Absurdism corner

[MrChops]

I own a ruger sr9c and have a ccw. The ONLY reason I have it is for protection. I am the father of 4 and it is my duty to protect them and, I'm sorry, I can not ninja kick someone with a gun who wants to harm me or my family. If martial arts was all that was required for protection, our police and troops would not carry guns. The fact of the matter is that guns are real and crazy people with guns are real and the only real protection against such a threat is being on an equal playing field with your enemy. If you go after someone who is holding a gun with the intent of physically subduing him, he'll just shoot your ass like Indiana Jones did the sword guy in The Last Crusade.

You can't get rid of the guns, to many have them and to many want them. Even if they were completely illegal it would just be another thing for the Cartel to smuggle and profit on. Meaning only people who don't care about laws (criminals) would have guns and people who do care about laws would have no way to protect themselves from criminals with guns. Please don't tell me that's what police are for either, 90% of the time police get to a crime scene after all the damage has been done. Plus if the shit did hit the fan, as history has shown time and time again is very possible, the police are only human and would want to protect there own families first leaving an even larger gap between threat to your life and the police responding.

Bombs coming doesn't make guns useless, are you seriously saying that the only break down in society possible is total global nuclear annihilation? What about civil wars, riots, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Anything that lets criminals run amuck with guns and take what they please from the defenseless is a threat to me and my family and the possibility (however small or big that possibility may be) of it happening is reason enough for me to buy a gun and be trained how to use it to effectively protect my family and those around me from such harm. 

All that being said, I value human life, and the last thing I'd ever want to do is kill someone. If someone tries to rob me for my wallet, they get my wallet, not a bullet to the chest. If they break into my home and take my valuables without finding me or my family and leave, I call the police, not chase him down and shoot him. On the other hand if I believe the life or physical well being of me or another is in eminent danger I will defend such danger with my gun as a last resort. For example, if I was in that movie theater when that crazy ass opened fire on the people around me, and I had a clean shot, I would not have hesitated to take it to save lives. There is nothing wrong with that. Police do this everyday and no one has a problem with that. Police are no different than you or me, they are simply trained properly. Lethal force is to be respected and not taken lightly. Proper training, mental health screening, and background checks are essential to gun safety. Restricting rifles made to look like full auto military assault rifles or the amount of ammo a clip can carry, can not and will not stop gun violence. 

Here in Germany nearly no one is allowed to carry a gun and as a result there are very few guns existent at all and most of the crimes involve knifes.

I could easily break a guy with a knife into pieces with one of my walking sticks, not to mention with dagger, rapier or sword.

Unless that guy is equally as talented and trained with a knife, dagger, rapier, or sword as you are with your bare hands walking sticks...

 

[ShleeDragon]

MrShlee | http://myworld.ebay.com/top.seller888?_trksid=p2047675.l2559 <-- TOP SELLER HAS NICE BOOBS

Cloudef | MrShlee: you must be true idiot to think that's actual picture of the seller

MrShlee | Cloudef: I was being sarcastic.. but you couldn't tell I was.. making you look like a true idiot

MrShlee | if you actually think I was being serious

Cloudef | yes

MrShlee | VICTORY!

 

ABSURDISM!

 

[thatgui]

You can't get rid of the guns, to many have them and to many want them. Even if they were completely illegal it would just be another thing for the Cartel to smuggle and profit on. Meaning only people who don't care about laws (criminals) would have guns and people who do care about laws would have no way to protect themselves from criminals with guns. Please don't tell me that's what police are for either, 90% of the time police get to a crime scene after all the damage has been done.

Bombs coming doesn't make guns useless, are you seriously saying that the only break down in society possible is total global nuclear annihilation? What about civil wars, riots, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Anything that lets criminals run amuck with guns and take what they please from the defenseless is a threat to me and my family and the possibility (however small or big that possibility may be) of it happening is reason enough for me to buy a gun and be trained how to use it to effectively protect my family and those around me from such harm. 

