent crime rates by year by state with date of carry law passage.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Sources?
Yes, Juniper, the woman is always weaker than the man, gun or not--men are faster than bullets, after all. It's much better for the woman to be unarmed and take a gentle raping rather than risk the raper's ire, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
I checked their source, Canada's statistics categorize anything sexual in nature, including sexual harassment or any unwanted touching, within the statistics. Thus, that sites numbers on Canada are grossly inflated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Star
If you go to Statistics Canada's websites you can see that the reported number of Sexual Assault Levels 1 and 2 (which include rape) is 576 as of 2010. Which comes to about 1.7 per 100,000 Canadians. A small number of level 3 include rape where an individual was not harmed, which would probably bring Canada up to the same as European averages. But it is certainly not double the US's rate.
I'm assuming that wasn't directed at me, but just in case, I never intended to argue that Canada's rape rates were double the US's.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
No, but that's what the link stated. The probably with just putting up crime stats from different organizations is that they all have different definitions of what can be included in a category. It is unlikely that Canada, with its lower rates of violent crime across all categories, would have more rape than the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Star
Well, you know, Pip... ya get a couple of Molsens in those horny Canuck oil riggers and next thing you know their trying to hump the first thing that comes into sight. No alternative 'cept for an innocent girl to have the right to carry a fully automatic AK-47. :biggrinjester:
Well, be careful with US statistics, too, because someone caught with a few pictures of 16-year-olds on his computer or a 19 year old convicted of statutory rape against his consenting 17 year old girlfriend are put in the same category (sex offender) as someone who violently rapes another person.
You'd probably just find a way to discredit any statistics anyway. What's the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
*cough* That wasn't Juniper, and your snark is showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
The attacker doesn't need to be faster than the bullets, just the victim, who is more likely to have barriers against deliberately harming someone. She may shoot, she may not, but victimizers tend to be good at reading people (that's how they find prey in the first place).
And, I'm sorry, Mutatis, I like you, but your second sentence isn't even worth commenting on.
Oh, please. Not my style, as my first sig line should hint. I wouldn't blindly trust NRA-touted stats, no, but there should be some kind of official law enforcement statistics on violent crime available somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9928Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
I was quoting you but addressing Juniper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Honestly, for someone who's been asking for statistics, you're making a lot of pretty unprovable claims there. A woman who pulls a gun on a would be rapist is going to deter him--you make rapists sound like smart, physically unsurpassable foes that no woman has the chance of overcoming, even if she has a gun, which is preposterous.
As for my second sentence, that's pretty much what you said:
I.e., it's better not to risk making the rapist angry. Just take it.Quote:
Then you have a pissed-off man, inclined to rape anyway, with a weapon and a woman in front of him who dared to threaten him.
LOL, I was kind of thinking that you'd have a dead rapist...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Yeah, sort of my conclusion, too. That or a rapist who runs away when a gun is pointed at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
ARJIS is San Diego's crime database. I worked for them. All reported crimes are filed in their index. Most American regions have similar services.
From what I have seen, there are higher rape stats in impoverished areas and in areas with low education standards.
As for guns, gun crime always seems to be greater in areas with loose gun laws. Arizona is a prime example. The states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest reports of gun related homicide. This doesn't always apply to towns bordering Mexico. Cartels do bring in guns. Citizens react by arming themselves; regardless of gun laws in these areas. However, California has tighter gun laws than Arizona (by a lot) and the border crime is more rampant in Arizona, despite Arizona's heavy concentration of civilian gun carriers. Running an efficient border control system is better than allowing turf wars.
I'll state once again that Quebec has a zero gun policy and they enjoy zero gun related homicides.
If you're a woman and you're ever attacked, by all means fight back any way you can. Screaming immediately and loudly is very important if you're in a place where someone might hear you. Sadly, it's better to scream "Fire!" than "Rape!" most times. People are more likely to respond.
I didn't say you did, Juniper. I said I used to. Maybe it's a bad thing to admit to, but I really did think about it, at an earlier time in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Well, gun control is sort of a side topic. Like I said, there's a strong argument for what you've said. Personally I wonder if extensive training in martial arts isn't a better substitute; but that may not be practical for most.Quote:
1. The simple fact that potential "victims" either may be or certainly are armed is almost always enough to scare away criminals.
