Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

Sadly, a large infestation of stupidity in the Colorado legislature has led to the passing of multiple gun control laws;

Universal Background Checks - and requiring money for those checks. (HB 1228, 1229)

(HB 1224) A ban on 'large capacity' (15+) magazines.

Both of these will be completely useless. They are knee jerk reactions to isolated, very rare, events that can be easily circumnavigated. Switching magazines takes a couple seconds. Criminals will get around checks like they get around laws against allergy medicine

However the gun control ()@*&$ are happy because it makes it much more difficult to buy and sell firearms from people, and because it begins the erosion of gun rights. These authoritarians will use the next publicized violent event as an excuse to ratchet down tighter - as New York state has now banned 7+ bullet magazines.

Furthermore, in Colorado's case the ban on 'large' capacity magazines is written so as to prevent the transfer (i.e. inheritance, gifts, etc.), sale, and purchase of nearly all magazines:
http://www.magpul.com/assets/docs/1224veto.pdf

NONE OF THIS WILL HELP. And these attacks on freedom are being pushed by authoritarians and statists like Bloomberg, mayor of NYC.

We are hardly a free country, and we're becoming less free as myopic masses of idiots will happily and readily give up their hard earned rights because some politician with an agenda says it will make them safer.

Some hick terrorist in the middle of a desert with an AK is no threat to America and American freedom. The real threat, looming like a glacier, is our authoritarian government and apathetic population.

CR

did you ever really think you were free to begin with?

Welcome, Colorado, to the civilized world.

Horetore, you mean well, but these types of efforts, in the context of the USA and its culture, are a little silly (albeit well-intentioned).

With more than 275 million firearms in private posession and with a full third of the US population in posession of guns, they are a nearly ubiquitous part of our culture. Firearms account for roughly 32,000 deaths a year (including accidents) in the USA.

As a side note, we have roughly 300 million motor vehicles in the USA, with over 90% of these in private possession (with 2/3+ of the households owning a vehicle) and roughly 35,000 deaths a year in motor vehicle accidents of one form or another.

Unlike a car, however, firearms only serve as weapons.

Magazine capacity size etc. isn't quite like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but....

To make a real difference in gun violence you would have to either 1) start confiscating firearms (Good Luck with That), or 2) start to address the cultural issues/mores/etc that are the cause of the violence for which guns are only a tool of expression.

I'm having a mixed reaction over here. The magazine capacity thing will be utterly, completely pointless.

However, universal background checks are a good thing, despite the apocalyptic hysteria coming from the NRA (which appears to exist in a state of permanent crisis—must be good for fundraising or something).

A statement such as this ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Criminals will get around checks like they get around laws against allergy medicine

---

... is an argument against all laws. Period.

Why criminalize murder? Murderers will just find a way around it! Why criminalize jaywalking, when you will only punish honest walkers? Why require drivers licenses, when criminals will just go ahead and drive without them? Why have any laws at all? Bad people will continue to be bad!

Laws cannot eliminate or end any sort of criminal behavior. That's not what they do.

-edit-

Also note that unlike "assault" weapon bans and magazine-capacity gimmickry, universal background checks enjoy massive support. Among gun owners, no less. So the screaming emo teen known as the NRA is way, way out of line with the opinion of their own putative constituency.

Quinnipiac University’s poll, conducted March 7, found that 88 percent of those surveyed support such checks while 10 percent oppose them. Among gun owners, that number is 85-13 percent, respectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

We are hardly a free country, and we're becoming less free as myopic masses of idiots will happily and readily give up their hard earned rights because some politician with an agenda says it will make them safer.

Some hick terrorist in the middle of a desert with an AK is no threat to America and American freedom. The real threat, looming like a glacier, is our authoritarian government and apathetic population.

CR

---

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Horetore, you mean well, but these types of efforts, in the context of the USA and its culture, are a little silly (albeit well-intentioned).

---

While I don't really care that the hillbillies, stoners and skinheads of the US leads the fight on world overpopulation by culling their own numbers, I will always applaud those among you who show a commitment to decency, humanity and justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

---

OMG have you seen this Socrates quote?

Why do you need more than 5?

Why do you need more than one?

They can take my freedoms, but they will never take my potato guns. Or my sour cream bombs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Why do you need more than 5?

---

6 people might break into his house.

Clearly the people behind this law understand that 15 people is the optimum number for a burglary, any more and they get in each other's way.

It's like sneezing 8 times in a row, only the gun nuts need 15 rounds to get to their orgasm.

Okay, let's turn this thing the other direction. Question to those of you who support such gun control measures:

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

In a sane country, none.

I read an endlessly entertaining thread yesterday elsewhere about what is appropriate to take on a first date in order to be fully prepared. There seemed to be a lot more votes for a gun than for a condom...

Who takes a date somewhere they think they'll need a gun?

Maybe the gun is for protection from the date, rather than to protect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

In a sane country, none.

I read an endlessly entertaining thread yesterday elsewhere about what is appropriate to take on a first date in order to be fully prepared. There seemed to be a lot more votes for a gun than for a condom...

Who takes a date somewhere they think they'll need a gun?

---

Taking a date to the hood to go Ghetto Watching or to the small town to go Redneck Watching can be quite romantic and informative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

---

Realistically, given that there are more firearms than citizens in the USA, all talk of bans and confiscation is wildly unrealistic. Not to mention unconstitutional. So: let's get off that rocking horse, please.

"Assault" weapon bans are doomed to failure, given that fully automatic weapons are already (mostly) banned, and so "assault" bans inevitably focus on cosmetic features such as color, grip, muzzle bits, and so forth.

Magazine capacity bans are also doomed to failure, in their current forms. Given that the most popular handgun in the USA (the Glock 17) takes 17 round magazines out of the box, trying to force everyone to accept 10-round magazines is intrusive, counter-intuitive, and bound to fail. If someone wants to try to limit magazine size to, say, 20 rounds, they might be more likely to find support and (more importantly) compliance.

So those are the measures that are going to fail, one way or another. As for what is "acceptable" or what "ought to be," meh. Reality is what it is, our situation is what it is. The law should deal in realistic outcomes; unenforceable laws breed contempt, and laws that will not be complied with breed disrespect. To be avoided.

Universal background checks enjoy overwhelming support in both the gun owning community and non-gun owning community. Effort should be put into making this quick and easy. Anybody with a web browser and the proper credentials should be able to clear a buyer in minutes. (The NRA screams that this is the gateway drug to gun-grabbing and tyranny, but they scream that about everything. Hysteria is their default position. So I think it's wisest to ignore them.)

For some tangled reason involving weird amendments passed by paid-for congresscritters, the ATF is unable to effectively pursue straw buyers. Whatever welter of ill-intentioned legislation made that happen should be undone.

All research into gun violence is currently prohibited from Federal funding by law. Should be undone.

Gun dealers are not required to keep or show current inventories. Should be undone.

There are probably a few more common-sense moves that could be made to clean up the gun trade, but it's a workday, and that's all I got off the top of my head.

I think people need to take a step back and look at this. Banning guns, magazines, bullets are not going to stop anyone. Right now it is easier (cheaper) for me to obtain a pistol illegally than it is for me to obtain one legally. I think one of the few ways we could move towards solving a lot of this is to require that anyone purchasing a firearm are required to take a series of firearm safety classes. If you are a parent your kid should be required to go by the age of 5.

I know not all deaths by firearms are accidents but how often could that accident be prevented if everyone involved had proper safety training. I learned to shoot and shoot safely from a young age and now I teach kids firearm safety and shooting skills as an adult leader for 4-H shooting sports. In over the 50 years that our oldest adult leader has been there not one accident has ever occurred for any of our members either during or after their stay with us.

As well as a proper understanding of firearms I agree 100% with if you are purchasing, receiving, or obtaining a firearm for ownership you should undergo a background check and a free psych evaluation. Spending 2 hours in a room answering questions is nothing compared to the hold on purchasing firearms. It's ignorance of the people that causes guns to be looked at as solely "weapons" instead of as tools or recreation items, kinda like a baseball bat. Sure it can be used as a weapon but so can many things.

