Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[4588686]

How are gun laws enforced? I seem to recall a couple of cases of gun law enforcement involving armed men and raids. If there's no chance of death, then we'd send someone to politely ask the person who has not committed any aggressive act to give up their property. When they declined, we'd be on our way. Instead, we have a situation in which someone not committing any act of aggression being met with aggression, and then killed if the person defends himself. Currently, you are subject to deadly force for not complying with the laws against non-aggressive actions.

 

Right.  If somebody resist with deadly force then the police can legally use deadly force to defend themselves.  There are abusive enforcement and the police force is being increasingly militarized, yet one more reason to seriously restrict the arms industry, but none of this supports your original insinuation that in our society illegally owning a gun is a capital offense.  

I wonder which industries spend the most money lobbying state, local, and federal officials to beef up the capacities of their police forces.   

[4588686]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/#

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/police-militarization-9-11-september-11_n_955508.html

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Jesus_lol]

That is weird that cars and alcohol are not regulated and restricted.

 

 

I would be much more inclined towards restrictions on function or class of gun if the military and police abided by the same restrictions.

 

 

 

Do you think any of the cops or soldiers in canada have a handgun with a mag pinned to 10 rounds? Do any of the undercover cops try concealing guns with 4 inch barrels or longer? would a SWAT team bust down pot grower's houses with AR15's that only have 5 round mags in them?

 

why not? Oh, all of a sudden those things are necessary in any occassion where you might actually need to be using a gun? what a surprise.

 

Do you think politicians would be fine if their body guards werent allowed to carry pistols?

Edited January 12, 2013 by Jesus_lol

[4588686]

I would be much more inclined towards restrictions on function or class of gun if the military and police abided by the same restrictions.

 

 

I'm completely on board with demilitarizing the police and hacking away at the defense industry.  

 

 

Do you think any of the cops or soldiers in canada have a handgun with a mag pinned to 10 rounds? Do any of the undercover cops try concealing guns with 4 inch barrels or longer? would a SWAT team bust down pot grower's houses with AR15's that only have 5 round mags in them why not? Oh, all of a sudden those things are necessary in any occassion where you might actually need to be using a gun? what a surprise.  Do you think politicians would be fine if their body guards werent allowed to carry pistols?

 

Need a gun in what context?  People need guns in Aurora NC.  But a double barrel shotgun can handle most of those situations.  Those restrictions would be unworkable for a police department in a context with a pot dealer and his friends can have the firepower of a small army.  And vica versa.  It's a security spiral.  So start hacking away at the root which is the defense and arms industry.  

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

Right.  If somebody resist with deadly force then the police can legally use deadly force to defend themselves.  There are abusive enforcement and the police force is being increasingly militarized, yet one more reason to seriously restrict the arms industry, but none of this supports your original insinuation that in our society illegally owning a gun is a capital offense.  

I wonder which industries spend the most money lobbying state, local, and federal officials to beef up the capacities of their police forces.   

 

Not at all what I described. Refusal to comply with gun laws isn't aggressive. The aggression takes place when one attempts to enforce the gun law. Possession of a rifle that is under an arbitrarily set length, or of a magazine that holds more than an arbitrarily defined limit of rounds isn't aggression. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. You can say it's moral to commit an act of aggression against someone possessing these weapons, but you can't turn mere possession of a weapon into an act of aggression.

 

If you ask me to give up my property, and I refuse, if you then use force in an attempt to make me give it up, you initiated violence. If you put on a costume and do this, it remains that you initiate the violence. You may well believe a special subset of humanity is permitted to initiate violence.

[4588686]

Not at all what I described. Refusal to comply with gun laws isn't aggressive.

 

That depends on the gun law.  Even accepting your premise I don't see why that matters unless you dichotomize all moral and political questions into 'aggression' vs 'non-aggression.'  Did Victor Bout ever commit an act of aggression   Not that I know of.  But his fueling of conflicts sure did result in a lot of death and slaughter yet by your dichotomy the federal government was committing an awful act of aggression against a private citizen who was simply moving his property around and making free transactions.  

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

That depends on the gun law.  Even accepting your premise I don't see why that matters unless you dichotomize all moral and political questions into 'aggression' vs 'non-aggression.'  Did Victor Bout ever commit an act of aggression   Not that I know of.  But his fueling of conflicts sure did result in a lot of death and slaughter yet by your dichotomy the federal government was committing an awful act of aggression against a private citizen who was simply moving his property around and making free transactions.  

 

There's lots of acts I might find morally distasteful, but barring that someone commits aggression against me or an innocent, I'm not likely to do anything. I certainly can't imagine using force against someone for owning a rifle with a 14" barrel instead of one with a 16" barrel, but people can be throw in prison for those two inches. That's evil.

[4588686]

There's lots of acts I might find morally distasteful, but barring that someone commits aggression against me or an innocent, I'm not likely to do anything. I certainly can't imagine using force against someone for owning a rifle with a 14" barrel instead of one with a 16" barrel, but people can be throw in prison for those two inches. That's evil.

 

So arresting Victor Bout was immoral?  

[Groo the Wanderer]

buncha numb nuts

[Winchester]

So arresting Victor Bout was immoral?  

 

I'd have to read more about the case against him, but it appears to me that he sold to murderers the US didn't approve of. If only he'd chosen the right warlord types.

[4588686]

I'd have to read more about the case against him, but it appears to me that he sold to murderers the US didn't approve of. If only he'd chosen the right warlord types.

 

That's right.  There is and was an element of hypocrisy in the governments case.  No denying that.  That doesn't really answer the question though or the difficulties Victor Bout poses you your political model

[Winchester]

That's right.  There is and was an element of hypocrisy in the governments case.  No denying that.  That doesn't really answer the question though or the difficulties Victor Bout poses you your political model

 

I don't view it as political. It's moral.

 

Could the people victimized by the criminal gangs Victor supplied view his trade of weapons for money that was likely not morally obtained as part of the criminal actions taken against them? I think there's a case for that.

 

But the organization that arrested him obtains all its money under threat of violence. So it's a little more complicated.

 

I am more than willing to entertain that the many individuals committing what are objectively acts of assault, kidnapping, and murder, are doing so with the very best intent. Perhaps with noble intent. Every time the DEA kicks in a door in the name of enforcing crimes against vice, they commit breaking and entering, then commit assault. The people they assault often are not very nice people. Often, the people they confront are murderers. The world may well be better off with them out of commission. That doesn't make the DEA's actions morally good.

[4588686]

I don't view it as political. It's moral.

 

Could the people victimized by the criminal gangs Victor supplied view his trade of weapons for money that was likely not morally obtained as part of the criminal actions taken against them? I think there's a case for that.

 

 

Why, though?  What has he done wrong?  He had private property and sold it to somebody.  What's wrong with that?

[Winchester]

Why, though?  What has he done wrong?  He had private property and sold it to somebody.  What's wrong with that?

 

I think I answered that.

 

And any weapons he bought from governments or government officials were not the rightful property of the sellers.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Winchester

[Groo the Wanderer]

:popcorn: