The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:11 pm

I agree it’s the people, or the “mentality of the society”, if you will. No doubt if man were a different animal instead of Hobbes’ wolf, we would be much better.

When you used the expression “eliminate personal use of weapons” I realized the huge difference, political difference I mean, between your situation and mine. That’s also the reason you mentioned the “last 40 years” issue. I speak English but I don’t follow that close the situation in your country (although I do intend to change that).

Here, there is no such issue. Even if it were, it would be about “liberation”, not “elimination”, and that’s very different. People do talk about the liberation of guns around here, but that’s just water-cooler talk, there’s not much of any serious movement in that direction. I guess even we ourselves, as a people, know deep inside we can’t have guns. Your case is entirely different: you are allowed to have guns since your Constitution. This is an acquired right since America is America, so the issue is very different. But I am not entitled to discuss your country with any depth, and I don't even disclosure my country exactly because I don't want to get into the sad details of my dirt, so I guess I should leave it at that.

The “false sense of the police” is the really sad thing though, and it concerns my original point. We’ll never be able to be where every crime is committed, so the changes must be much deeper than the correct use of the police force or the use of guns by the people — in your country or in mine — so that crime is reduced by the lack of social and economic incentives. Bottom-up, like I said previously.

Unfortunately, that’s a utopia here… and maybe there too, huh?

You too be safe.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Necromancer » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:28 pm

Mnemoriam wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:21 pm
I am a cop. ... my country (in Latin America). Almost everybody here claim they should be allowed to carry guns, and I totally see why. The government is a total failure. The police is a failure. And I, being a cop, feel the utmost shame for being a part of it,...
Given the self-defence of people and the teaching example of USA where they have managed to assemble the World's mightiest army and generate FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google/Alphabet) and Microsoft, Intel, Apple, AMD and many others, we, the rest of the World should learn something. As with managing the personal life as adult duty, maybe we should manage own security also to a large extent by these peppersprays and revolvers/pistols (and maybe too, the martial arts)?

You write you're a cop in Latin-America. That can't hardly be a teaching example: corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc.

Quickly inferred: USA is the leader of the free World. The only thing that is stopping all other states and nations to do the same is the level of corruption in these states and nations as well as the lack of campaign to make the populations open their eyes due to evidence by our teaching example of a largely religious nation, USA! USA! USA! USA!

Go, go, go! :D 8) :mrgreen:

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:24 pm

Necromancer wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:28 pm
You write you're a cop in Latin-America. That can't hardly be a teaching example: corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc.
I never meant to teach anything. I am just forwarding my opinion.

Please, clarify which of these options you mean:
A) My country is full of "corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc", so what can I say about anything?
B) I am full of "corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc", so what can I say about anything?
C) There is no "corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc" in the USA, so they are doing everything right.
D) All of the above.

I suspect you will choose "D", but, in any case, I won't argue with you.
Necromancer wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:28 pm
Quickly inferred: USA is the leader of the free World. The only thing that is stopping all other states and nations to do the same is the level of corruption in these states and nations as well as the lack of campaign to make the populations open their eyes due to evidence by our teaching example of a largely religious nation, USA! USA! USA! USA!
Whenever in doubt, just look what USA is doing or ask an American. Is that it?

I guess you hardly need Philosophy to answer your questions then.

I wish you luck with your guns. I really do.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Necromancer » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:29 pm

Mnemoriam wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:24 pm
I never meant to teach anything. I am just forwarding my opinion.

Please, clarify which of these options you mean:
A) My country is full of "corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc", so what can I say about anything?
B) I am full of "corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc", so what can I say about anything?
C) There is no "corruption, drugs, violence, sexual abuse etc" in the USA, so they are doing everything right.
D) All of the above.

I suspect you will choose "D", but, in any case, I won't argue with you.

Whenever in doubt, just look what USA is doing or ask an American. Is that it?

I guess you hardly need Philosophy to answer your questions then.

I wish you luck with your guns. I really do.
Clearly, you're entitled your every word (to certain confines, i.e., hate speech etc.)!
I don't write "full of..." I simply write that Latin-America has its problems too and they're not small.
Philosophy or not, the peppersprays and pistols/revolvers are actually a deep point in trusting people to do the good thing.
You should know it's the morally depraved people who fail to handle the peppersprays and pistols/revolvers, sometimes/often shooting their brains out if they get to a gun. So, by not allowing the population the self-defence, the morally depraved people actually get extra protection by that!

Then USA: I agree that USA doesn't hold all the answers, but they are at least the most successful country in the World, IMO, as I've written, also being one of the co-authors of the Human Rights (UDHR).

Yourself: I find that a population w/o self-defence is destined to revolve in its blackness of hopelessness (until Heaven or death) and never make progress in terms of well-being of the general population, robbing the right/good people of their chance to do a job for the many!