We should not have any laws ever because someone will just find a way around them

There have been hundreds of thousands of failed background checks which resulted in denial of firearms. How can anyone rationally argue that background checks are a failure?

And if you get denied, you get flagged. I know this, because I was denied over a court mistake many years ago, and I tried again before the error was fixed so I was denied again, then got it on the third time when my record was fixed. When I applied for my Secret Clearance, they sent an investigator to interview me as to why I tried to purchase a second time when I knew it was already illegal for me to own a gun, to which I had to prove to them it was all a mistake and I should have been able to legally purchase all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

I think people need to take a step back and look at this. Banning guns, magazines, bullets are not going to stop anyone. Right now it is easier (cheaper) for me to obtain a pistol illegally than it is for me to obtain one legally. I think one of the few ways we could move towards solving a lot of this is to require that anyone purchasing a firearm are required to take a series of firearm safety classes. If you are a parent your kid should be required to go by the age of 5.

I know not all deaths by firearms are accidents but how often could that accident be prevented if everyone involved had proper safety training. I learned to shoot and shoot safely from a young age and now I teach kids firearm safety and shooting skills as an adult leader for 4-H shooting sports. In over the 50 years that our oldest adult leader has been there not one accident has ever occurred for any of our members either during or after their stay with us.

As well as a proper understanding of firearms I agree 100% with if you are purchasing, receiving, or obtaining a firearm for ownership you should undergo a background check and a free psych evaluation. Spending 2 hours in a room answering questions is nothing compared to the hold on purchasing firearms. It's ignorance of the people that causes guns to be looked at as solely "weapons" instead of as tools or recreation items, kinda like a baseball bat. Sure it can be used as a weapon but so can many things.

---

the reason mandatory training will not be accepted by the pro gunners (even if it deflects attention from the ban hammer) is because if you attach one new set of administrative and cost stipulations to gun ownership, then why not others? Saying "you have to take a class" is in the same spirit as saying "you cannot have one at all" , not to mention the nightmare of trying to enforce such a law as an after-thought. The only way something like that would have even a slither of chance of working is if the course completion was attached to the background check. But considering straw purchasers are very rarely caught or prosecuted, I don't see how we could possibly make sure everyone in the house was educated before guns were allowed, since we cant even stop a wife from buying one for her felon husband or something like fast and furious cough cough

Lemur:

Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Okay, let's turn this thing the other direction. Question to those of you who support such gun control measures:

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

---

Easy: none.

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

And, might I add, the police force should also be unarmed. Weapons should be accessible only when absolutely necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

In a sane country, none.

---

so you admit that it's necessary then? after-all, we hardly live in a sane country (the US, west bank, etc) , or world, do we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Realistically, given that there are more firearms than citizens in the USA, all talk of bans and confiscation is wildly unrealistic. Not to mention unconstitutional. So: let's get off that rocking horse, please.

"Assault" weapon bans are doomed to failure, given that fully automatic weapons are already (mostly) banned, and so "assault" bans inevitably focus on cosmetic features such as color, grip, muzzle bits, and so forth.

Magazine capacity bans are also doomed to failure, in their current forms. Given that the most popular handgun in the USA (the Glock 17) takes 17 round magazines out of the box, trying to force everyone to accept 10-round magazines is intrusive, counter-intuitive, and bound to fail. If someone wants to try to limit magazine size to, say, 20 rounds, they might be more likely to find support and (more importantly) compliance.

So those are the measures that are going to fail, one way or another. As for what is "acceptable" or what "ought to be," meh. Reality is what it is, our situation is what it is. The law should deal in realistic outcomes; unenforceable laws breed contempt, and laws that will not be complied with breed disrespect. To be avoided.

Universal background checks enjoy overwhelming support in both the gun owning community and non-gun owning community. Effort should be put into making this quick and easy. Anybody with a web browser and the proper credentials should be able to clear a buyer in minutes. (The NRA screams that this is the gateway drug to gun-grabbing and tyranny, but they scream that about everything. Hysteria is their default position. So I think it's wisest to ignore them.)

For some tangled reason involving weird amendments passed by paid-for congresscritters, the ATF is unable to effectively pursue straw buyers. Whatever welter of ill-intentioned legislation made that happen should be undone.

All research into gun violence is currently prohibited from Federal funding by law. Should be undone. [bit of an issue]

Gun dealers are not required to keep or show current inventories. Should be undone.

There are probably a few more common-sense moves that could be made to clean up the gun trade, but it's a workday, and that's all I got off the top of my head.

---

I just have a problem with the bolded part. Namely that with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

---

at the end of the day, there really isn't at this time. at least none to my knowledge. how could one tell if a person wants to shoot up a school, or snap in a movie theater? often times, there's little warning of that, and from what I have seen, little attempt by the people who should to figure that out. that's assuming they are even "crazy" in the conventional sense (as some are). They may simply be people who just snapped, in which case, no symptoms at all--at least none detectable.

now with criminals I can see it working: if a person has a background of violent crime (assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc), it's easy enough to keep guns from them legally--though it will inevitably create it's own problems with illegal firearms sales.

Point is, any rules on gun ownership should make it easier (IMHO) for innocent civilians to obtain weapons, than any criminal. any check or means to do that I would support entirely--which is why I'm not entirely averse to background checks in concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Easy: none.

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

And, might I add, the police force should also be unarmed. Weapons should be accessible only when absolutely necessary.

---

really? tell that to the Syrians. Or the Chinese. or to the "undesirables" in Nazi Germany (Jews being a major category). or even Stalin's victims, or maybe the people of the Dzin empire (Qin in modern Chinese). Supposed your government isn't a tyranny. well, what happens if your government turns on you? think it's not likely? tell that to Sulla's victims. or those of Caligula, Caracalla, or Decius (if you're Christian).

look, I don't like guns, I don't own any, and have little interest in ever doing so. I think such violent people should be kept from harming others, and punished for those who have harmed people already. but what you say..is problematic. fact is, violence is no one's domain. otherwise, why is aggressive war illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)

---

The answer to bad research is not no research. Under current law, people who look at large-scale epidemiology and mortality are not allowed to even tabulate gun deaths. It's nuts, and should be changed.

(And yes, the NRA will howl that this is the beginning of Hitler and Stalin and the end of freedom. But since the NRA appears to be trying to live out The Boy Who Cried Wolf, that's their problem, not ours.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The answer to bad research is not no research. Under current law, people who look at large-scale epidemiology and mortality are not allowed to even tabulate gun deaths. It's nuts, and should be changed.

(And yes, the NRA will howl that this is the beginning of Hitler and Stalin and the end of freedom. But since the NRA appears to be trying to live out The Boy Who Cried Wolf, that's their problem, not ours.)

---

don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of research on the topic, and agree with the sentiment. I'm more concerned with accountability in this area. I've seen enough trouble in that part with research into drugs, into 9/11 (not so much the idea of investigating it, but the way the findings were dealt with--the motivation parts, not the attack itself: I'm not a "truther") and so on, to last a lifetime and a half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

so you admit that it's necessary then? after-all, we hardly live in a sane country (the US, west bank, etc) , or world, do we?



I just have a problem with the bolded part. Namely that with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)



at the end of the day, there really isn't at this time. at least none to my knowledge. how could one tell if a person wants to shoot up a school, or snap in a movie theater? often times, there's little warning of that, and from what I have seen, little attempt by the people who should to figure that out. that's assuming they are even "crazy" in the conventional sense (as some are). They may simply be people who just snapped, in which case, no symptoms at all--at least none detectable.

now with criminals I can see it working: if a person has a background of violent crime (assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc), it's easy enough to keep guns from them legally--though it will inevitably create it's own problems with illegal firearms sales.

Point is, any rules on gun ownership should make it easier (IMHO) for innocent civilians to obtain weapons, than any criminal. any check or means to do that I would support entirely--which is why I'm not entirely averse to background checks in concept.




really? tell that to the Syrians. Or the Chinese. or to the "undesirables" in Nazi Germany (Jews being a major category). or even Stalin's victims, or maybe the people of the Dzin empire (Qin in modern Chinese). Supposed your government isn't a tyranny. well, what happens if your government turns on you? think it's not likely? tell that to Sulla's victims. or those of Caligula, Caracalla, or Decius (if you're Christian).

look, I don't like guns, I don't own any, and have little interest in ever doing so. further, like any half-sane person, I don't like people hurting each other in general--especially when initiating violence. I think such people should be punished. but what you say..is problematic.

