[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

[The Vigilante]

The anti-communist bit was all about World War I and the reparations and restrictions placed on Germany in large part by the Soviets.

By the end of World War I, the Soviets weren't even part of it anymore. They had signed a separate peace in March 1918, while the Armistice would only be signed in November. In other words, the Soviets weren't even around to ask for reparations or restrictions, and in fact gave up a lot of territory to the Germans. The reparations themselves were mostly the work of the French, who weren't communist.

Typical conservative who tries to give history lessons but has no grasp of the basics.

[hyzmarca]

though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

And that folks, is the bottom of the conservative onion. After you scrape away all the layers of "Nobody's really saying X, we're all saying Y" and get down to the dark and bitter heart of it: they just don't want to help you. Period.

-Username17

Grover's statement doesn't really say anything about private charity, though.

A lot of Conservatives and Libertarians are going to argue with a straight face that private = better in all things.

I'd recommend some of the really egregious Conservative military sci-fi books like A Desert Called Peace (really that one is awful) or Freehold (more litertarian than Conservative, though) to demonstrate what Conservative Actually Believe since the latter provides examples of a Conservative-Libertarian Utopia contrasted with a Communist-Liberal-Fascist Dystopia while the latter shows us a good Liberal-Progressive Dystopia. I would recommend reading them, but they're horrible.


The point is that somehow Conservatives and Liberals tend to be stuck on the Austrian school of economics. They think that government intervention and taxation is bad (except for the military, because they don't want to be killed by hot blooded foreigners) and the market will work everything out.

The idea is that if you get rid of welfare and unemployment benefits then you'll have 100% employment, somehow, and private local charities can take care of those who can't work for some reason.

And rich conservatives do give massive amounts of money to charity, as has been pointed out in other threads. They're perfectly happy to give, they just don't want to be taxed.

They're mistaken and ignorant and tied up in their own ideology, but not actively trying to be evil. They're just wrong These dude actually believe that a free market with little government interference is somehow better for the little guy.

You get anti-socialized-medicine rhetoric like death panels and long waiting lists and people actually believe them. You get rhetoric about welfare queens and believe it.

Hell, amongst the hardcore libertarians you've got people who actually believe that people would be paid more if you eliminated the minimum wage. I'm not sure exactly how that's supposed to work. It's the Austrian school, I guess it runs on magic.

Assault weapons are useful should we ever again need to rise up and overthrow a tyranical government. Admittedly, they'll have tanks and F-18s, but I'll take an AR-15 over only being able to yell "bang!".

That will never happen again in the U.S. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's not the 1770's anymore and the pinnacle of military technology is not a musket so cheap and simple and easy to produce that pretty much everyone can have one, and formal military training includes better tactics and skills than "stand out in an open field and fire a gun." Any actual revolution that ever occurs in a world with a military as incredibly advanced, well-trained, and equipped as the U.S.'s will either depend on the military's support or non-intervention, or it will otherwise be social/civil and grounded in disobedience, not violent resistance.

That actually has happened. The Battle of Athens actually happened. The insurrectionists won. Now, in that case they were fighting against the local Sheriff and his deputies, not the United States government as a whole, but local tyranny is a hell of a lot more likely than national tyranny.

Likewise, the Black Panther party's patrols did curb police brutality in Oakland California (it lead to confrontations that killed both police and Panthers, but it ultimately made it more difficult for cops to rough up innocent black people).

[DSMatticus]

That actually has happened. The Battle of Athens actually happened. The insurrectionists won. Now, in that case they were fighting against the local Sheriff and his deputies, not the United States government as a whole, but local tyranny is a hell of a lot more likely than national tyranny.

Likewise, the Black Panther party's patrols did curb police brutality in Oakland California (it lead to confrontations that killed both police and Panthers, but it ultimately made it more difficult for cops to rough up innocent black people).

And the U.S. government did not get overthrown by either of those events, and the standing U.S. army was not deployed against either group, making it look exactly like what a refutation would not.