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:43 pm

Do you agree with me that Americans are self-governed?

For the way you laud them (not without reason), I believe you do. Republics, in general, and America’s Democracy, in particular, are based on the principles of self-government. But America’s Democracy is not a direct one (as you surely know); it is a representative one, one that upholds the highest standards of personal freedom.

But isn’t that still self-government? I really believe that’s the kind of democracy Thomas Paine envisioned in his beautiful “Common Sense” pamphlet, and that’s the kind of democracy Lincoln was striving to preserve in his Gettysburg Address: that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

So, if you agree that Americans are self-governed, you must also agree that they do it by representatives. Because the ordinary citizen is not obliged to become a politician and to run for the Senate or the House of Representatives — that’s what representatives are for. “Security”, as Thomas Paine said, is “the true design and end of government”.
Necromancer wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:29 pm
I find that a population w/o self-defence is destined to revolve in its blackness of hopelessness (until Heaven or death) and never make progress in terms of well-being of the general population, robbing the right/good people of their chance to do a job for the many!
Now, by the above passage, you make me think that “self-defense” means “DIY”, do it yourself, and that’s it. If Americans used this approach for self-governing, America would be an Anarchy.

You asked about the duty of parents of the World. I believe it is the duty of the State to protect the parents, the children, everyone. Their self-defense should be a representative one: they elect the right people who in turn must provide security for all by putting up a great team of abnegated men to do it. That’s my opinion.

Yes, the Second Amendment of America’s Constitution protects the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, but in my humble opinion, to evoke this fact as justification enough for continuing to do so today is to ignore the context of the time, a time when Americans had an entire British empire lurking in the dark.

But, again, I am not saying Americans shouldn’t bear arms; the situation is much more complex than I could possibly hope to comprehend with so little study on the matter. And your original post talked about the World at large.

Self-defense of a people shouldn’t be through their own hands. It is a dirty job, and it should be done by the fewest people possible. That’s what the government is for. Or should be…

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:21 am

I would say it is wise for people to culturally own guns, but hardly mandatory. The specific level of spread of gun ownership should resemble that of a herd immunity, where not ever animal is vaccinated against a disease, but enough are to radically reduce the amount of animals at any one time that can be infected, seriously lessening the ability of disease to move about in a population. If enough people own weapons, then there is obviously validity in doing so as a deterrent to violent crimes and burgularies, as well as pedophiles targeting children.

I would add a few stipulations though.

1) I'm not comfortable at all as a Army Infantry Veteran here in the US with much of the gun crowd. The constitutional stipulation isn't remotely dealing with individual gun ownership or protection of homes, but rather that of individual states to remain armed, maintaining militias. In other wards, had Hillary became president, she wouldn't of been able to tell my state, West Virginia, that she was coming into close all the coal mines, and doesn't like how we keep blocking roads, and can order the disarmament of militias. This is a constitutional limitation on the office of Commander in Chief that otherwise a commander and chief would have in regards to prior English and American experience. Restricting Habeas Corpus (a historic right of Commander in Chiefs of the Armed Forces since English times) doesn't effect this, as militias can still be legally armed even then. I'm not aware of a single case during the US civil war of defeated militias facing prosecution for this obvious right of assembly and free association, and bearing arms. It was the act of treason, bearing arms against the state, and a refusal to head martial law that got them chased down, shot up and disbanded, systematically after several years of war. You indeed have a right to bear arms.... but it is a state centered right to have them. It isn't a inherent constitutionally specified right that states have to have them, or that smaller municipalities have to go along with it. A example, the shootout at the OK Corral with Wyatt Earp.... the town banned guns, couldn't have any in the city limits save for going straight to the sheriff to check them in and out upon leaving. The US military itself follows similar rules, private ownership is allowed, but access at all times is restricted by a commander, and your privately owned arms on base must be kept in the arms room.

Similar thinking suggests a state can (and many do somewhat) require gun licenses, proving you are competent to carry a gun. I don't always support gun licenses, the logic being found in the classical version of the movie "Red Dawn", too easy to track down gun owners so as to prevent a effective resistance and guerilla movement from popping up in the face of a invasion of corrupt (Hillary) federal government in a massive tyrannical overreach, such governments must be resisted, foreign or domestic, as the Oath of every US soldier requires, to oppose foreign and domestic enemies. This being said, you could have a different sort of database registered to serial numbers on weapons and heavily encrypted data on certain biomarkers to make sure anyone found carrying a gun is qualified to shoot that gun, to maintain it, and use it safely. Too many idiots ride around with loaded pistols in the glovebox, maintaining arsenals in their homes large enough to equip a infantry platoon. I can't grasp this fascination with firearms. Smears/Mr. Reasonable over on ILP is one such idiot, and I've scolded him many times for it. I myself wouldn't want more than maybe two guns max, a semi automatic M14 for nostalgic reasons (favorite gun from the military I shot) and a shotgun pistol I could load with beanbags, or maybe just a normal shotgun.