---

The question asked was on self-protection, not about forming militias. That's a separate question, but my answer is still a big, fat "NO". Small arms in the hands of the general population has exactly zero relevance when trying to topple a dictatorship. Plenty of dictatorships have no real restrictions on gun ownership, and that's because it poses no threath whatsoever.

Once a rebellion is ongoing, gaining access to weapons is easy as all hell. Access to advanced weaponry is what counts, and gun ownership does not affect that in the slightest. In a revolution, small arms can be seen as similar to things like bandages, food supplies and such.

The Russian people were properly armed under Stalin by the way, could you please inform me how that stopped Gulag...? If you really want to pursue the "citizen militia"-angle, I have a much better idea for you: conscription. A conscript army will ensure that every citizen has military training, which is worth a hell of a lot more than a simple gun(warfare isn't as easy as point-and-shoot, you know). It will also ensure that the nations standing army isn't drawn from a small demographic(like how the Syrian army is drawn from the Alawittes, for example) thus making it harder to employ against its own citizens(in theory). But even that is largely irrelevant, except possibly when fearing a military coup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The question asked was on self-protection, not about forming militias. That's a separate question, but my answer is still a big, fat "NO". Small arms in the hands of the general population has exactly zero relevance when trying to topple a dictatorship. Plenty of dictatorships have no real restrictions on gun ownership, and that's because it poses no threath whatsoever.

---

I actually agree with that. I do find it amusing you said all that, when my response to you was over this part:

Quote:

---

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

---

The point I was actually making towards you is that violence is not, and should not, be the "domain" of the state (or any one person, group, or institution really--including "the people"), if only because of the potential of such institutions turning dictatorial/violent, as often happened in history. the stuff I mentioned were examples of when it is that way in practice. My belief is that at most, government should be preventing or minimizing the initiation of violence, not having a monopoly or carte blanche over it as you seem to imply. same applies to the people. it doesn't even have a monopoly (and shouldn't) over the prevention or minimizing of the initiation of violence or force in general: not every situation can be solved by a government agency (such as police or the military), as often they may not be close enough or at hand. sometimes it may even be that representatives of these agencies are the ones initiating the violence (e.g. bad cops, corrupt militaries, etc.)

Note that preventing and minimizing need not involve actual violence.

you can tell accordingly that it is my opinion in either case (government or people), that violence is only acceptable as self defense or defense of others(i.e. halting or reacting the initiation of force), and only if no other immediate option exists: it doesn't however make doing so "moral" or "OK", as non-violent methods are much better, and therefore inherently more "moral" and definitely "OK". And prevention is always better than the cure--as violence is not an option (ideally) in preventing force in general.

besides, my attitude about gun control itself has less to do with toppling dictatorships or any protection against tyranny (or even self defense in and of itself), and more to do with expediency (enforcement, whether it actually solves the problems it is intended to solve, etc), at least in the US. that and the fact that many people here don't have guns to kill with, but more as collector's items, target practice, or other non-violent actions: it makes no sense to me punishing a guy who owns an M-14 (15 round magazine) but never shoots it at people, for other people's actions. accordingly, while I don't like it when people insist on packing heat for self defense or to "fight tyranny", as long as they aren't actually shooting anyone in cold blood (or initiating force in general), I don't see the problem.

Ah, sorry, I realize not everyone is familiar with Weber.

Here is a nice wiki article on the concept my sentence referred to. Then sparkle that concept with a bit of collectivist communism, and you have my basic position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

They can take my freedoms, but they will never take my potato guns. Or my sour cream bombs.

---

I think you've been cream pied enough...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ah, sorry, I realize not everyone is familiar with Weber.

Here is a nice wiki article on the concept my sentence referred to. Then sparkle that concept with a bit of collectivist communism, and you have my basic position.

---

I know who he is (he also introduced the concept of the "protestant work ethic" in sociology: I took a sociology class when I was a freshman), and suspected already you were referring to him in part. I simply don't agree with the position based on his observation:

As I said, I don't believe government should have a monopoly over the use of force (or while we're at it, the delegation of who can use this power by said government). Anyone and everyone can be involved in this, and not require the permission or approval of government, so long as they themselves do not initiate force, or can be demonstrated with certainty or near certainty to intend initiation of force (which is where prevention comes in--which as I stated, should ideally never involve force). To give government that sole power to monopolize and delegate risks my concerns.


besides, as he himself said, his statement was an observation of politics in practice (in which case, he is pretty much on the tin here: governments do act that way), not how it should be (whether he thought it should be this way or not, is to me irrelevant: doesn't change my reservations). Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be. And just because it should be, and is possible, doesn't mean it is.

after-all, people must help one another, doesn't mean they actually always do.

at least, that's how I see it. :shrug:

I have multiple firearms.

Why stop at just 1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

I know who he is (he also introduced the concept of the "protestant work ethic" in sociology: I took a sociology class when I was a freshman), and suspected already you were referring to him in part. I simply don't agree with the position based on his observation:

As I said, I don't believe government should have a monopoly over the use of force (or while we're at it, the delegation of who can use this power by said government). Anyone and everyone can be involved in this, and not require the permission or approval of government, so long as they themselves do not initiate force, or can be demonstrated with certainty or near certainty to intend initiation of force (which is where prevention comes in--which as I stated, should ideally never involve force). To give government that sole power to monopolize and delegate risks my concerns.


besides, as he himself said, his statement was an observation of politics in practice (in which case, he is pretty much on the tin here: governments do act that way), not how it should be (whether he thought it should be this way or not, is to me irrelevant: doesn't change my reservations). Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be. And just because it should be, and is possible, doesn't mean it is.

after-all, people must help one another, doesn't mean they actually always do.

at least, that's how I see it. :shrug:

---

....and my objection to this would be where the "collectivist communist"-part comes in.

I believe in the state. The state provides our safety. I don't want to be safe from "criminals", I want to be safe against people who want to "defend" themselves(or even worse; their property) against "criminals".

(now would be a good time to get your tin foil hats out, everyone)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm having a mixed reaction over here. The magazine capacity thing will be utterly, completely pointless.

However, universal background checks are a good thing, despite the apocalyptic hysteria coming from the NRA (which appears to exist in a state of permanent crisis—must be good for fundraising or something).

---

I'm in favor of expanded background checks for private sales. I'm against any requirement to keep the records, but I wouldn't mind if there were spot-checks by ATF agents instead. I don't see a reason to exempt owners from a basic background check in the digital age. Having to do it in an FFL will protect sellers who now may have to tell a felon to go pound sand. It will also protect the buyer from giving his ssn and personal info to the seller and the endless fraud that this will prevent. I'll pay $10 for that. Make exceptions for buyers/sellers in the middle of nowhere to use their internet connection. Exemptions for spouses, children, and siblings.

No to mag limits, No to semi-auto bans - not even the scary looking ones. Guns for everyone, all over the world unless you are a violent felon, have multiple violent misdemeanors, are seriously mentally ill, or are an erratic substance abuser (even alcoholics should probably not have easy access)

National conceal carry as well. The gun is the great equalizer. It makes our betters remember that, even though they may be smarter than us, better looking, stronger, richer; able to dominate us - they are merely 1 minimally talented shot away from the dustbin of history. My signature shows that people of all ideologies can recognize this. Guns are truly the cornerstone of individual sovereignty.

Donate a few bucks to defense distributed so that we can make sure that the subjugated and downtrodden around the world can arm themselves against their oppressors.


EDIT: Also, as Lemur has been saying - as long as we are on our toes we have a great chance of beating the AWB back in the Senate, even if the Democrats wanted to experience the pain of passing the AWB. It doesn't look like it is even an option. I've been counting the Senate votes and It will extremely difficult for this Democratic Senate to support an "assault weapons" ban. I think that people are starting to get it, reluctantly. Count Manchin, Pryor, Baucus, Donnelly, Tester, Heinrich and all of the Republicans and you have 51 Senators against any AWB. These are just the very likely no's. It doesn't even bring in the fence sitters like Reid, King, Landrieu, Kaine, Leahy, Warner, etc. Even if they were able to get it past the Senate using the amendment process it would go up against an even more hostile GOP controlled House. I'm liking our chances more by the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

as long as we are on our toes we have a great chance of beating the AWB back in the Senate

---

Any national "assault" weapon ban was dead the moment it was proposed. Did you really think otherwise?