2. Better to wear a gun and keep it snug in it's holster every day for the rest of you life and never need it, than to need it one day and NOT have it, when someone starts following you home and acting agressively towards you after night classes which has actually happened to me, (pull it out, hold it up, shout "I have a gun!") or when a random stranger stands up at the front of your University class or at the mall and starts picking people off one by one.
Yes, I do. I've been aware of them since I was a child. I had good parents. I was referring to the people who do those things - I am pretty sure we are not communicating very clearly. I was speaking of mentality; people who do that kind of thing are worried about a million things that don't matter, and caring about those things suffer. It's also a peer pressure. I'm sure if I'd grown up around gangs, I would be a gang member. The whole mentality involved, however, is totally ***-backwards. You don't achieve anything by hurting others. That was basically my point. And, to get to that point, where you want to hurt others, or make them suffer, you generally have to have a host of misconceptions about what will give you happiness or peace.Quote:
Do you know the rape statistics in North America? Maybe if you had a vagina, you wouldn't think that "nothing is really worth worrying over."
And yes, I know, happiness and peace are not everyone's goal. But I don't think anyone would be harmed if they took them up as goals.
We don't have zero gun related homicides. Although, Quebec does have the strictest gun laws and only Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have lower homicide rates.
The highest crime rates in the country are in the prairie provinces, but I would blame that more on their lack of substantial social security programs, and issues of extreme poverty amongst Natives in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Winnipeg is a deserted **** hole that is pretty much a dead city, like Detroit, so that probably explains its homicide rates.
Makes sense. I read that there were a handful of homicides in Quebec last year, but that none of them involved guns, and 4 out of 5 were resulted of domestic violence. I'm going to read more about it though, because I definitely trust you, an intelligent well read person who lives there, over any information I get from United States reporting. Thanks for the clarification. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I’m glad, I was hoping my posts would spark a long discussion.
Pepper spray is illegal and tazers are really illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
It won't solve them (actually, I don't think the "problems" can be solved - some people are just bad for various reasons), but it would save some people and give women the ability to protect themselves. I know the whole “at night and/or in an abandoned area” rape is comparatively rare to in-house rape, but it's not non-existent. Like I said, I've been stalked to my car after night class, twice. My aunt was attacked in an underground parking garage, she could see her assailant coming but had nothing to protect herself with or scare him away.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
No, Right to Carry laws don't affect people who are raped in the home by people they know and trust. That’s a completely different situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Well, that's what I used to think until I researched the issue and really thought about it. I think a lot of people skip these steps (not saying you do, but it's something I think has to be said about the topic of gun control and now is as good a time as any) because this debate often tends to be heavily determined by political affiliation, which is a huge shame and I think very harmful. I won’t let myself be limited by something so ridiculous. I’ve recieved both sides of this issue with an open mind and I’ve come to the conclusion that legally allowing people the ability to defend themselves does more good than harm. Criminals don't care if you make a law against guns, they're criminals. They're already armed, and when they aren't it's because their victims are already defenseless enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
An agitated and violent rapist is pretty much going to try to rape anyway, isn't he? How is making it illegal for a woman to defend herself doing any good against particularly violent, agitated rapists?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Personal insults in your first sentence of your first post, eh? I'd like to say that's a new record for you, but honestly it's in keeping with your usual trend of attempting to pigeonhole and belittle any opposition right off the bat, thereby detracting from the issue and degrading the thread into a mudslinging battle of parliamentary proportions. I'd like to point out once again that you don't know me from a hole in the head, so your personal insults consistently miss the mark (gun puns!). "Gunslinger of the Great Northwest?" And you're basing that on what? My nationality, my view on gun control and the fact that I'm rural? Way to stereotype, bigot. If anyone who actually knows me could have heard you say that, they'd laugh their *** off. This is me:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
http://www.online-literature.com/for...pictureid=8134
Do I look like Annie Oakley, or do I look like a 90 pound kid who's played every single handheld version of Pokemon ever? But no, you're right, everyone who's pro-gun is a cowboy.
Yeah, let's play right into this polarized left-right crap. That’s so narrow-minded, the whole "my team vs. yours" mindset. Get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
So you're giving us one case which is far from clear-cut. Why don't you go ahead and look up how many stories there are of people simply scaring criminals who genuinely attempted to mug/rape away by flashing their firearm? They exist by the thousands.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
:yesnod: This is a completely different angle to the debate, a very important one. It’s not my primary reason for being pro-gun, but it’s definitely up there. How could anyone think it would be fine just fine to have ONLY the military and police armed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Star
Yeah, I wasn’t speaking literally. "She" doesn't think she's literally stronger either, that doesn't make sense. "Just a woman with a weapon" is a person with a gun. You're implying that a person with a gun is completely helpless. And YOU talk about a skewed view of reality. Hey, maybe she'll faint under the pressure like the woman she is and drop said gun, or she won't understand how to operate such a complex piece of technology and she'll just start weeping in frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
"The stronger man" is just going to overcome his fear of being shot which most humans share (note: rapists typically tend to choose passive targets who won’t fight back, there’s plenty to support that which I’ll provide once I get home – I think you’ll agree that a woman with a loaded gun pointed at you ISN’T a passive target), then he'll run the distance between him and the woman holding a gun on him WITHOUT her shooting him, then he'll snatch that gun right out of her hands? How’s he going to manage that? Why don’t you give people a bit more credit, let them analyze the dangerous situation they’re in and it’s nuanced particulars for themselves and come to their own decisions regarding their own personal defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
*snicker* Or maybe she could just ask her rapist to wait politely while she calls 911 and waits for the police to arrive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
You’d be wrong there. First of all, anyone with a license to carry a sidearm should be made to take various courses teaching them how to use it, how to act in life-threatening situations, and what their legal rights are so they know what they're doing. Secondly, every woman that I know has considered the idea that one day, someone might try to rape her and almost every one would do anything to prevent that from happening. I've never met a woman who wouldn't be willing to shoot a rapist. That's the sort of thing people think about, especailly if they're’re walking alone after dark or in a deserted area and they go into defense mode. You expect an attack then no matter how unlikely you've heard it is, because that’s what human brains do in potentially threatening situations. If it's either fight or flight, then you KNOW you don't have a good chance if you run, you’re likely slower than your potential assailant, so if you don’t want to be raped you have to either try to scare him away or fight. If you have a gun, then you have the means to do so. If not, then you're literally ****ed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
The idea that the rapist might “get angry” if you pull a gun on him, that’s just a weak point and it's also condescending. I’ve often heard the idea espoused that “I would rather die than be raped.” If a woman would rather pull out a gun in the face of an oncoming attacker and risk “making him angry” than lay down and open her legs, I’d say that’s her right to make the decision for herself, SHE’S the one about to be raped. Who are you to say it should be against the law for her to make her own decisions (like a grown up) and defend herself?
Honestly? You look like you love Pokémon.
J
:yesnod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
This is my general thought as well. It really seems to be the only way to solve anything completely. Sure it's a very lofty goal, but I think the success is to always move closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
Yes, but sharing ideas as we are doing more of now, may make it happen more quickly. With a population of billions, it's probable that we'll never reduce crime to 0%, but we are evolving as a race; with certain fits and convulsions perhaps, but also good strides at times. What I mean is I can envision a much more enlightened future, by degrees we can reach it. If happiness and perseverance are so helpful in individual development... well, we are figuring lots of things out.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
I guess, I don't know or am not aware of the situation completely where you are, but I believe what you say, it makes sense.
Thats mighty fine talk considering you had a civil war just 150 years ago, and Italy had a civil war just a mere 70 years ago. Recently I have been reading Chateaubriand's works, and there is a mention to a mere year before the french revolution, Louis being warned about the pssibilities of revoultion and his reply went soemthing along the lines of "such things cannot happen any more, the nation and army are to powerfull for there to ever be a revolution"Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Rather similar to you asnwer.
The most common mistake made throughout hsitory, is assuming that technological superiority is what makes an army truley great. Someone mentioned this before, but with all of America's technological superiority and invincible army, two wars against talibans (armed mostly with korans and 50 cent rifles) and Iraq (armed msotly with korans and 50 cent riffles) have not only held you army at bay for ten years, but helped bring it to an economic crisis which has put it on its kneen.
Wait, I have played every single handheld version of Pokemon ever, I fail to see how that is a con, Pokemon is only one of the greatest games ever....Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I've just gotten up and haven't even eaten breakfast yet, so I'll post longer later, but I want to correct a couple of assumptions you're making. I haven't said word one about whether it should be legal for a woman to be able to attempt to defend herself as she sees fit, or about gun laws in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
And pepper spray is really illegal in Canada? That's ridiculous.