ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Self defence is a basic human right.
I strongly agree. 93%  93%  [ 26 ]
I somewhat agree. 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
I disagree. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 28
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:57 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6428
Location: Halifax, NS
Ryan A wrote:
To me, self defense and the right to bare arms have nothing to do with each other. Both are important but I think they can be answered completely separately without notice of the position on the other.


In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or individuals acting collectively was once a matter of debate, and the basis for any right at all hotly contested. However, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:37 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
Yes I am aware of the case.

Just because the Supreme Court says something does not mean I agree with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:58 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
I think you're vastly underestimating the effect a single compitant rifleman can have. Also, you're assuming that a lightly armed civilian militia would rely on conventional tactics, facing tanks and planes directly, rather than relying on guerilla tactics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:53 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
"No kidding, obviously a small person would not get in a fist fight, they would run away." - Ryan A

A 70-year-old woman could realistically defend herself with a handgun. How fast do you really think she can run?

"Also, not like a handicap person could ever use a gun." - Ryan A

Why not?

"I am saying you should run away if you value your life." - Ryan A

So, if I'm out with my family and we're approached by a knife weilding thug, then I should run away like a scared rabbit and leave my wife and three-year-old son the fend for themselves? That's just not an option for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:10 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
Of course, I can think of many self defense situations where I'd rather sink a choke or an ankle lock than shoot someone. Shooting someone would be a last resort reserved for situations that I couldn't handle any other way ..... something I hope I never have to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:55 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
Of course, I can think of many self defense situations where I'd rather sink a choke or an ankle lock than shoot someone. Shooting someone would be a last resort reserved for situations that I couldn't handle any other way ..... something I hope I never have to do.

I agree with that and that is my point. Most situations could be handled better than shooting someone. That is mostly what I am saying.

A 70-year-old woman could realistically defend herself with a handgun. How fast do you really think she can run?

Fair enough. Some people would be in trouble in some cases. I would rather save the majority of people with strict gun control and risk things like this than know that everyone is carrying a gun and a guy that walks out of a bar and stumbles into me might shoot me for no good reason.

If people quit drinking, doing drugs, and passed strict psychological testing, I would be okay with them having a gun. If any one of those things is not satisfied, I would never consider them having a gun. Many elderly people suffer impaired mental faculties and I think that is something to consider when you talk about arming the elderly.

So, if I'm out with my family and we're approached by a knife weilding thug, then I should run away like a scared rabbit and leave my wife and three-year-old son the fend for themselves? That's just not an option for me.

Yeah, that is a tough situation. Let's say this happens, would you just pull out the gun and shoot the guy or would you say "stop, I have a gun" and let him run away? My fear is that people would start shooting people to "defend" themselves when the threat of the gun would have been enough, and that to me, is not self defense. It would be like allowing police to shoot you when they pulled you over for speeding because they "thought you might have maybe" leaned over to grab a weapon, and really you were just leaning over to grab your wallet.

I understand there are some people who are perfectly capable of having a gun. I also know there are some people who are not. When people start talking about guns as the best self defense I feel they are being unrealistic about the intelligence of people. Not to mention, that even the most careful of individuals can have some freak accident happen. It is very hard to hit yourself on accident, but a gun is something to be concerned about. Put another way, there is a zero percent chance of hitting yourself to death, but a nonzero chance of shooting yourself on accident.

I also feel like although guns might address the symptom (people being violent and materialistic and using force to acquire things), they do nothing to address the problem, people with a poor understanding of social dynamics and the necessary attitudes to live in society. Rather than send everyone to the shooting range and gun safety courses, I would rather see the effort put into educating people on why violence occurs and convincing people that it does not benefit a collection of individuals.