Individual states (such as Colorado) may try a few bad ideas, but there was never a realistic chance for national legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Any national "assault" weapon ban was dead the moment it was proposed. Did you really think otherwise?

Individual states (such as Colorado) may try a few bad ideas, but there was never a realistic chance for national legislation.

---

I believe that most people are elected to office with a carefully constructed ideological cocktail which appeals to core demographics of their constituents. This is how they form coalitions. The personal feelings of Democrats and Republicans take a back seat to these interest groups. We've seen pro-life democrats cave to their party when it was never thought that they would. I think that the President is a smart man and his backers are smart and radically anti-gun. I'm sure that they have looked at procedural measure that I have not considered to ram this bill through. I'm also sure that they are engaging with hard diplomacy bordering on blackmail with pro2a dem senators and attempting to boost likelihood of primary challenges for them if loss to GOP is not at risk

Or it could all be a negotiation tactic meant to usher in expanded background checks. Either way, to pretend that it is a foregone conclusion is not helpful.

Or people might demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and realise that Assault Weapons (the clue's in the name) don't belong in the hands of the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

the President is a smart man and his backers are smart and radically anti-gun

---

"Radically" anti-gun? I assume these radical gun-grabbers were behind all of the gun legislation of Obama's 1st term. And the reason that gun confiscation was put at the top of the agenda for the two weeks the Dems had a functional supermajority in the Senate. Oh ... wait ... hmm ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

hard diplomacy bordering on blackmail with pro2a dem senators

---

Do you any source whatsoever to back that up?

Here's the cool thing about getting excited about legislation that never had a chance of passing (who controls the House of Representatives, again?): You get to congratulate yourself and your team when it doesn't pass. It's like free money!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

Assault Weapons (the clue's in the name) don't belong in the hands of the public.

---

You've got ½ a point. Any true military assault weapon has what's called selective fire, meaning it can be fired in semi-auto mode, or some variation on automatic fire (3-round burst, what-have-you). With the exception of some grandfathered weapons, all automatic weapons are illegal for private citizens in the USA. This are important. Selective-fire weapons are rare, rare, rare, and almost never recovered from crime scenes. (In fact, most gun crimes appear to be committed with cheap handguns. That's what research showed back when research was legal.)

So what do US politicos mean when they talk about "assault" weapons? They do not mean cognates for military assault rifles. Rather, they mean semi-automatic weapons that are cosmetically similar to military assault rifles. But I guarantee you that every single weapon they're talking about is semi-automatic, not selective fire.

This is one of several reasons why a national assault ban is DOA. I could go into it more, but it's a workday, and I try not to write WALLS OF TEXT when I have other, paying things to write.

Colorado taketh away, others...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Lemur:

Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

---

What you really need is allowing research on gun ownership and gun violence again, instead of NRA going neener, neener you can't research, since we got a court order on it. And then compromise from there.

Currently, it's "car's don't kill people, people kill people (and this is only stopped by personal responsibillity)" and "we forbid yellow cars to make us look like we're doing something and we have no freaking idea how to do a limited move effectivly".

What this debate really needs is some unfunny "biting social commentary" from Jim Carrey that appears to be written by an 8th grader whose grandma tells him he is "funny" because she wants to support his efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

---

Bunch of old white men passed gun control laws, yep, it's all the fault of the younglings.

I wonder how many people who do not support closing the background check loopholes did support voter IDs.

LOLZ all around.

Hey, those gunrunners at gun shows and in newspapers are small, family businesses, they can't afford to run BG checks. OH WAIT CAPITALISM, GET OUT OF THE WAY, BITCH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You've got ½ a point. Any true military assault weapon has what's called selective fire, meaning it can be fired in semi-auto mode, or some variation on automatic fire (3-round burst, what-have-you). With the exception of some grandfathered weapons, all automatic weapons are illegal for private citizens in the USA. This are important. Selective-fire weapons are rare, rare, rare, and almost never recovered from crime scenes. (In fact, most gun crimes appear to be committed with cheap handguns. That's what research showed back when research was legal.)

So what do US politicos mean when they talk about "assault" weapons? They do not mean cognates for military assault rifles. Rather, they mean semi-automatic weapons that are cosmetically similar to military assault rifles. But I guarantee you that every single weapon they're talking about is semi-automatic, not selective fire.

This is one of several reasons why a national assault ban is DOA. I could go into it more, but it's a workday, and I try not to write WALLS OF TEXT when I have other, paying things to write.

---

I have never in my life understood the fixation on full-auto vs semi-auto. Granted, I have only fired 7.62 AG-3's, but there the difference is basically like this:

Full auto: clip gone in a flash. No hits(almost).
Semi-auto: clip gone in about 5 seconds more. A reasonable number will hit its target, and I have reasonable control.

I can see someone having a blackout in a crowded public space doing more damage with full than semi, but that's because such a person won't be able to aim anyway. Also, these people are rare and usually restricted to knives at best. I can't see the columbine-kind of killer doing more damage with full auto, I think they'll be able to kill much more by lowering their rate of fire to semi-auto.

Or is the 5.56 so weak it makes aiming on full auto viable? I guess I'll find out in May, when I join the national guard...

I think the fixation on the issue stems from the fact that lots of uninformed people, to include journalists from major networks and publications, present "assault rifle" in a manner that it is the same as a "machine gun", not unlike the way you convince a nation that some low grade chemical weapons and possible nuclear material=a nuclear missle.

The fixation is about making sure peoples ducks are in a row and they are dealing with facts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I think the fixation on the issue stems from the fact that lots of uninformed people, to include journalists from major networks and publications, present "assault rifle" in a manner that it is the same as a "machine gun", not unlike the way you convince a nation that some low grade chemical weapons and possible nuclear material=a nuclear missle.

The fixation is about making sure peoples ducks are in a row and they are dealing with facts

---

So...

Am I right in assuming that the US Army uses full auto "to scare" and semi-auto "to kill" with their 5.56, like we do(did) with our 7.62?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So...

Am I right in assuming that the US Army uses full auto "to scare" and semi-auto "to kill" with their 5.56, like we do(did) with our 7.62?

---

The regulars do not use full auto assault rifles anymore, outside of 3 round burst. And even three round is highly discouraged. Its rarely used even in training. Standard issue do not have a full auto setting. We leave the full auto for the machine gunners. Joe regular does not need an automatic weapon. It is such a no-no that there is virtually no qualification mechanism to qualify or rate someone using 3 round burst.

For full auto we use the M249 (5.56) and the M240B(7.62). Those are machine guns. They are used for suppression and for killing. So you are half right. Nothing scares them into putting their heads down like a 249 and 240 singing together. throw in a 50 and u got a regular barber shop. The 249 is a beautiful weapon.

M16s are still used by some, perhaps some of them have auto settings, but I don't think so. I believe the last model of M16 they standardized only had 3 round and semi options as well. The only people we ever saw with M16s in Afghanistan were the afghans, usually with their chins on the barrel as they slouched and rested, and garrison, guard type US troops, i.e. The Air Force. FYI M16s unofficial name is "The Musket"

I am the wrong person to be answering these questions. My weapon of choice was jingle beads and crayons.

I'm probably in agreement with Lemur and MRD here if we push it a bit further than my agreements with the OP. I'm in favor of changes making gun laws more strict (as previously mentioned using private background checks with no record-keeping requirement) in some areas and less in others (as previously mentioned with national carry license). I'm against the AWB and mag limits. I'm negotiable to a permit/license on state-by-state basis for handguns and even some semi-auto mag fed rifles/shotguns. I don't believe that the government should know anything about the particular firearm beyond the basic ffl record, merely that you are licensed to own it generally and have gone through a slightly more rigorous process ie, inital prints, initial personal interview, basic mental health eval. I don't believe that you should have to get Federal permission to attach a stock to a handgun or have a 12 inch barrel on a rifle.

well, HoreTore, I would love to continue the discussion on the merits of monopolizing the use of force by government/the state. needless to say, I'm impressed by your honesty. No need for a "tinfoil hat" metaphorically speaking...