I think military Command Sargent Majors should regulate this for a fee, in every state via the National Guard, and require everyone to join a militia, a militia being so loosely defined as a neighborhood watch associated with a gun range, where they can observe you shooting, give a few classes. Sheriffs and police chiefs do this as well, but think that money is better spent on that state level, maintaining the guard preferable. If people more widely knew the rules, they would keep one another in check.

As to the belief that individuals can bare arms, this is merely a opinion of the Supreme Court, not based in the constitution itself, and they also stipulated it was for home defence, which isn't based in the constitution. Such rulings oftentimes get stripped by later supreme courts when they can't find the justification for it in law, a example being the right to gay marriage..... absolutely not found anywhere in the constitution. The right to bare arms has equal validity, perhaps slightly more, as gun rights are actually detailed in the constitution.... but it isn't even a stretch to claim it is a interpretation, as the constitution is written in clear easy to understand English, and this interpretation isn't supported in the text whatsoever as it is written.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of a general, widespread ownership, on the basis of state and not constitutional law. It is only in predominately liberal areas that gun violence is even a issue, most of the US has much lower crime rates, including violent crime, than most parts of Europe. I've only had gun fears once where I live, and it was from out of town drug dealers from Detroit (liberal area selling drugs in a conservative area) stalking me for a while when I walked by. I had to give them the impression while they walked behind me I was packing and was about to pull on them. Other than that, no issue, and my neighborhood has more guns than many large police departments do. It is next to never a issue, unless a kid finds a unsecured weapon and shoot himself in the hand.... and we have strict laws on securing guns in safes when not in use.

I do recommend having your shotguns filled with three types of shot, first load in red kill shot, two.... then load in one yellow bird shot, then load in two bean bags. If you can, have a taser pistol grip added to the shotgun.

This way, you have two beanbags to shoot a intruder with, as well as the taser to take the, down. Neither are guaranteed to work, as tasers don't always take down a large assaliant, and sprays exist which stop the electrical discharge from effecting a person hit. Beanbags can lay a person down fast, but again, depends on where you hit them, and a person panicked isn't always the best shot when some guy is moving rapidly through a door towards them. Bird shot is less potentially lethal, but hurts like hell. This is a final chance to back off, before the more lethal option. You have two kill shots after that, for your standard 5 round pump action shotgun, total of six hits in a home defence situation. Detroit has had a lot of lock in taking the herd immunity approach of widely passing out shotguns, so my advice would apply to them, if you are squeamish on killing. A SOP such as this can be learned and exploited however, so a more lethal approach might be required over time. If everyone is in a militia, then the militia (again, just your local shooting range instructor or police chief, or CSM) has a right to issue how you load and use your weapons in the ordering of a militia. This is a certain, absolute fact, I've read many of the old militia handbooks written in the English language from the 1600s to the Revolution, including Baron Von Steuben's Bluebook (sold in the town next to mine, Steubenville, Ohio.... it is the basis of the US Army Bluebook)..... they certainly grandfathered in the right to order such things, that a inherent right of any militia, and we specify militia in the constitution. It will be a incredible uphill battle for anyone to claim otherwise, as the Library of Congress keeps a anthology of these books in the Rare Books Room (well, the room opposite of it, the Rose Room I think it was, I went through the list a decade a decade ago for the sake of tracking them down).

As to larger "automatic rifle" shootings, I came up with a very unique solution given my speciality in the army that nobody could match me in.... that of clogging up any weapon given to me in record time. People were amazed at my ability in this. If we switched our idiotic focus from regulating what qualifies as a semi or fully automatic rifle, and made it into one where we allowed any rifle, but regulated the alloys of the bullets, we could within a few months put a stop to most shootings, and fool-proof the future against most 3-D and 4-D printed rifles made at home from being a nuisance.

My idea is to not so much as heavily restrict like Obama unlawfully tried to, but rather heavily tax all bullets sold in stores by 10 times the amount, save for at gun ranges, and instead allow a yearly tax free purchase of one clip's worth per weapon type (that is annually for home defense, very few people go through more than one clip in a year defending their homes) and have to present the expended brass stamped be shell for replacements at the end of that year (yes, the army itself does something similar, weighing brass after shooting, hard as hell to find the brass in Alaska in the winter, they melt into the ice after firing).

While the regular types of bullets are heavily restricted via taxation (you can buy them still at exorbitant prices if you absolutely must), each rifle type can instead shoot bullets made of Bismuth. Why Bismuth? Easiest metal I know of that can easily melt in a super heated rifle barrel, the kind of rifle barrels that get hot as hell from repeated firing.