I am not saying it is a black and white situation. I feel like a very high percentage of the time, guns do not really help the situation. Due to this, I think the effort that it would take to give everyone the proper training to have a gun, could be spent elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:59 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
"Yeah, that is a tough situation. Let's say this happens, would you just pull out the gun and shoot the guy or would you say "stop, I have a gun" and let him run away?" - Ryan A

That depends ..... How close is he? Is he moving toward me? Is he actually trying to stab someone or just threatening? How does he react when he sees that I'm armed? Without actually being there it's hard to say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:29 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
In the US anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I feel the same standard should apply to firearms ownership and lawful concealed carry. It's not my responsibility to prove that I am a sane, rational, law-abiding person, but rather the responsibility of the government (federal, state or local) to PROVE I'm a threat before they can infringe upon my constitutional rights.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:32 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
I'm also skeptical that gun control could ever be effective in America. I believe it would only disarm ordinary, law abiding people, while the most the most dangerous individuals would remain armed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:45 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
Of course, that's not to say that I oppose ALL gun control. For example, I fully support background checks.

Nor do I feel that everyone should be armed. I feel it's a personal choice, much like voting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:20 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
In the US anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I feel the same standard should apply to firearms ownership and lawful concealed carry. It's not my responsibility to prove that I am a sane, rational, law-abiding person, but rather the responsibility of the government (federal, state or local) to PROVE I'm a threat before they can infringe upon my constitutional rights.

When you presume someone is innocent, there are very different circumstances. The crime has already been done, the accused is presumably in custody and no danger to anyone. In this case, you are going to be out in the public domain, and would be a danger to many people should you not be mentally stable, etc.

Under your standards, we shouldn't license people to drive cars because until they get in a wreck, they have done nothing wrong and are thus, entitled to drive.

Cars and guns, along with many other things, are dangerous in the hands of an unprepared/untrained person. Therefore we licence people to do these things to keep people from getting killed/injured and then after the fact saying "Hmmm, letting that guy drive was a bad idea. Now that someone is dead, we can conclude he should not be driving."

The constitution and the most recent interpretation of the constitution may say citizens have the right to bare arms, but it does not say there is a limit on how many hoops the government can make citizens jump through to get the guns.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:42 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
Very few criminal suspects are denied bail while awaiting trial. This is normally only done when someone has demonstrated himself/herself to be a flight risk.

Meanwhile, there is no constitutional right to drive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:50 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4442
Location: Pennsylvania
Likewise, I don't know of anyone in this country who's trying to ban cars. There is however an entire movement dedicated to banning firearms by any means possible. That's why gun owners are suspicious of gun control.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:20 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
Meanwhile, there is no constitutional right to drive.

Yes, so what? Realistically speaking, I do not want to ban guns. I want to make them very hard to get unless you can demonstrate, without a doubt, you are a similar risk to those around you as driving a car.

I would love to see more control of people obtaining driver's licenses. Especially among the elderly, like my own grandfather, who is frankly, a risk to those around him, when he drives.

As I said, although I agree people have a right bare arms, I wish they would choose to do otherwise, and that they would choose to make decisions that create a society in which it makes more sense not to carry guns. I think making it very difficult to a get a weapon that can kill dozens of people is the minimum the government should have to do for its citizens.

On the car note, you may not be aware that in CA, the driving age is trying to be raised to 18, from 17 where it currently is. So in a sense, control of driving is increasing. We also have a more recent program where if you see someone who is driving poorly you can call the DMV and ask that the person be given a driving test. If enough such calls are made, the person can be forced to retake an in vehicle driving test.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
Now that I can agree with. If you can't demonstrate that you can operate a gun or car properly, you don't get to have one. You also can't be crazy. If you get to the point where you can't see well enough to shoot straight or drive. No more shooting or driving.

I think people should have to take a drivers ed class in high school. There are just too many people that can't drive worth a crap.

Guns can be a big fear for some people. But I'll tell you what scares the hell out of me. A dumb soccer mom talking on her cell phone as she recklessly swerves around in her 10 ton SUV. It's a 20 car pile up with multiple fatalities waiting to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group