I'm not quite sure though how collective communism is necessarily mutually exclusive to the right to defend oneself and others with whatever means necessary, without the necessary say-so of government.

EDIT: fear of accidentally killing innocent people is indeed a serious issue--though it is worth pointing out that I am not in favor of people blindly owning firearms. these should be used after the necessary background check (which I mentioned I'm not against fundamentally), and obviously after training and proper usage is enshrined in the person: after-all, we should be using force only when we the target initiates force--by which time it becomes clear who to defend against, rather than who not to harm. and as I must emphasize, my contention is simply that the state ought not to have a monopoly over violence (or force in general), not should it using it in an initiating role.

However, I still don't fully understand your sentiment, unless you are implying you don't and cannot trust people in general with such a thing. in which case it raises the question: what makes the people whom the state employs--soldiers and police (bearing in mind you are against police having firearms) any more qualified? they are people too, even with the training, and are just as likely to screw up--judging from the news anyhow...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

However, I still don't fully understand your sentiment, unless you are implying you don't and cannot trust people in general with such a thing. in which case it raises the question: what makes the people whom the state employs--soldiers and police (bearing in mind you are against police having firearms) any more qualified? they are people too, even with the training, and are just as likely to screw up--judging from the news anyhow...

---

... So wouldn't that be practical to limit the possibillity for screw ups to a minimum?

That's not counting violence escalation, the need to avoid attacks by creating a reputation, that going from self defense to offense is a fairly small step, etc, etc.

Basically, it's a question of different focus. If there's man-eating tigers running around on the street, of course you should need equipment to deal with it. But the issue is the tigers, not the equipment.
If things are working well, then you shouldn't be needing to be worried about the tigers enough to require the equipment. And most of the West has things working well enough for tigers to not be a serious issue and considers this to be a sign of that things are working.

The US attitude is more of that all induviduals should have heavy defenses vs tigers, no matter the cost. With the above focus, this attitude is already a failure.

And since violent crimes are different from tigers, you could ask what common sense tells you about the consequences from saturating a society with guns and telling them that it's ok to shoot people (but only during specific circumstances)?

I can tell that it's 19 times more likely for a cop to die in the line of duty in the US compared to the UK. There's been more cops killed in the US in 2013 (it's a calm start this year btw) than in the UK 2000-2013. Cause or counter cause?
It's certainly related to why the cops are more violent in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Or is the 5.56 so weak it makes aiming on full auto viable?

---

It's pretty powerful when "downrange" is the length of a school hallway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

---

I thought this was already coming to fruition.

New York Law Targets Mentally Ill's Access to Guns (Jan 15, 2013)

Gun Laws Focus on Mentally Ill (March 16, 2013)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raz

It's pretty powerful when "downrange" is the length of a school hallway.

---

As stated previously, I have only fired 7.62, so I don't have personal experience here. Still, judging from MRD's replies, I'm guessing it's not that different from 5.56.

Given that assumption, I'd still want semi-auto if I was a loony shooting kids down a hallway. I'm not going to play a numbers game, but I'm betting the number of dead kids will be significantly less with full auto than with semi auto.

The target(man-sized) I shot at when I tried full auto was at 30 meters. I don't remember the number of hits I got, but I seriously doubt it was more than 3(and I squeezed two times as opposed to holding it in the entire time). So, you can probably hit a few kids clustered together. There's no way you're going to hit the cluster of kids next to them, however. You won't be able to direct fire at them while shooting, and your clip will be spent in an instant. With semi-auto, they'll all be dead in 15 seconds.

Full auto is for suppression and mowing down tight groups of people in close proximity. I would agree with Hore that from a marksmanship and ammo use standpoint, semi is going to be more effective. However, for people in a movie theater or people mobbed against a locked fire escape, a full auto weapon has the potential to kill/maim 30 or more people in a matter of 10 seconds. Another thing about full auto is that it makes it far more difficult to escape, hence, suppression.

But really, the ammo point is irrelevant since most of the time these guys have plenty of excess rounds. Perhaps they would have to reload faster, but very rarely do we hear or read about people who actually take down a guy while he is reloading. I believe it happened at the giffords shooting. don't think full auto would have made any difference at sandy hook, and I believe that he could have done just as much damage with a couple of pistols.

@Hore: 556 kicks less than a 762 no matter what the gun IMO. Full auto kicks more than semi no matter what the gun. The 249 can be accurately fired on full auto, even with one hand if u are a big guy. Of course by accurate I am using machine gunner tersm and mean at close range. 762 will also pierce and keep going. The 556 varies, but 556 nato does not pierce, it bounces around inside the victim. I saw a guy shot in the lower left bicep from the front with a 556, the round turned left and hollowed out his chest cavity. He was my friend. He was trying to get sent home early by having an "accident" in the latrine and shooting himself in the arm. didn't work out for him, and it was odd seeing a guy with an entry would in the front of his arm and a giant exit wound in his center chest.

Magazine limits are pointless unless we simply make everyone carry revolvers. None of the "assault weapons ban" type rules address things that are really overly functional. It is all cosmetic. A 22 original rifle can kill just as many people as a 22 with a fancy muzzle, a shortened stock and cool guy grips. That is how they are defining assault rifles. Full auto has not had anything to do with any of the legitimate arguments since the mcdonalds shooting in the 80s. I recall the branch davidians having illegal machine guns, but I don't think they used them and I don't believe anything the
Fed says about that anyway,

If you ban semi auto and go back to double action I CAN PROMISE you that there will be more accidental shootings with revolvers because a cocked back hammer is the number one cause of revolver accidents, and it makes me cringe when people do it in movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Full auto is for suppression and mowing down tight groups of people in close proximity. I would agree with Hore that from a marksmanship and ammo use standpoint, semi is going to be more effective. However, for people in a movie theater or people mobbed against a locked fire escape, a full auto weapon has the potential to kill/maim 30 or more people in a matter of 10 seconds. Another thing about full auto is that it makes it far more difficult to escape, hence, suppression.

---

....but wouldn't a person using semi-auto still be able to whack those 30 people, just that he will use 20 seconds instead of 10? You can say that they'll have 10 more seconds to get away, but the semi shooter will have the ability to direct his fire after their movements... And then focusing on the "dangers of full auto" becomes rather irrelevant, doesn't it?

My point:
If you allow semi-automatic weapons, I see no reason to ban fully automatic weapons. If the image of a loon walking around with a machine gun killing hundreds of people is what upsets you, wouldn't it be more productive to look at the type of weapon, rather than its mode of fire? Ie., propose a ban on "military weapons", and allow "civilian weapons"(though good luck defining those)? Or just scrap weapon differentiating all together and look for alternative solutions.


ABB used a semi-automatic hunting rifle, by the way. 69 deaths, 66 wounded.

It sounds like we should be pushing to legalize new full auto production. It will be less dangerous, even in a crowded room and force a shooter to go through rounds faster, right horetore?

Soon people will be able to 3d print lower receivers with auto-seers, so who cares what the law says. People will just have them and that will be the end of it

first off Ironsides, I was discussing the monopoly of violence concept. I was disputing that it should be the case with regards to the State: the gun control part was an aspect of it (my attitude of which is incidental to the first part). secondly, I don't see how your reply answered the question you are supposedly reading (which I suggest you read carefully). but since you did reply, and I found it interesting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So wouldn't that be practical to limit the possibillity for screw ups to a minimum?

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

yes, but the circumstances in the US, preclude the outright (or cross the board) restriction or banning of firearms as a solution (the second Amendment being a big one). And even if they didn't, it's a non-solution (see below). Also, I had expressly stated (relevant to your question) that I'm not averse to people taking measures to use firearms responsibly when in cases of defense, and that I'm OK with background checks in principle. So yeah, I'm a firm believer in minimizing the chances of tragedy. but I accept that no matter what, we can't make evil never happen or even minimized purely by force of restrictive or regulatory law, as let's face it, loopholes with sinister consequences are inevitable, as are accidents. besides, look at the source below: people are already doing what they can, and it shows in the accidental deaths section.