A Bismuth bullet, I believe when shot on single shot, a few every minute or so, should in general get through a barrel without falling apart, clogging everything up. Anything more, and you have a metal mess, a metal find of forming geometric shapes, and a pain in the ass to clean, which would involve heating the barrel up, and letting it all melt out over time, and snaking it repeatedly. Bismuth is non-toxic, used as a ingredient to pepto bismol.

While the Supreme Court would never allow a outright ban to access to normal bullets, or restricting access and training for militias, be it state or independent, they would allow a heavy taxation scheme that takes these protected groups into consideration as far as training access goes, as well as reasonable home protection access. The rest of the bullets for sport or hunting can be made of regulated composite uses, like a Bismuth bullet with a small copper pin core (same pins as locksmith pins to weigh them down for similar trajectories).

If this is done, then congress can ban all access to NON-Bismuth bullets sold on the market save for the groups as described above. This means, your normal shooter heading into a store to buy bullets would have reasonable access to the shitty cheap bullets that clog your rifle up for hours if you over shoot them, unless they are going to fork out a lot of money in taxes, and that is if the store even stocks those bullets.

This means you can hunt with a bismuth bullet, but gotta be a great shot and not require shot after shot after shot in rapid succession just to hit your target.... anyone requiring that much shot shouldn't be hunting in the first damn place, given you are torturing the poor deer. One shot, solid kill or get the hell out of the woods. You can go for the more expensive shot, but it will be painfully expensive. A good shooter wouldn't have issues here.

These bullets will require a few years to go into production, not because they are hard to make, but because they will need to know what size pin to put into ratio per bullet, per type of gun, for trajectories at every range, be it 25 yards, 50, 75, 100, 200, etc. It will take a little time for gun enthusiasts and manufacturers to know what weight-ratio to melt point matches their preferred hunting rifle or pistols. Most major brands of course will figure this out in weeks to months, but some more exotic brands, or antiques, won't know. This needs standardized, and I don't have the funds to hire a couple of guys to do this.

So that's my long term solution to fixing the mass shooting issue. Banning guns English style is deeply unethical and downright evil in the long run, given we already have the ability to make 3-D printed guns, and obviously traditional airsoft printed assault rifles can easily be adjusted to shoot rifles. All the British did was create a crisis soon to explode on themselves in not knowing how to handle the sudden reergence of military grade weapons readily in reach, as 3-D printers become more and more popular. What are they going to do, ban plastic, ban internet downloads for plans? Absolutely ineffective, and police departments haven't a clue how to respond or live in a armed population, much less thrive. Only thing that might slow it down is the difficulty of making propellant for rounds, and that can easily be made in the kitchen.

However, a society well adjusted to gun ownership and not scared at neighbors owning even full arsenals of weapons, has a much better grip on things. If you stick to limited but reasonable access to military grade ammo, and allow a much easier to clog alternative if shot too much in rapid succession, you'll substantially will cut down on mass shootings. If you get rid of weapons all together, the impulse towards violence hardly decreases, if anything, it will go unresolved, like in the U.K., the acid attack capital of the western world. Technological innovations already or just on the horizon will utterly fuck that backwards society, while more mature societies like the US, Switzerland, with widespread gun ownership won't have much of a issue. The problem isn't the gun, and the solution isn't in restricting the aspects of the gun that allows it to be fully automatic, so doing what the democrats do in naming the parts of a rifle and banning them in parts is self defeating and idiotic, it is in the bullets themselves. Once we know the ratings of a bismuth melt ratio per weapons type, we can regulate that rifles coming out show what copper or bismuth shot they can shoot, ban every other alloy, and ban innovations outside this twin bullet system, such as a entrepreneur trying to market tin bullets instead that don't melt outside of the tax scheme. A large buyer of bullets with no explanation for why they want all those high cost bullets can be tipped off to police (buying say, more than 200 rounds).

I do believe my way foreward is the only practical way foreward. It is a recent idea, thus why you never heard of it before. Own any weapon, but restrict the kinds of bullets, but allow really shitty melting bullets to be sold much, much cheaper. Most will hate the bullets, but will quickly grasp you can shoot slowly and still kill deer. Special state exceptions per situation can be made, for types of use, I have no issue with that. We've approached gun control ass backwards up till I figured this out. It is the only viable way foreward. See what happens if you shoot a bunch of bismuth rounds out, you weapon won't work. That's how you do it.

Walker
Posts: 5598
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:29 pm

Mnemoriam wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:11 pm
You too be safe.
After watching the disturbing Daniel Shaver video, do you think that folks should teach their children to not move a muscle after being ordered by a cop to lie face down, no matter what the cop orders after that?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7464
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:14 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:21 am
I would say it is wise for people to culturally own guns, but hardly mandatory. The specific level of spread of gun ownership should resemble that of a herd immunity, where not ever animal is vaccinated against a disease, but enough are to radically reduce the amount of animals at any one time that can be infected, seriously lessening the ability of disease to move about in a population. If enough people own weapons, then there is obviously validity in doing so as a deterrent to violent crimes and burgularies, as well as pedophiles targeting children.