They are examples of people taking on and winning against police officers, not professional soldiers, in the absence of military intervention and before SWAT was a thing. I would actually like to point out that in the case of the Battle of Athens, it is an example of ex-military professional soldiers using weapons from the local National Guard/State Army armory to take on police officers. As in, it is a perfect validation of why military weapons and military training win. Not the other way around.

[Username17]

Interestingly: I think the Black Panther Party and AIM are the only example in America's 20th century of anyone accomplishing anything as a private charity and armed militia. Which makes it really weird that the Right would claim that as their ideal - what with the Black Panther Party being being actual communist radical Black separatists who hated Whitey, and AIM being a bunch of Redskins trying to bring the White Man down. Going back further, is there another successful militia and private charity other than John Brown and the Underground Railroad?

I'm working here, but I really can't recall the supposed Right Wing Model of private citizens accomplishing anything positive by training together with weapons and providing voluntary non-governmental aid, except as radical Left-Wing minority rights advocates. I mean yes, the KKK did manage to burn down a bunch of churches, and the Branch Davidians managed to rape a bunch of children, and the LDS separatists managed to get special treatment in Utah, and of course the Oklahoma Militias managed to blow up a Federal Building. But can you think of anything positive accomplished?

I suppose that the LDS Army and the KKK both managed to do enough voter intimidation to help pass through "Christian" legislation (although interestingly, neither group recognizes the other as being real Christians). Is that really the model the Right Wing wants to endorse?

-Username17

[Ted the Flayer]

I find the situation that I keep finding myself in where I get stomped further into the dirt DESPITE my hard work and effort while people with worse work ethics but superior social skills get a hand up from the upper classes to join them to ruin any incentive I might have to work hard already.

If any right wing people want me to agree with them, GET ME A FUCKING JOB. Put me in middle class, and I'll vote for whoever you tell me to. But put me there first, I have been screwed over so many times that I don't trust anyone.

[Prak]

I think most conservatives look to the revolution when they say "we need an armed private militia!"

[npc310]

The KKK was formed and founded by Southern DEMOCRATS. I know leftists always say that those founders would be republicans today, but there is no proof or evidence to support that assertion, just libs who are embarrassed about this inconvenient bit of history, and try to pawn it off on the opposition.

[Ancient History]

You go back a hundred and fifty years, and the parties are unrecognizable. The Republicans used to be centered in the north and elected Lincoln despite him not showing up on the ballot in ten southern states.

[Ted the Flayer]

The KKK was formed and founded by Southern DEMOCRATS. I know leftists always say that those founders would be republicans today, but there is no proof or evidence to support that assertion, just libs who are embarrassed about this inconvenient bit of history, and try to pawn it off on the opposition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYmZlwu2EcM

[angelfromanotherpin]

The hideous racists that were the Southern Democrats abandoned the party in part after the 1948 Democratic platform included a civil rights plank, and then basically in whole after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

A few years later, Republicans began using the 'Southern Strategy,' which is specifically about appealing to the racism of southern whites. The use of that strategy is so not up for debate that in 2005 the RNC chairman formally apologized to the NAACP for using it. Not that that's stopped them from using it since then, but both the use of the strategy and the wrongness of using it have been publicly admitted to.

[Ted the Flayer]

Shouldn't this crap go under political news? I know it didn't start that way, but it seems like it has drifted off-topic for this particular thread...

[virgil]

Just out of curiosity, how do the general anti-gun opinions respond to something like this?

http://www.massgunlawreform.com/evidence.html

The WRISS and ISP data show that, in the four years prior to passage of the Gun Control Act, gun-related deaths and injuries actually decreased in Massachusetts:

There was a 50% DECREASE in firearm-related homicides from 1994-1997 (ISP Reports), the four years BEFORE passage of the Gun Control Act.
There was a 57% DECREASE in firearm-related assaults from 1994-1997 (WRISS, March 2007), the four years BEFORE passage of the Gun Control Act.
Those same reports show that there has been a dramatic INCREASE in deaths and injuries from guns in the years since the Gun Control Act was passed in 1998

[Josh_Kablack]

Well as someone very much on the fence regarding firearms regulations, I would start by asking how those numbers compare to similar / neighboring states that did not enact such laws over similar timeframes ?