Quote:

---

That's not counting violence escalation, the need to avoid attacks by creating a reputation, that going from self defense to offense is a fairly small step, etc, etc.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

first off, I'm not aware of many (or at the very least statistically relevant) examples of stable innocent civilians suddenly killing to create a "reputation", so as to intimidate people. that is the action taken more typically by criminal gangs and the criminally minded (like Lanza or the Aurora guy), unless you imply that Americans are generally that way--which goes back to the heart of my question). As to escalation of violence: as I said, training people on the responsible use of firearms is a must. if they go overboard, they can always be charged and punished for their actions. So a man who shoots another in the belly in self defense is acceptable, but then he going and shooting him in the head after he's gone down and no longer a clear threat is criminal, as he would be initiating (or rather, re initiating) force. bear in mind, I don't find it morally right for people shooting people in self defense: I only find it "acceptable": a point I made very clear earlier. you also assume that every self defense situation will end with people shooting their weapons: just having one cocked in your face is enough to scare most people (and in fact, that's how it usually ends). even crying out that you have one is surprisingly effective. Criminals, being people, typically have fear of dying. hard to grasp that not all criminals are like this guy, but they aren't. :clown:

Quote:

---

Basically, it's a question of different focus. If there's man-eating tigers running around on the street, of course you should need equipment to deal with it. But the issue is the tigers, not the equipment.
If things are working well, then you shouldn't be needing to be worried about the tigers enough to require the equipment. And most of the West has things working well enough for tigers to not be a serious issue and considers this to be a sign of that things are working.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No, it is not a question of focus/perspective. It shouldn't have to matter if there is a need for a firearm or not. I may not like it (neither do most Palestinians--look up our statistics)--I know you don't--but I respect the right people have to have weapons.

this is especially as you are ignoring why people often actually acquire firearms (which I specified earlier)--which I must add is typical (though not universal) for AR-15 users. people don't always buy them for self defense--be it from large predators or from violent criminals: they often buy it for sports, for collecting, and even for rural activities (here in Texas, rifles are commonly used for shooting feral pigs: they cause a lot of trouble, and are good sport in many cases). why deprive them of their weapons if they never intend, and likely never will, ever shoot at any person with them? should certain persons, who keep their weapons in a safe well away from a bedroom be held for it, even though they cannot practicably use it in defense from most criminals? Also, the firearms everyone is wetting their pants over, as Lemur pointed out, are rarely involved in gun violence in the US anyhow. there's a source at the bottom if you want to see. Also, if we're going to use your very logic, you'd still have to see my point, as some of the uses I mentioned are utilitarian (hunting (for food), culling feral pigs, etc). Self defense where applicable is technically speaking, a utilitarian task use too, isn't it?

besides, as I said earlier, such rules in the US are doomed to fail, due to the nature of the distribution of weapons here.

Quote:

---

The US attitude is more of that all individuals should have heavy defenses vs tigers, no matter the cost. With the above focus, this attitude is already a failure.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

what other people think is irrelevant to my thoughts here. And so what? they're free to do what they want as long as no one is initiating force with it. they can live with the consequences on their wallets.

Quote:

---

And since violent crimes are different from tigers, you could ask what common sense tells you about the consequences from saturating a society with guns and telling them that it's ok to shoot people (but only during specific circumstances)?

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

depends. the US is already a violent place (where applicable), with the strictures placed as they are (e.g. the ban on automatics): banning or restricting guns ignores the actual causes of violence, and punishes civilians for what criminals do. It also fails to remove guns from criminals--at least in America. speaking of violence: you do realize most of the violence (including gun violence), is a largely a product of the war on drugs? (a government initiative) have you seen the crime rate along the border as a result (Juarez is one example)? or those of the inner cities? many of these places have some of the strictest regulations on gun ownership (Chicago being an oft-sited example)--and it hasn't made a dent (same applies in Mexico. as a whole I might add, where gun laws are stricter). the mass murders at sandy hook, Virginia tech and Aurora? those are exceptions to the rule--horrible as they are. most murders are in the inner cities, and connected to the criminal life over there, which often revolves around illegal drugs and similar illicit activities. Similarly, the talk of banning "assault weapons" (a stupid and misleading term) doesn't address why the mass shootings (or more accurately, mass murders) happen: it isn't because there are guns, it's because something is wrong with the person doing it (terrorists, madmen, or what have you). And before you say it makes it possible or deadlier, let me remind you that the deadliest incident of this type didn't involve a single firearm. It instead involved a chemical fertilizer. you can also "ask" Timothy McVeigh if you want: 168 people dead with no more than fertilizer and gas, plus the truck to carry the resulting weapons (bombs). Guns just happen to be the most convenient means, here and throughout the Americas as a whole, regardless of how restrictive or permissive gun policy is in individual countries (the source is below, help yourself). Similarly in Europe, bombs are: just ask the people in London, or in Madrid. And if a person wants to do mass murder with a firearm, then no matter the restrictions, they'll do it anyways. it's terrible, it sucks, but what can be done? it's clear restricting weapons doesn't do as much as people think.

also, let me tell you about common sense: "common sense", Among other things told people that the sun goes round the earth, or that mold and mice spontaneously appear in rotting materials (look it up), and so on. "common sense" only goes so far--namely no further than the realm of the seen--the obvious, and superficial. It doesn't help that "common sense" is too relative.... what is common sense to an Arab, is not to a European. what is to me, is not to you. what is to me (an Arab), is not to my Dad (another Arab). etc.

Quote:

---

I can tell that it's 19 times more likely for a cop to die in the line of duty in the US compared to the UK. There's been more cops killed in the US in 2013 (it's a calm start this year btw) than in the UK 2000-2013. Cause or counter cause?
It's certainly related to why the cops are more violent in the US.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

again, that is likely tied to the nature of crime in the US, as much as it is potentially due to restrictions or lack thereof. let's face it, the UK doesn't have a war on drugs approach, or the demand that the US has for illicit drugs, or the proximity to the major drug production centers in Latin America (which themselves are only there because of drug prohibition creating the need for a black market), and the resulting criminal activity.

this is relevant, seeing as how most of those same police, are dead from dealing with some of the effects of our criminal situation, not merely because of citizens having guns (who aren't even causing trouble for the most part)[put another way: it's the criminals who are doing most of the shootings, not Average Joe, and there are so many of them because of our stupid justice system]. further, the UK's cops have no firearms themselves, so there is even less need for criminals to use firearms to escape said cops. if there were a need for it, and a similar set of circumstances as in America, I'd guarantee you than no amount of restrictions will stop the resulting black market, and the homicides from guns, from shooting up like mad. it certainly didn't in Egypt before the Arab spring (which had a homicide rate comparable to Britain's, but with almost half being by firearms, compared to almost none in the UK), and it isn't doing so in Mexico, or Columbia, or the Philippines, India, Pakistan, or most other countries I can name from their sort (all of which, you can look up in the links given).

and this becomes even more starkly apparent, when you go to Latin America: homicide rates in Mexico are consistently higher for instance (including cop deaths), yet gun laws are stricter than those in the US--much stricter in some cases. Mexico BTW is similar in its approach to what gun control advocates are demanding these days: long arms of a military design are banned there. doesn't seem to have helped one bit. Hell, in some cases, it makes the situation harder for some people.

point is, correlation, is not the same as causation. UK's low gun deaths can be argued as being because of the restrictions, true. But also potentially because people there, simply have different circumstances than those in the US (or Egypt....).

US' figures on homicide, gun homicide, etc: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

first off Ironsides, I was discussing the monopoly of violence concept. I was disputing that it should be the case with regards to the State: the gun control part was an aspect of it (my attitude of which is incidental to the first part). secondly, I don't see how your reply answered the question you are supposedly reading (which I suggest you read carefully). but since you did reply, and I found it interesting:

---

More clearly then. By restricting the amount of acccepted violence to a minimum, like you do with the monopoly of violence, you're reducing violence in total. By accepting a certain use of violence, you'll also get more violent criminals, because they reflect their own culture. That the US has surrendered the idea of the monopoly of violence for now, is a loss, even if it might be an adaptation for the current situation.