All that being said, I value human life, and the last thing I'd ever want to do is kill someone. If someone tries to rob me for my wallet, they get my wallet, not a bullet to the chest. If they break into my home and take my valuables without finding me or my family and leave, I call the police, not chase him down and shoot him. On the other hand if I believe the life or physical well being of me or another is in eminent danger I will defend such danger with my gun as a last resort.

So what your actually saying is that you would only use a gun if somebody would try to kill you (or your friends/loved ones). So all the criminals (which - according to you - are the ones that get weapons only illegaly) can be left out of the equation as no criminal would have any interest in killing you. This leaves just the crazy people, which in turn seem to aquire their weapons legally.As crazy people don't tend to look very crazy nor do they usually announce their intend to go on a killing spree means you have to be in a state of constant awareness and always carry your gun with you. Otherwise you are not able to do your "duty" - this is just ridiculous, no one could live like that.

For example, if I was in that movie theater when that crazy ass opened fire on the people around me, and I had a clean shot, I would not have hesitated to take it to save lives. There is nothing wrong with that.

The far more likely scenario would be that either you would panic yourself (and if it is only because you fear for your family) or you would shoot an inoccent civilian in the process. Remember, this was a crowded, narrow not well lit environment, with a lot of people shouting and running around.

Police do this everyday and no one has a problem with that. Police are no different than you or me, they are simply trained properly. Lethal force is to be respected and not taken lightly. Proper training, mental health screening, and background checks are essential to gun safety. 

This depends heavily on your location but I guess the differences aren't that big: Police do something every day that they are trained to do for several years, and the spend far more time with beeing educated on how to avoid even thinking about their gun then they spend on the shooting range. And after that they will usually get a day to day real life training on how to deescalate situations and be calm even if their live is directly threatend.An average joy with a gun has all this too ? I guess not.

Restricting rifles made to look like full auto military assault rifles or the amount of ammo a clip can carry, can not and will not stop gun violence.

But it won't hurt either, or is an half automated assault rifle absolutely necessary to do your duty ? One could also point out that these crazy people that did the shootings in the school / theater last year would probably had a highly reduced bodycount if they had a lower firing frequency and would had have the need to reload their weapons more often.

Plus if the shit did hit the fan, as history has shown time and time again is very possible, the police are only human and would want to protect there own families first leaving an even larger gap between threat to your life and the police responding.

I would like to have some examples on such historical events.

 

[Null]

 

[MrChops]

You can't get rid of the guns, to many have them and to many want them. Even if they were completely illegal it would just be another thing for the Cartel to smuggle and profit on. Meaning only people who don't care about laws (criminals) would have guns and people who do care about laws would have no way to protect themselves from criminals with guns. Please don't tell me that's what police are for either, 90% of the time police get to a crime scene after all the damage has been done.


Bombs coming doesn't make guns useless, are you seriously saying that the only break down in society possible is total global nuclear annihilation? What about civil wars, riots, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Anything that lets criminals run amuck with guns and take what they please from the defenseless is a threat to me and my family and the possibility (however small or big that possibility may be) of it happening is reason enough for me to buy a gun and be trained how to use it to effectively protect my family and those around me from such harm. 


All that being said, I value human life, and the last thing I'd ever want to do is kill someone. If someone tries to rob me for my wallet, they get my wallet, not a bullet to the chest. If they break into my home and take my valuables without finding me or my family and leave, I call the police, not chase him down and shoot him. On the other hand if I believe the life or physical well being of me or another is in eminent danger I will defend such danger with my gun as a last resort.

So what your actually saying is that you would only use a gun if somebody would try to kill you (or your friends/loved ones). So all the criminals (which - according to you - are the ones that get weapons only illegaly) can be left out of the equation as no criminal would have any interest in killing you. This leaves just the crazy people, which in turn seem to aquire their weapons legally.
As crazy people don't tend to look very crazy nor do they usually announce their intend to go on a killing spree means you have to be in a state of constant awareness and always carry your gun with you. Otherwise you are not able to do your "duty" - this is just ridiculous, no one could live like that.

For example, if I was in that movie theater when that crazy ass opened fire on the people around me, and I had a clean shot, I would not have hesitated to take it to save lives. There is nothing wrong with that.