[npc310]

Yes, you'd rather have a pitched gun battle in a populated area so that some of your neighbors can get killed by stray bullets. Simply locking yourself in a room or running out the back and then calling the cops so that the criminals can be arrested is not an option?

If you can site an example of someone defending themselves, missing the bad guy, and shooting their neighbor instead, maybe you have an argument.

No, I don't want to hide in my back bedroom while robbers ransack my house. Maybe they won't be content to steal my TVs, Xbox and games, jewelry, iPod, BluRay player, DVD and BluRay collection, TT miniatures, laptop, monitors, etc... Maybe they'll attack my wife and daughter. Given observable police response time, they could do all that, twice, take a nap, and leave without having to worry.

Gun control laws apply only to law-abiding citizens.

This was not worded right. I'll amend as follows. The people who would be influenced by gun control laws are law-abiding citizens, and are not who I am afraid of having guns. I mean, accidents happen, but guns are no more dangerous than cars or the family dog, statistically speaking. I bet more people die falling down the stairs every year than who are killed by people who would obey a law to surrender their firearms, but how could that be proven?

If you could guarantee and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that every gun was gone, maybe I'd feel differently. As long as the bad guys have guns, I want a gun so I can defend myself and my family. It is clear that you feel differently. You trust the police to protect you. Maybe you've never had reason to call them and then waited hours for them to show. Maybe you don't have a family who you feel responsible to protect. Maybe you feel confident you can run fater/hide better than the bad guys can chase you/find you. Maybe you're perfectly happy to abandon the property that you worked hard to earn. I'm not fine with any of those things. It's a difference of opinion. Let's agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

[Ancient History]

I mean, accidents happen, but guns are no more dangerous than cars or the family dog, statistically speaking.

Given that motor vehicle ownership is much higher than firearm ownership per-capita...I don't think so.


Fido doesn't show on the charts.

[Prak]

Yes, you'd rather have a pitched gun battle in a populated area so that some of your neighbors can get killed by stray bullets. Simply locking yourself in a room or running out the back and then calling the cops so that the criminals can be arrested is not an option?

If you can site an example of someone defending themselves, missing the bad guy, and shooting their neighbor instead, maybe you have an argument.

Well, there's this, where a bystander with a concealed carry license killed a store manager in the crossfire with robbers.

Then one where a stray bullet went through several walls of a neighbouring house and almost killed a teen

And finally, we have a man killed by a stray bullet that went through his window

So, there's three, how's my argument?

No, I don't want to hide in my back bedroom while robbers ransack my house. Maybe they won't be content to steal my TVs, Xbox and games, jewelry, iPod, BluRay player, DVD and BluRay collection, TT miniatures, laptop, monitors, etc... Maybe they'll attack my wife and daughter. Given observable police response time, they could do all that, twice, take a nap, and leave without having to worry.

Look, I understand the desire for justifiable homicide. You have all this testosterone and anger, and you want someone to break in so you have plausible deniability and get some of the killin' outta your system. The difference is that my home defense strategy involves blades and arrows, which, while more likely to get me killed, are also less likely to kill a neighbour because I've only been on a shooting range once. If you really want a gun to protect your material possessions family, then you damned well better be on the range every week and training yourself to shoot accurately in a calm situation so that incompetence doesn't compound panic and kill your neighbour, or worse, that TV daughter you're trying to protect.

Better than that, get a damned alarm system, you paranoid loon.

If you could guarantee and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that every gun was gone, maybe I'd feel differently. As long as the bad guys have guns, I want a gun so I can defend myself and my family. It is clear that you feel differently. You trust the police to protect you. Maybe you've never had reason to call them and then waited hours for them to show.

YOU DIDN'T EITHER, SHITHEAD. The burglers broke in while you were gone, and your neighbour called. You were blissfully fucking unaware, and you owning a gun could not have changed the situation in anyway! I want guns controlled by murder thoughts too, but we ain't there yet!