I would add a few stipulations though.

1) I'm not comfortable at all as a Army Infantry Veteran here in the US with much of the gun crowd. The constitutional stipulation isn't remotely dealing with individual gun ownership or protection of homes, but rather that of individual states to remain armed, maintaining militias. In other wards, had Hillary became president, she wouldn't of been able to tell my state, West Virginia, that she was coming into close all the coal mines, and doesn't like how we keep blocking roads, and can order the disarmament of militias. This is a constitutional limitation on the office of Commander in Chief that otherwise a commander and chief would have in regards to prior English and American experience. Restricting Habeas Corpus (a historic right of Commander in Chiefs of the Armed Forces since English times) doesn't effect this, as militias can still be legally armed even then. I'm not aware of a single case during the US civil war of defeated militias facing prosecution for this obvious right of assembly and free association, and bearing arms. It was the act of treason, bearing arms against the state, and a refusal to head martial law that got them chased down, shot up and disbanded, systematically after several years of war. You indeed have a right to bear arms.... but it is a state centered right to have them. It isn't a inherent constitutionally specified right that states have to have them, or that smaller municipalities have to go along with it. A example, the shootout at the OK Corral with Wyatt Earp.... the town banned guns, couldn't have any in the city limits save for going straight to the sheriff to check them in and out upon leaving. The US military itself follows similar rules, private ownership is allowed, but access at all times is restricted by a commander, and your privately owned arms on base must be kept in the arms room.

Similar thinking suggests a state can (and many do somewhat) require gun licenses, proving you are competent to carry a gun. I don't always support gun licenses, the logic being found in the classical version of the movie "Red Dawn", too easy to track down gun owners so as to prevent a effective resistance and guerilla movement from popping up in the face of a invasion of corrupt (Hillary) federal government in a massive tyrannical overreach, such governments must be resisted, foreign or domestic, as the Oath of every US soldier requires, to oppose foreign and domestic enemies. This being said, you could have a different sort of database registered to serial numbers on weapons and heavily encrypted data on certain biomarkers to make sure anyone found carrying a gun is qualified to shoot that gun, to maintain it, and use it safely. Too many idiots ride around with loaded pistols in the glovebox, maintaining arsenals in their homes large enough to equip a infantry platoon. I can't grasp this fascination with firearms. Smears/Mr. Reasonable over on ILP is one such idiot, and I've scolded him many times for it. I myself wouldn't want more than maybe two guns max, a semi automatic M14 for nostalgic reasons (favorite gun from the military I shot) and a shotgun pistol I could load with beanbags, or maybe just a normal shotgun.

I think military Command Sargent Majors should regulate this for a fee, in every state via the National Guard, and require everyone to join a militia, a militia being so loosely defined as a neighborhood watch associated with a gun range, where they can observe you shooting, give a few classes. Sheriffs and police chiefs do this as well, but think that money is better spent on that state level, maintaining the guard preferable. If people more widely knew the rules, they would keep one another in check.

As to the belief that individuals can bare arms, this is merely a opinion of the Supreme Court, not based in the constitution itself, and they also stipulated it was for home defence, which isn't based in the constitution. Such rulings oftentimes get stripped by later supreme courts when they can't find the justification for it in law, a example being the right to gay marriage..... absolutely not found anywhere in the constitution. The right to bare arms has equal validity, perhaps slightly more, as gun rights are actually detailed in the constitution.... but it isn't even a stretch to claim it is a interpretation, as the constitution is written in clear easy to understand English, and this interpretation isn't supported in the text whatsoever as it is written.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of a general, widespread ownership, on the basis of state and not constitutional law. It is only in predominately liberal areas that gun violence is even a issue, most of the US has much lower crime rates, including violent crime, than most parts of Europe. I've only had gun fears once where I live, and it was from out of town drug dealers from Detroit (liberal area selling drugs in a conservative area) stalking me for a while when I walked by. I had to give them the impression while they walked behind me I was packing and was about to pull on them. Other than that, no issue, and my neighborhood has more guns than many large police departments do. It is next to never a issue, unless a kid finds a unsecured weapon and shoot himself in the hand.... and we have strict laws on securing guns in safes when not in use.

I do recommend having your shotguns filled with three types of shot, first load in red kill shot, two.... then load in one yellow bird shot, then load in two bean bags. If you can, have a taser pistol grip added to the shotgun.