I've already pointed out my position on the US, allow more research to get decent laws on the issue. But don't pretend for a minute that the mentality to guns among criminals isn't influenced by the gun mentality among the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

first off, I'm not aware of many (or at the very least statistically relevant) examples of stable innocent civilians suddenly killing to create a "reputation", so as to intimidate people. that is the action taken more typically by criminal gangs and the criminally minded (like Lanza or the Aurora guy), unless you imply that Americans are generally that way--which goes back to the heart of my question). As to escalation of violence: as I said, training people on the responsible use of firearms is a must. if they go overboard, they can always be charged and punished for their actions. So a man who shoots another in the belly in self defense is acceptable, but then he going and shooting him in the head after he's gone down and no longer a clear threat is criminal, as he would be initiating (or rather, re initiating) force. bear in mind, I don't find it morally right for people shooting people in self defense: I only find it "acceptable": a point I made very clear earlier. you also assume that every self defense situation will end with people shooting their weapons: just having one cocked in your face is enough to scare most people (and in fact, that's how it usually ends). even crying out that you have one is surprisingly effective. Criminals, being people, typically have fear of dying. hard to grasp that not all criminals are like this guy, but they aren't. :clown:

---

Reputation here refers to regions where the legal control has lapsed a bit, say ghettos. And it's about appearing scary. Usually it's solved by that, but in some cases it ends up in violence. Our version of animal territory aggression and defense.
Escalation is when both parties have access to guns. Sure not all conflicts ends up with shooting (if nothing else, because robbery is a lesser crime than murder), but the odds of a conflict ending in killing increases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No, it is not a question of focus/perspective. It shouldn't have to matter if there is a need for a firearm or not. I may not like it (neither do most Palestinians--look up our statistics)--I know you don't--but I respect the right people have to have weapons.

this is especially as you are ignoring why people often actually acquire firearms (which I specified earlier)--which I must add is typical (though not universal) for AR-15 users. people don't always buy them for self defense--be it from large predators or from violent criminals: they often buy it for sports, for collecting, and even for rural activities (here in Texas, rifles are commonly used for shooting feral pigs: they cause a lot of trouble, and are good sport in many cases). why deprive them of their weapons if they never intend, and likely never will, ever shoot at any person with them? should certain persons, who keep their weapons in a safe well away from a bedroom be held for it, even though they cannot practicably use it in defense from most criminals? Also, the firearms everyone is wetting their pants over, as Lemur pointed out, are rarely involved in gun violence in the US anyhow. there's a source at the bottom if you want to see. Also, if we're going to use your very logic, you'd still have to see my point, as some of the uses I mentioned are utilitarian (hunting (for food), culling feral pigs, etc). Self defense where applicable is technically speaking, a utilitarian task use too, isn't it?

besides, as I said earlier, such rules in the US are doomed to fail, due to the nature of the distribution of weapons here.

---

The alternative uses are almost entirely squished in between in this debate. Sweden is a hunting nation, so there's plenty of firearms. All weapons are licenced and registered. Handguns are almost impossible to get outside practice shooting in a gun range. Good luck getting anywhere near something like that in the US. And the limiter are guns for defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

what other people think is irrelevant to my thoughts here. And so what? they're free to do what they want as long as no one is initiating force with it. they can live with the consequences on their wallets.

---

Wallets? You're in the life insurance buissness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

depends. the US is already a violent place (where applicable), with the strictures placed as they are (e.g. the ban on automatics): banning or restricting guns ignores the actual causes of violence, and punishes civilians for what criminals do. It also fails to remove guns from criminals--at least in America. speaking of violence: you do realize most of the violence (including gun violence), is a largely a product of the war on drugs? (a government initiative) have you seen the crime rate along the border as a result (Juarez is one example)? or those of the inner cities? many of these places have some of the strictest regulations on gun ownership (Chicago being an oft-sited example)--and it hasn't made a dent (same applies in Mexico. as a whole I might add, where gun laws are stricter). the mass murders at sandy hook, Virginia tech and Aurora? those are exceptions to the rule--horrible as they are. most murders are in the inner cities, and connected to the criminal life over there, which often revolves around illegal drugs and similar illicit activities. Similarly, the talk of banning "assault weapons" (a stupid and misleading term) doesn't address why the mass shootings (or more accurately, mass murders) happen: it isn't because there are guns, it's because something is wrong with the person doing it (terrorists, madmen, or what have you). And before you say it makes it possible or deadlier, let me remind you that the deadliest incident of this type didn't involve a single firearm. It instead involved a chemical fertilizer. you can also "ask" Timothy McVeigh if you want: 168 people dead with no more than fertilizer and gas, plus the truck to carry the resulting weapons (bombs). Guns just happen to be the most convenient means, here and throughout the Americas as a whole, regardless of how restrictive or permissive gun policy is in individual countries (the source is below, help yourself). Similarly in Europe, bombs are: just ask the people in London, or in Madrid. And if a person wants to do mass murder with a firearm, then no matter the restrictions, they'll do it anyways. it's terrible, it sucks, but what can be done? it's clear restricting weapons doesn't do as much as people think.

also, let me tell you about common sense: "common sense", Among other things told people that the sun goes round the earth, or that mold and mice spontaneously appear in rotting materials (look it up), and so on. "common sense" only goes so far--namely no further than the realm of the seen--the obvious, and superficial. It doesn't help that "common sense" is too relative.... what is common sense to an Arab, is not to a European. what is to me, is not to you. what is to me (an Arab), is not to my Dad (another Arab). etc.

---

Timothy McVeigh is in another category than the shooters. The shooters would not simply replace it with bombs, since the act of shooting (aka directly taking lives) is a major part of why they do it.
Well actual research is forbidden. But existing research does imply that common sense works here. Legal citizens and criminals does share a lot of cultural attitudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

again, that is likely tied to the nature of crime in the US, as much as it is potentially due to restrictions or lack thereof. let's face it, the UK doesn't have a war on drugs approach, or the demand that the US has for illicit drugs, or the proximity to the major drug production centers in Latin America (which themselves are only there because of drug prohibition creating the need for a black market), and the resulting criminal activity.

---

Not that much kills in the border states. I do wonder why Georgia is such a cop killer state though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

this is relevant, seeing as how most of those same police, are dead from dealing with some of the effects of our criminal situation, not merely because of citizens having guns (who aren't even causing trouble for the most part)[put another way: it's the criminals who are doing most of the shootings, not Average Joe, and there are so many of them because of our stupid justice system]. further, the UK's cops have no firearms themselves, so there is even less need for criminals to use firearms to escape said cops. if there were a need for it, and a similar set of circumstances as in America, I'd guarantee you than no amount of restrictions will stop the resulting black market, and the homicides from guns, from shooting up like mad. point is, correlation, is not the same as causation. UK's low gun deaths can be argued as being because of the restrictions, true. But also potentially because people there, simply have different circumstances than those in the US (or Egypt....).

---

So you say that it's the gun attitude that is the underlying problem (with gun regulation as a patching, unless it influences the attitude). So how do you handle the underlying problem? Personally I would give the monpoly of violence as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

It sounds like we should be pushing to legalize new full auto production. It will be less dangerous, even in a crowded room and force a shooter to go through rounds faster, right horetore?

---

Basically.

The only sense I see in a ban on fully automatic, is if it's a just the first step of an eventual ban on all weapons. Ie the slippery slope. But even then, I don't consider "slippery slope"-bans to be an effective way of establishing complete bans. If you want to ban something completely, I believe you need to take rather big steps, ones which will have a real impact on day to day life.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/043...ith-jim-carrey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

My point:
If you allow semi-automatic weapons, I see no reason to ban fully automatic weapons. If the image of a loon walking around with a machine gun killing hundreds of people is what upsets you, wouldn't it be more productive to look at the type of weapon, rather than its mode of fire? Ie., propose a ban on "military weapons", and allow "civilian weapons"(though good luck defining those)? Or just scrap weapon differentiating all together and look for alternative solutions.

---

Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about. :hmg:

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about.