The far more likely scenario would be that either you would panic yourself (and if it is only because you fear for your family) or you would shoot an inoccent civilian in the process. Remember, this was a crowded, narrow not well lit environment, with a lot of people shouting and running around.

Police do this everyday and no one has a problem with that. Police are no different than you or me, they are simply trained properly. Lethal force is to be respected and not taken lightly. Proper training, mental health screening, and background checks are essential to gun safety. 

This depends heavily on your location but I guess the differences aren't that big: Police do something every day that they are trained to do for several years, and the spend far more time with beeing educated on how to avoid even thinking about their gun then they spend on the shooting range. And after that they will usually get a day to day real life training on how to deescalate situations and be calm even if their live is directly threatend.
An average joy with a gun has all this too ? I guess not.

Restricting rifles made to look like full auto military assault rifles or the amount of ammo a clip can carry, can not and will not stop gun violence.

But it won't hurt either, or is an half automated assault rifle absolutely necessary to do your duty ? One could also point out that these crazy people that did the shootings in the school / theater last year would probably had a highly reduced bodycount if they had a lower firing frequency and would had have the need to reload their weapons more often.

Plus if the shit did hit the fan, as history has shown time and time again is very possible, the police are only human and would want to protect there own families first leaving an even larger gap between threat to your life and the police responding.

I would like to have some examples on such historical events.

You are either trying to troll me or I didn't explain myself clearly, probably the latter. I didn't mean criminals only obtain weapons illegally. I was talking about a scenario in which all guns were illegal. And yea, I do think you need to be in a constant state of awareness and I do carry my gun on me at all times unless prohibited by law.  Why is me taking protection of my family as my "duty" so absurd to you?


Obviously my example of the movie theater was to point out that I'd only use my gun in extreme situations. I did say I'd only take the shot if it was clean, meaning if there was no chance of killing someone in the cross fire.

Police are not trained for several years before being put in situation where they may have to use deadly force. You can go through the academy in 6 months. An average joe does not have the same training but the average joe is not asked to be in those situations which would require that training on a daily basis. Should the average joe not be allowed to defend himself because he didn't go through 6 months of police training?

I have no rifles, assault or other wise, so the new laws about those will not directly affect me. I don't like them because it reduces the ability of the people to revolt against the possibility of a corrupt government in the future. Assault rifle and reduced magazine laws may reduce bodycount if the killer actually cared about following those laws which is doubtful. However, what would reduce the bodycount without question is if someone with a gun (police or otherwise) was there to defend those kids.

Are you serious about historical events? Name any riot or civil war you can think of. How about Nazi Germany? 

 

[Null]

Spoiler

 

[Null]

 

[thatgui]

You are either trying to troll me or I didn't explain myself clearly, probably the latter. I didn't mean criminals only obtain weapons illegally. I was talking about a scenario in which all guns were illegal. And yea, I do think you need to be in a constant state of awareness and I do carry my gun on me at all times unless prohibited by law. Why is me taking protection of my family as my "duty" so absurd to you?

Because there is no evidence that beeing in a state of constant awareness (which is impossible btw.) and carrying your gun around all day long makes your family safer -please correct me if I am wrong.I have a family too and protecting them is on top of everything else but I would rather put them in some kind of michelinman dress to protect them from something that is a lot likelier to happen (traffic accidents, accidents at home, ...). Then bringing a gun in my house that bears the possiblity of a "gun accident" in my home, and the possibility that an "extreme Situation" is getting out of hand because I loose my head and pull out the gun.

Obviously my example of the movie theater was to point out that I'd only use my gun in extreme situations. I did say I'd only take the shot if it was clean, meaning if there was no chance of killing someone in the cross fire.

Police are not trained for several years before being put in situation where they may have to use deadly force. You can go through the academy in 6 months. An average joe does not have the same training but the average joe is not asked to be in those situations which would require that training on a daily basis. Should the average joe not be allowed to defend himself because he didn't go through 6 months of police training?