This way, you have two beanbags to shoot a intruder with, as well as the taser to take the, down. Neither are guaranteed to work, as tasers don't always take down a large assaliant, and sprays exist which stop the electrical discharge from effecting a person hit. Beanbags can lay a person down fast, but again, depends on where you hit them, and a person panicked isn't always the best shot when some guy is moving rapidly through a door towards them. Bird shot is less potentially lethal, but hurts like hell. This is a final chance to back off, before the more lethal option. You have two kill shots after that, for your standard 5 round pump action shotgun, total of six hits in a home defence situation. Detroit has had a lot of lock in taking the herd immunity approach of widely passing out shotguns, so my advice would apply to them, if you are squeamish on killing. A SOP such as this can be learned and exploited however, so a more lethal approach might be required over time. If everyone is in a militia, then the militia (again, just your local shooting range instructor or police chief, or CSM) has a right to issue how you load and use your weapons in the ordering of a militia. This is a certain, absolute fact, I've read many of the old militia handbooks written in the English language from the 1600s to the Revolution, including Baron Von Steuben's Bluebook (sold in the town next to mine, Steubenville, Ohio.... it is the basis of the US Army Bluebook)..... they certainly grandfathered in the right to order such things, that a inherent right of any militia, and we specify militia in the constitution. It will be a incredible uphill battle for anyone to claim otherwise, as the Library of Congress keeps a anthology of these books in the Rare Books Room (well, the room opposite of it, the Rose Room I think it was, I went through the list a decade a decade ago for the sake of tracking them down).

As to larger "automatic rifle" shootings, I came up with a very unique solution given my speciality in the army that nobody could match me in.... that of clogging up any weapon given to me in record time. People were amazed at my ability in this. If we switched our idiotic focus from regulating what qualifies as a semi or fully automatic rifle, and made it into one where we allowed any rifle, but regulated the alloys of the bullets, we could within a few months put a stop to most shootings, and fool-proof the future against most 3-D and 4-D printed rifles made at home from being a nuisance.

My idea is to not so much as heavily restrict like Obama unlawfully tried to, but rather heavily tax all bullets sold in stores by 10 times the amount, save for at gun ranges, and instead allow a yearly tax free purchase of one clip's worth per weapon type (that is annually for home defense, very few people go through more than one clip in a year defending their homes) and have to present the expended brass stamped be shell for replacements at the end of that year (yes, the army itself does something similar, weighing brass after shooting, hard as hell to find the brass in Alaska in the winter, they melt into the ice after firing).

While the regular types of bullets are heavily restricted via taxation (you can buy them still at exorbitant prices if you absolutely must), each rifle type can instead shoot bullets made of Bismuth. Why Bismuth? Easiest metal I know of that can easily melt in a super heated rifle barrel, the kind of rifle barrels that get hot as hell from repeated firing.

A Bismuth bullet, I believe when shot on single shot, a few every minute or so, should in general get through a barrel without falling apart, clogging everything up. Anything more, and you have a metal mess, a metal find of forming geometric shapes, and a pain in the ass to clean, which would involve heating the barrel up, and letting it all melt out over time, and snaking it repeatedly. Bismuth is non-toxic, used as a ingredient to pepto bismol.

While the Supreme Court would never allow a outright ban to access to normal bullets, or restricting access and training for militias, be it state or independent, they would allow a heavy taxation scheme that takes these protected groups into consideration as far as training access goes, as well as reasonable home protection access. The rest of the bullets for sport or hunting can be made of regulated composite uses, like a Bismuth bullet with a small copper pin core (same pins as locksmith pins to weigh them down for similar trajectories).

If this is done, then congress can ban all access to NON-Bismuth bullets sold on the market save for the groups as described above. This means, your normal shooter heading into a store to buy bullets would have reasonable access to the shitty cheap bullets that clog your rifle up for hours if you over shoot them, unless they are going to fork out a lot of money in taxes, and that is if the store even stocks those bullets.

This means you can hunt with a bismuth bullet, but gotta be a great shot and not require shot after shot after shot in rapid succession just to hit your target.... anyone requiring that much shot shouldn't be hunting in the first damn place, given you are torturing the poor deer. One shot, solid kill or get the hell out of the woods. You can go for the more expensive shot, but it will be painfully expensive. A good shooter wouldn't have issues here.

These bullets will require a few years to go into production, not because they are hard to make, but because they will need to know what size pin to put into ratio per bullet, per type of gun, for trajectories at every range, be it 25 yards, 50, 75, 100, 200, etc. It will take a little time for gun enthusiasts and manufacturers to know what weight-ratio to melt point matches their preferred hunting rifle or pistols. Most major brands of course will figure this out in weeks to months, but some more exotic brands, or antiques, won't know. This needs standardized, and I don't have the funds to hire a couple of guys to do this.