Maybe you don't have a family who you feel responsible to protect. Maybe you feel confident you can run fater/hide better than the bad guys can chase you/find you. Maybe you're perfectly happy to abandon the property that you worked hard to earn. I'm not fine with any of those things. It's a difference of opinion. Let's agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

So move out to the country, stockpile a bunch of guns, and never leave your house for fear that you won't be there to protect a bunch of meaningless shit you could just as easily gotten insured. Better make sure your walls are concrete five feet thick and your door is a bank vault, too.

[Josh_Kablack]

Also, The CDC says that poisoning probably belongs on those charts

[DSMatticus]

As long as the bad guys have guns, I want a gun so I can defend myself and my family. It is clear that you feel differently. You trust the police to protect you. Maybe you've never had reason to call them and then waited hours for them to show. Maybe you don't have a family who you feel responsible to protect. Maybe you feel confident you can run fater/hide better than the bad guys can chase you/find you.

The bad guys are not coming after you with guns because you are not the hero of an action film. There are exactly zero people on the planet who intend or care enough to murder you with a firearm of any sort. It is very important that you understand this, because you are just some average guy and your life or death is of consequence to exactly zero criminals. Now, if you wanted to tell us you were dealing drugs out of your yard and were worried competing dealers were going to drop by to murder you or your family, you'd have a compelling argument for why you need a gun to protect yourself from criminals. And we'd tell you to stop fucking selling drugs or just get a gun illegally, you're already breaking the law.

But I'm going to operate on the assumption you are a law-abiding citizen and that means no one is out to get you. And that means that statistically speaking, the gun in your house is more likely to kill your daughter than a criminal. Maybe you're one of the responsible few who takes fantastic care to lock their guns away, but the statistical reality of it is that there are more firearm accidents than there are self-defense claims. And that means that if your argument is "I want my family to be safe," the actual thing you need to do is get guns out of your house as soon as possible. Because in the real-world, that gun is more likely to end up putting a bullet in you or your family members than it is to ward off a burglar. It is not making you more safe, it is making you less safe. It's kind of funny how that works. Criminals may sound scarier, but firearms accidents are the things that actually hurt people.

P.S., burglary is not a violent crime. People do not come into your house to rob you because they want to beat the shit out of you or kill you, they do it because you have something they want. Frequently, medication and small electronic consumer goods and jewelry. Many times, all that is needed to scare them off is a verbal threat from the safety of your room. If they actually try to assault or even threaten you, they have added decades of jail time to an otherwise light crime and it's stupid to do that. And if you still feel like risking your life by engaging criminals directly in a confrontation to protect your shit (some pills, a DVD player), you're kind of an irresponsible idiot. If you win, congratulations, you saved a few hundred, maybe a few thousand dollars. If you bring a gun to a fight and lose, you are probably just fucking dead. I don't know about you, but the value of my life is significantly higher than a collection of DVDs and whatever electronics I have around they can fit in a bag.

Criminals with a financial motivation are surprisingly prone to not picking fights. Because it's a completely irrational and unnecessary risk.

[Whatever]

Likewise, getting mugged is usually cheaper than owning a handgun.

[Prak]

I'd just like to remind everyone, including npc310, the circumstances of this paranoia inducing event:

You trust the cops? Really? I live in a middle-class neighborhood in a large city. My house was burglarized last year. Took the police 1 hour and 40 minutes to respond. The zombies could have eaten my brains, the rapists had plenty of time to do their thing - twice, and Dr. Lecter has made his escape, and he didn't even have to wear my face as a mask while he snuck past five-oh.
---
When the neighbor called the police, they were still in my home. My family and I were not, but how would the cops know that?

I would point out that I imagine the 911 operator probably asked the neighbour if anyone was in the house, and when the neighbour responded "no" the call went to the bottom of the list of real people that were actually getting raped, assaulted and murdered, rather than hypothetical ones having their brains eating by zombies/raped by two pump chucks/having dinner with Hannibal Lector.

Likewise, getting mugged is usually cheaper than owning a handgun.

However a handgun is probably cheaper than the therapy it would take for npc310 to get over his paranoia of butt raping zombie Hannibal Lectors

[npc310]

Insurance is going to screw you. They'll pay out about two-thirds of what you claim. I know. I consulted a lawyer. She said she sees this all the time. The insurance companies know that lawyers will cost 1/3, so all they have to pay is 2/3. I told them I consulted a lawyer, and they called my bluff. We ended up settling for about 70% of what I actually claimed, and only because I found old receipts. Keep that in mind if you ever have to file a claim. It's a shame, but either you screw your insurance company, or they'll screw you. I've been screwed. I didn't like it. I don't know if I'd be willing to over-claim in order to get what I am actually owed, but if this happens again, I know how the game is played.

At any rate, burglars do return to the scene of the crime. Happens all the time. I asked the cop who responded about this. I could tell from the way he answered that he didn't want to scare me, but he did. He recommended we get an alarm installed because the burglars leave sooner if there's an alarm going off.

I would point out that I imagine the 911 operator probably asked the neighbour if anyone was in the house, and when the neighbour responded "no" the call went to the bottom of the list of real people that were actually getting raped, assaulted and murdered, rather than hypothetical ones having their brains eating by zombies/raped by two pump chucks/having dinner with Hannibal Lector.

Afterward, my neighbor told me that he didn't think anyone was home, but he did not tell me whether or not he told the 911 operator. Let's assume he told them what he told me. Unsure of whether or not there were women and children in danger, the cops took over 90 minutes to respond. Yeah, I feel safe.

Well, there's this, where a bystander with a concealed carry license killed a store manager in the crossfire with robbers.

There was a shootout in a dollar store. Doesn't say anything about the guy defending his family. Doesn't say anything about it being his neighbor. Further, the source of this is someone's blog? Not a good enough source for me to rethink my position. But since you site a blog, I will, too. I'll save you the trouble of reading it. The article disputes the findings of a Texas A&M research paper by showing that violent crime rates per 100k people have declined in Florida significantly since they strengthened their castle doctrine laws.

Then one where a stray bullet went through several walls of a neighbouring house and almost killed a teen

Nobody was shot, though I do feel sorry for the light fixture, fiberglass shower stall, and the jacket.

And finally, we have a man killed by a stray bullet that went through his window

The source of the stray bullet was not known. This source says nothing about someone defending their home, missing Dr. Lecter, and killing the victim.

[virgil]

I remember someone I know telling me of a story, proudly touting it as an example of why people should have firearms.

A woman was in a bad neighborhood at night at a bus stop alone. This was normal, as she worked nearby, so she carried a gun in her purse for protection. Keeping her hand on her gun while still in the purse, some guy snuck up and grabbed the purse and ran with it. Inside the purse was her paycheck, but not the gun because her hand was holding it. The woman yelled at the guy to stop, and when he didn't, she shot him six times in the back. According to the police report, she shot him that many times "because I ran out of bullets."

[K]

You know, I've been in my house while either someone was trying to break in or someone was trying to break in to the neighbors.

I foiled both attempted robberies by opening a window and saying "Hi, what's up?"

I've also had four attempted muggings, one of which ended with the guy shooting me in the foot.

I think NPC310 is just a big fucking pussy. Having someone break into your house while you are away is just an annoyance, not something that should traumatize you.

[Prak]

Fuck it, willful ignorance gets npc310 ignored. Wish I'd done this before he shitted up the first page of my game thread.

[Ted the Flayer]

I've chased bears away from my house without resorting to guns. I'm more scared of bears than I am people. Mostly because a human has to try very hard to harm me, while a bear could tear me in half accidentally while being friendly.

No, the only times I've been wronged have been either when I wasn't even there to defend myself, or with more insidious methods. And although I would like to THINK I'd shoot the motherfuckers at work who are talking shit about me in the face, in reality that's not a very good solution to my problems and I wouldn't ACTUALLY want to do that. It's just funny to think about.