Because these extreme situations are the whole point. People don't think in extreme situations they react - that is what adrenaline is for (not only, but a big part of it). So you either can have an average joe with a gun in his hand who has to deal with an extreme situation he was not trained for and has no experience in such, or you can have a police officer who (if he is fresh out of the academy) is at least trained to deal with such situations. Who is more likely to make the right decision ?Also having "a clean shot" is just an illusion in close quarter situations with a lot of unpredictable people running around.

I have no rifles, assault or other wise, so the new laws about those will not directly affect me. I don't like them because it reduces the ability of the people to revolt against the possibility of a corrupt government in the future.

What corrupt goverment should that be ? As far es I know the U.S.A is more or less a democracy with several legal barriers in place so a "legally" gained autocracy is impossible. This would only leave the possibility that a very massive military force would be needed to overthrow the government.But even if this "corrupt" Goverment would happen, what would you do? March towards washington with the others shooting everyone who stands in your way ?

Or what is your definition of "corrupt"?

Assault rifle and reduced magazine laws may reduce bodycount if the killer actually cared about following those laws which is doubtful. However, what would reduce the bodycount without question is if someone with a gun (police or otherwise) was there to defend those kids.

As this was done by a "crazy" one which bought them legally I see no reason why it is doubtful. But even if your right you are implying that it was concious decision to go into that school - so why should he not shoot "the gun" first and the other innocent afterwards ?But why not place an armed officer at every streetcorner ? This would lower the rate for "normal" (burglary, shoplifting, etc.) crimes as well.

Are you serious about historical events? Name any riot or civil war you can think of. How about Nazi Germany? 

I am serious, as I do not know any such event were armed civilians would have changed the outcome. What is it with Nazi Germany ? Would it have been different if the Jewish that had to leave their homes got enganged in a firefight with some policemen (probably killing some innocent pedestrian in the process)?

 

[Null]

 

[Klumpen]

 

[Null]

Spoiler

 

[2bit]

Pretty much what mr.chops said . I consider myself in relativly good shape , but not good enough shape to run down and go chuck Norris on a deer . Although I do indeed enjoy plinking for fun I would not consider this a valid argument for the gun rights argument as , if my only arguement for ownership of assault rifles is : oh I like to go plinking now and again , my opposition would then respond with " so while you are shooting empty coffee cans , children are being killed with the same gun type you are using ? " so yes while I LOVE plinking I do not see it as a valid gun ownership arguement . Also I'm fine with restricting the online sale of guns . In fact I would advise a person wanting a gun but never shot one to take a few safety courses BEFORE buying one . Also as mrchops said even if it is cowardly you still want an even field with your enemy . one conflict started by somebody else : ww1 . If we had remained nuetral ( us , the USA ) a lot less of people ON BOTH SIDES would have been killed .


Besides , when I said world go to crap I meant like crash of the global economy , where I would have no option but to become a hunter - gatherer to survive .


And lastly I don't see why people are so against taking one psychological evaluation and one gun safety course per gun . Or at least a decent locked door .


Ok the real last thing : if someone angered me enough to the point where I'd kill them ( rape of family say ) I'd rather go kill them until they are dead with my bare hands .

 

[Null]

 

[Null]

 

[Znirk]

For example, if I was in that movie theater when that crazy ass opened fire on the people around me, and I had a clean shot, I would not have hesitated to take it to save lives. There is nothing wrong with that. Police do this everyday and no one has a problem with that. Police are no different than you or me, they are simply trained properly.

There's a big difference. You'd be exerting your right to self-defence (or, technically, defence of a third person in this case). You-the-ordinary-citizen can intervene in a critical situation and legally do something which would otherwise be illegal in order to counter the acute threat of a very serious crime.

Police on the other hand enact the state's monopoly on violence. They are assigned particular rights, privileges, duties and restrictions in the interest of their upholding the law in general. Different rules apply.

Police are not a neighbourhood watch with its own office and car pool. You are not a police officer (unless you happen to be a police officer).

Finally, since this is the absurdism corner: Look out! A rhinocéros!

 

[Null]

 

[Null]

 

[Null]

 

[2bit]

Well yes , but at least here ( in the states ) police officers are still private citizens when off duty .

 

[Null]

Best, episode, ever.