So that's my long term solution to fixing the mass shooting issue. Banning guns English style is deeply unethical and downright evil in the long run, given we already have the ability to make 3-D printed guns, and obviously traditional airsoft printed assault rifles can easily be adjusted to shoot rifles. All the British did was create a crisis soon to explode on themselves in not knowing how to handle the sudden reergence of military grade weapons readily in reach, as 3-D printers become more and more popular. What are they going to do, ban plastic, ban internet downloads for plans? Absolutely ineffective, and police departments haven't a clue how to respond or live in a armed population, much less thrive. Only thing that might slow it down is the difficulty of making propellant for rounds, and that can easily be made in the kitchen.

However, a society well adjusted to gun ownership and not scared at neighbors owning even full arsenals of weapons, has a much better grip on things. If you stick to limited but reasonable access to military grade ammo, and allow a much easier to clog alternative if shot too much in rapid succession, you'll substantially will cut down on mass shootings. If you get rid of weapons all together, the impulse towards violence hardly decreases, if anything, it will go unresolved, like in the U.K., the acid attack capital of the western world. Technological innovations already or just on the horizon will utterly fuck that backwards society, while more mature societies like the US, Switzerland, with widespread gun ownership won't have much of a issue. The problem isn't the gun, and the solution isn't in restricting the aspects of the gun that allows it to be fully automatic, so doing what the democrats do in naming the parts of a rifle and banning them in parts is self defeating and idiotic, it is in the bullets themselves. Once we know the ratings of a bismuth melt ratio per weapons type, we can regulate that rifles coming out show what copper or bismuth shot they can shoot, ban every other alloy, and ban innovations outside this twin bullet system, such as a entrepreneur trying to market tin bullets instead that don't melt outside of the tax scheme. A large buyer of bullets with no explanation for why they want all those high cost bullets can be tipped off to police (buying say, more than 200 rounds).

I do believe my way foreward is the only practical way foreward. It is a recent idea, thus why you never heard of it before. Own any weapon, but restrict the kinds of bullets, but allow really shitty melting bullets to be sold much, much cheaper. Most will hate the bullets, but will quickly grasp you can shoot slowly and still kill deer. Special state exceptions per situation can be made, for types of use, I have no issue with that. We've approached gun control ass backwards up till I figured this out. It is the only viable way foreward. See what happens if you shoot a bunch of bismuth rounds out, you weapon won't work. That's how you do it.
Fuckwit.

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:23 pm

Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:29 pm
After watching the disturbing Daniel Shaver video, do you think that folks should teach their children to not move a muscle after being ordered by a cop to lie face down, no matter what the cop orders after that?
Beginning by answering your question: No.

The problem with the disclosure of this kind of videos is that they necessarily bias public opinion against the officers in question. Think of it. How many videos of successful actions of officers do you watch on TV or on the Web? I don’t mean amazing operations with hero-cops being exalted (I am sure this is rare too), but normal every-day borderline situations where a cop pulls a suspect over and, in spite of many weird behaviours and suspect activities, he is able to maintain his calm and do what he has to do with no harm to anyone? The answer is probably “Never”.

So, what I mean by my answer is that by complying with what the officers say, thousands of situations like this have unraveled with no problems whatsoever, situations that you have never seen. Now, if you decide to teach your children to “not move a muscle” when ordered, you might be protecting them from unprepared cops like this Brailsford fellow, and opening them for a myriad of other unforeseen situations that might arise.

The video is very disturbing, no doubt. And I think this death should have been avoided; it could have easily been avoided. The cop must’ve been very inexperienced, and I am sure he was deeply scared, and maybe with too much caffeine or something. And I don’t know if what he did was a protocol he had to follow — I mean the “crawling” — but that didn’t make any sense to me. He created a riskier situation than he needed too. While the man had his arms up, he could’ve easily reached him very safely.

To see an innocent man being shot is indeed disturbing. But look at the kinds of comments you get put forth by the press http://www.newsweek.com/police-release- ... ing-742241:

"This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen, not for the brutality of the shooting itself but for the sadism of the cop who is getting off on humiliating a pliant & obedient suspect before ultimately shooting him"

There was no sadism. There was no execution. This was a sad mistake due to fear and inexperience. And also due to the inherent risk of the situation. In hindsight, it is very easy to judge. He was unarmed, so there was no real risk, right? But it could have been otherwise. I tried to find a video I saw a while ago, but couldn’t (I’ll keep trying and, if I find it, I’ll post the link here). The video is the exact opposite. Because cops around here are always considered guilty beforehand, many get scared to fire. They hesitate because they know they can be easily arrested if they are wrong. So this guy hesitates. In a fraction of a second, the suspect reaches for a gun and kills him and hurts (or kills too, I don’t quite remember) his partner. Believe me: these situations are decided in a fraction of a second. The movement this poor Shaver guy did with his arm while crawling was indeed very suspect; if the cop had good reasons to think the guy was armed, then he had little time.