---

Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

https://i.imgur.com/WojmBpj.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

---

It won't fit in the garage. And the mileage is atrocious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

---

The police should also be unarmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The police should also be unarmed.

---

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

---

They are not cool toys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

---

Yes, I read the article and the parts that said the state can allow private people to have weapons. And even the german state allows private people to have weapons. If they have a good reason and can prove it. Wanting to kill the government or the need to shoot a guy who is carrying your TV in the back are not considered good reasons. In a more American way I think it can be interpreted against free gun sales and more background and other checks. The liberals and NRA still won't like it of course since they believe in the virtue and law of lynch mobs, avengers and people who shoot their girlfriend through the bathroom door because they thought there was an intruder sitting on their toilet.

The way we've been taught in school thougj is indeed that the state should not give away too much of the monopole on violence so that it can still effectively maintain order and the rule of law. This is still the case even in the USA because the police adapted to the violence-ability of the citizenry by using tasers the first time a citizen says "no" and sending SWAT teams even to small-time and suspected criminals because they're afraid to die otherwise. If the homeowner is too tired to get that the police is coming instead of gangsters or the police fail to identify (everybody can say "police", even a gangster), there are often armed confrontations where people die.

It may be silly to think the US could have considerably fewer guns in 20 years but even guns don't last forever so as a long-term policy, more restrictions on guns would indeed work. Couple it with an amnesty for people who turn in their guns and you can already take a few away. Also how do pro-gun people think about just these measures being used in Iraq? Were the iraqi citizens deprived of their right to self-defense or was it necessary to prevent violence against the US oppressors? Would you rather have your government hand out weapons to Iraqis and Afghanis so that the upstanding good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns?

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has. This is a new world and our experiment is working reasonably well. We don't have 2000 years of state tyranny that we are coming out from underneath like in Europe. We came from lawlessness and are building a new type of state, where the government does as little as possible, leaving the majority to the decisions of the individual.

Laws have no moral authority, merely the authority of force. Democracy with local decentralized systems have no moral authority over us as individuals, either. No state has any authority over you in any other way but force. We do well to create restrictions on that force to ensure that it stays on mission and not creep into much of our daily life. We do best to give it just enough oxygen to survive and serve lest it conquer us.

Of course, this requires an informed and responsible electorate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has.

---

This is no different from Europe. The state here is legitimized by the people, not the other way around. The only advantage you have is that you promote responsible citizenship a bit more, however, I don't see it working much better in practice given that you have a two party system. ~;)

So is it only USA that kicks up a fit if their guns get the banhammer?

Living in Australia, I can't really grasp the concept of such freely available guns - what's the point? Can someone fill me in on the details?
TBH I don't actually understand why so many Americans kick and scream with this sort of legislation: something to do with ancient rights for militia, back when standing armies were scifi.

The State is the People, and the People is the State.

The State isn't a concept seperate from its citizens, rather it is the collective will of the people.

(I am of course only speaking of the modern western democratic state)

You do not need a semi automatic to go pig hunting.

I've seen myself hunters in NZ take down wild boars with dogs to flush and knives to kill the boar.

=][=

Given the current premise that the second amendment is to defend against state tyranny then one thinks that it shouldn't be restricted to civilian weapons. It should be equivalent ones so that civilians have an equal footing vs the state.

Personally I think you should change the amendment to reflect modern society. Either make it regulated in the checked and licensed sense OR remove all regulation and explicitly make it an individuals right. It is an amendment, amend it as you will. Just make it make sense in a modern context, one where professional armies exist as the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

They are not cool toys.

---

You obviously don't have access to a lot of gun porn. Magazines targeted to both LEOs and gun nuts portray them as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The State is the People, and the People is the State.

The State isn't a concept seperate from its citizens, rather it is the collective will of the people.

(I am of course only speaking of the modern western democratic state)

---

Horetore:

ICSD may have expressed himself in a fashion that didn't help his point, but his point is a good one. We yanks have always conceived of our rights differently than you have framed them in your comment above.

We have, traditionally, viewed our rights (freedom of speech, worship, to bear arms, etc.) as natural (some say God-given) rights and not as the collective will of the people. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, but articulates and confirms the government's inability to restrict those rights that we conceive as being an integral part of any individual.

Thus, the concept is not: State = the collected wit/wisdom/history of the people who comprise it, who in turn choose to accord certain rights to one another.

Instead, is is: People possess innate rights, establishing a collective state only as a means of protecting these rights (involved some minor restriction of those rights so that all may enjoy them without harming others) and accomplishing those things which are wholly impractical for the individual to provide for themselves.


I would also note, however, that I sense an increasing shift toward a definition of rights analogous to that you defined above among some of my fellow citizens. As a Lockean civil-contract type myself, I prefer the traditional definition.

Whats happening in Greece is a pretty good argument against gun prohibition

It is because the US law system is based on a synthesis of UK law tradition with inspiration from the European Enlightenment. As such most US laws are based on stating what you can't do, not what you can.

Liberty is freedom within the law. Society does not equal individual freedom it equals liberty. A fair society makes those laws as fair as possible across all varieties of people (race, sex or creed).

=][=

IMDHO Gun access should be about maximizing liberty. It's a responsibility not vigilantism. It's a tool not for tooling around with.

As such I fall on the side that says anyone of sound mind who can govern their own affairs should be able to buy, store, manufacturer and train with any weapon. The licensing would be similar to a car license for the individual to show sufficient ability, alertness and no mental health issues.

However the responsibilty that comes with that would be hefty. I'd make it that you cannot weaponise any household with mentally ill yet physically capable members reside (so a mentally ill quadriplegic wouldn't trigger a result). I'd also make it that registered gun owners can be called up by the state for emergencies from natural disaster to man made. Not for their weapons, just for man power... As they should all be able bodied and sound of mind and helpful in a bush fire or hurricane cleanup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Horetore:

ICSD may have expressed himself in a fashion that didn't help his point, but his point is a good one. We yanks have always conceived of our rights differently than you have framed them in your comment above.

We have, traditionally, viewed our rights (freedom of speech, worship, to bear arms, etc.) as natural (some say God-given) rights and not as the collective will of the people. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, but articulates and confirms the government's inability to restrict those rights that we conceive as being an integral part of any individual.

Thus, the concept is not: State = the collected wit/wisdom/history of the people who comprise it, who in turn choose to accord certain rights to one another.

Instead, is is: People possess innate rights, establishing a collective state only as a means of protecting these rights (involved some minor restriction of those rights so that all may enjoy them without harming others) and accomplishing those things which are wholly impractical for the individual to provide for themselves.


I would also note, however, that I sense an increasing shift toward a definition of rights analogous to that you defined above among some of my fellow citizens. As a Lockean civil-contract type myself, I prefer the traditional definition.

---

I wasn't talking about principle, I was talking about reality. And the reality is that the rights you have are the ones given you to the state, who in turn represent the collective will of the american people. The reason it's not the other way around, is that the US state has the ability to use violence to force you into obedience, as long as it acts in accordance with the collective will of the people. You cannot apply violence to force the state to recognize your rights, all you can do is try to change the collective will, which will in turn change the state.

If you want it otherwise, you would have to disassemble the state and it's ability to use violence, in effect making each of you a one-man state. And of course live in total isolation, because once you meet other people, your rights will be determined by the will of those you meet as well the power ratio between the two of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Whats happening in Greece is a pretty good argument against gun prohibition

---

You think giving guns to a few million nazi's and communist who are looking to establish dictatorships is a good idea...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I wasn't talking about principle, I was talking about reality. And the reality is that the rights you have are the ones given you to the state, who in turn represent the collective will of the american people. The reason it's not the other way around, is that the US state has the ability to use violence to force you into obedience, as long as it acts in accordance with the collective will of the people. You cannot apply violence to force the state to recognize your rights, all you can do is try to change the collective will, which will in turn change the state.

If you want it otherwise, you would have to disassemble the state and it's ability to use violence, in effect making each of you a one-man state. And of course live in total isolation, because once you meet other people, your rights will be determined by the will of those you meet as well the power ratio between the two of you.

---

Sorry, for reasons I am having trouble articulating to myself, your response is pissing me off. I will therefore not respond at the present time with any counterpoints.