Maybe better protocols can be envisaged, maybe cops can be better trained, but I say it is a spurious situation that is statistically very probable to occur sometime. I don’t want to sound insensitive (I hope no one will say I am calling Shaver a “data point”), but in any statistical distribution you have data points that fall 3, 4, 10 standard deviations from the mean. It just happens. I just hope people would at least try to consider the rest of the distribution when nothing bad happened in spite of the inherent difficulties.

I have been through countless situations much worse than that (like I and four more searching dozens of people in a party inside a slum where we KNEW had criminals with automatic rifles close by and possibly among the people), and we have always been successful, but it always amazes me how lucky we have been all this time.

Walker
Posts: 5598
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm

After Shaver was face down on the ground and motionless, the cop created the unsafe situation by unnecessarily requiring him to move.

If Shaver had remained motionless and silent, the cop would have no cause to shoot a totally compliant, helpless, motionless person whose hands and feet were in plain sight, and as far from his body and his other limbs, as they could be.

By remaining face down and motionless, the inexperience of the cop would be less of a factor in the situation.

The point of the instructions is to neutralize the threat, not create a threat.

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:24 pm

Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm
After Shaver was face down on the ground and motionless, the cop created the unsafe situation by unnecessarily requiring him to move.
Agreed.
Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm
If Shaver had remained motionless and silent, the cop would have no cause to shoot a totally compliant, helpless, motionless person whose hands and feet were in plain sight, and as far from his body and his other limbs, as they could be.
No, he would have no cause to shoot him. But he would not be a "totally compliant" person because he wouldn't be complying with the cop's commands to crawl towards him. In this situation, specifically, unless we assume this cop is crazy, that would be the best option. But that's in hindsight! A cop (assuming a well-trained, reasonably experienced cop) will not give you orders that are not necessary. There might be other situations (especially if the suspect is not alone) that your not complying will cause other kinds of harms.
Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm
By remaining face down and motionless, the inexperience of the cop would be less of a factor in the situation.
Again, yes. But your question concerned what should be done "in general", not in this specific situation (which will never happen "as such" again, unless we could travel in time). "In general", I can't say anything other than that you should comply with the officer's orders.

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:26 pm

Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm
The point of the instructions is to neutralize the threat, not create a threat.
I failed to see this last sentence of yours.

Absolutely agreed too.

Walker
Posts: 5598
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:41 pm

No, the situation I mentioned is quite specific, not general, and Shaver was in that specific posture. If he had not moved once prone and spread-eagled, as he was, he would have remained neutralized. By not moving in that posture, he could pose no threat.

The point of compliance is to be neutralized, not to follow instructions.

What if Shaver didn’t speak English, or poor English, and couldn't follow the instructions to the letter?

It’s in hindsight for the Shaver tragedy, but not for anyone else who is in such a non-threatening posture while a cop is screaming confusing instructions to move into a more threatening posture under the promise of death, if they can’t maintain presence of awareness.

Teach your children well.

I’ve taught mine that if they are ever in a traffic stop, to turn on their interior lights and put both hands high on the wheel where they can be seen, even before the cop approaches the car, and don’t move. It's a courtesy to the cop.
Last edited by Walker on Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Walker
Posts: 5598
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:45 pm

Mnemoriam wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:26 pm
Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm
The point of the instructions is to neutralize the threat, not create a threat.
I failed to see this last sentence of yours.

Absolutely agreed too.
(I saw this after I already posted the above)

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:24 am

Walker wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:41 pm
No, the situation I mentioned is quite specific, not general, and Shaver was in that specific posture. If he had not moved once prone and spread-eagled, as he was, he would have remained neutralized. By not moving in that posture, he could pose no threat.

The point of compliance is to be neutralized, not to follow instructions.

What if Shaver didn’t speak English, or poor English, and couldn't follow the instructions to the letter?

It’s in hindsight for the Shaver tragedy, but not for anyone else who is in such a non-threatening posture while a cop is screaming confusing instructions to move into a more threatening posture under the promise of death, if they can’t maintain presence of awareness.

Teach your children well.

I’ve taught mine that if they are ever in a traffic stop, to turn on their interior lights and put both hands high on the wheel where they can be seen, even before the cop approaches the car, and don’t move. It's a courtesy to the cop.
It's hard for me to try to make such a point after you (and now, I) have such a video in your (our) mind.

For some reason, I had only seen the last 1 minute of the video; now, I saw the full 6-minute one. The whole action is absurd. The amount of words uttered by both cops (I had thought there was only one) is laughable. I can't imagine these guys in combat.

That said, I need to call it a night but I want to watch this video carefully again and try to respond you again tomorrow. I keep my recommendation of complying with what the cop says, but you have a point when you mentioned the possibility of him not speaking English. But I believe this argument has more to do with the blame on the cop (whom I never said shouldn't be punished) than to the overall answer to your original question.

I'll try to come up with a "thought experiment" tomorrow (pretending I am a real philosopher) that might better explain my point of view.

But, in any case, this death was really sad and absurd. A real shame.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests