Stopped Motorist Shoots at Deputy...Deputy Handles It

That's what makes them dangerous. Their inept view of the world leads them to make decisions that confound reasonable explanation.

Well, not really no.

Reality is looking at the evidence and making predictions based on that which we can observe. That's what I'm doing, looking at real world instances of this idea being carried out and basing an argument on that evidence.

Fantasy is making statements without looking at that evidence, making predictions based entirely on what you believe or want to believe. That's what you are doing.

These predictions you are making don't tend to happen in practice, what happens is that the dearth of available ammo make guns an ever decreasing threat, gun crime decreases, the culture of guns becomes less prevalent. That's not fantasy given its' documented success.

What is fantasy is the idea an armed populace are making you safer when the crime rates strongly demonstrate otherwise.

I agree humans are not black and white - we're all very grey at every level. That said I am realistic. I know folks in law enforcement, and I also know criminals. I'm just saying that far in the future maybe people won't be off-the-scale impulsive and violent - that would be great! But in 2019 while there are many sane, rational, harmless people there also exists a not insignificant population of people who will kill you for pocket change. Perhaps they have legitimate reasons/excuses for doing so, but you can't get to the bottom of that (or change their behavior) after they kill you for your pocket change.

I never said an armed population is making me safer. I'm saying since a tiny fraction of that armed population might try to kill me, I should have the right
to defend myself as I see fit. If the government wants me to take training to have the right to defend myself as I see fit, I have no problem with that.
But taking away that right from me while the people trying to kill me (or others) still have the efficient means (guns) to kill me is a problem.

I think you underestimate how difficult gun confiscation would be in a nation where at any time at least half the population HATES their government, and of the half that don't hate them? Half of those don't trust them.
And since there are MILLIONS of unaccounted for guns in the US the only guns confiscated will those that belong to the law abiding responsible owners.
Thus the only people left with guns after confiscation are criminals or crazy people or cops. I try to stay away from these people.

Again, what your government does in your country works for your country. What the government does in New Zealand works for New Zealand.
Rinse and repeat!

i'll take suicide by cop for $1000 alex

maybe unintentionally. I think (just an opinion) that seeing a female cop he figured he could take her out more easily than a male. He probably sized her up as not likely to be able to shoot fast & accurately. He won't make that mistake again!

Funny incident: when my son was going to Combat Medic school they were having outdoor field training and one of the females got scared by a wasp and she threw her M4 rifle at the wasp. She also had an "accidental discharge" with her M4 at another point in her training.
BTW before anyone tries to sharp-shoot me (no pun intended) yes Combat Medics are most certainly armed and trained like every other soldier. Back in the day Combat Medics didn't carry weapons - that has changed since the army realized bad guys don't give a fuck about The Geneva Convention or any other "rules of war" and will indeed try to kill a medic because without them more enemy wounded will die. Granted medics treat the bad guys too in our field hospitals, along with civilians and farm animals and pretty much everybody who may need help.

Except carnies - they have small hands and smell like cabbage.

That's an awful lot of saluting the flag, reciting the pledge, singing the anthem and shouting USA!!!! for a country that hates and mistrusts its' government. Maybe the questions that need to be asked are deeper?

However you still haven't responded to the point that those unregistered guns are useless sans bullets, which is a major factor in the objective success thus far of gun bans. It's not just taking guns off the table which has made them effective, it's also been reducing their capacity to be useful. That's why the Australian ban had little immediate impact but over time became such a success.

Equally nor have you done anything but sidestep the fact that without that means I'm safer than you are. I dispute your right to defend yourself as you see fit, that's way too open ended and open to abuse. You should have the right to defend yourself appropriately. The justification you are giving for arming people thus is to defend themselves appropriately against other people also thus armed, it's classic circular reasoning. The law exists to protect people against its' own consequences and is therefore self sustaining unless challenged.

There's less chance of me being murdered than you and with good reason. Governments can only work at the policy level, in this case those policies options are to either make people safer from crime or not.

"That's an awful lot of saluting the flag, reciting the pledge, singing the anthem and shouting USA!!!! for a country that hates and mistrusts its' government. Maybe the questions that need to be asked are deeper?"

you missed the point again. The "government" is not "the people." Citizens salute the flag and shout USA!!!! because they love their country and the great people that live in it and died to protect it. They are not showing love for their government.

Yes I stand a greater chance of being murdered than you do. But are you "safer?" We have discussed many times the many ways people can die or be severely injured: auto accidents, heart attacks, lightning strikes, etc. Dead = dead and injured = injured no matter how you slice it. Being able to defend yourself appropriately (as you say) should be your right. And the person defining "appropriately" should be the person defending themselves.

And think about this - if criminals already smuggle drugs, cars, people, etc. into the US and other nations do you really think smuggling ammo will be that difficult for them? Also loading your own ammo is super easy. So that said how would we stop lead, brass, steel, chemicals, etc. from entering our country?

Don't get me wrong, I admire your passion and enthusiasm, but your theories are trumped by my hard reality. Stay safe in your country and I'll stay safe in mine.

Yes I am safer, there's a whole lot of evidence to that effect which really isn't open for dispute. I'm less likely to be murdered, I'm less likely to die young (well, maybe in your case....)

The distinction between government and country is an ambiguous one and one government after government have used throughout history to deem political statements unpatriotic. See kneeling for the flag, criticising the Vietnam war, McCarthyism, conscientious objection, opposing the draft and (bizarrely) supporting gun restrictions for just a few. Supporting the policy becomes supporting the country, supporting freedom, whatever. It doesn't matter how disconnected the idea is, someone somewhere can spin it as being unpatriotic if they so choose.

You may not share many peoples' dislike of Trump, but look how easily people fall into the habit of declaring anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic. We are seeing it here with Remain supporters being labelled "traitors".

Look how many times you yourself have suggested people who dislike a given American policy are free to go live elsewhere rather than voice their criticisms.

So no, I'm sorry, the individual doesn't get to define "appropriately". That's what the law exists for, else we just have anarchy. If you push me I don't get to shoot you twenty times in the head and deem it "appropriate", it's disproportionate and constitutes murder in any sane legal system, including yours.

I don't get how that works? Cartridges aren't that hard to reload. You don't even need big, fancy equipment to do it. You can do it with tools that would all fit in a small tool box. I guess you're talking about outlawing and confiscating all spent brass, primers, and smokeless powder as well as all reloading equipment?

Not outlawing necessarily (although that would be my preference but probably unsupportable at this pont), but I would certainly endorse limiting anything and everything which constitutes "ammunition". A gun is only effective if it has something to fire and starving the market reduces the availability and hence said weapons' potential footprint.

Over time that has other effects, such as limiting the amount of time spent firing weapons for sport, which in turn has an impact on the culture of normalising firearms as day to day items. Over time that means fewer and fewer people identifying as being a part of gun culture along with the practical reduction in misuse of those weapons and a shift away from seeing guns as inherently part of society to be protected.

You have the second amendment, sure, but we have a statute that all Englishmen must practise longbow daily and shoot unaccompanied Scotsmen seen on English soil after midnight (but only with a crossbow). It's still there in law but acknowledged as an anachrosnism.

So you're literally talking about social engineering? Make it harder for law abiding gun owners to enjoy gun activities thereby causing them to loose interest and' subsequently, American gun culture to be diminished? And that will stop criminals from shooting people because market forces will have put gun manufacturers out of business?

That pretty much sums it up, though he straight up admitted that a banning is his preference. At least he's a gun grabber whose actually being honest.

The more I read his posts, the more I'm glad that he's no where near any power of influence in America.

Show me a political position short of being an outright anarchist that doesn't involve social engineering somewhere along the line.

By all means feel free to legalise all drugs and violent crime, abolish all driving regulations, eliminate a democracy where parties campaign according to political ideologies

A political position? I guess I was thinking more along the lines of public safety/health than politics.

Yes.

Show me a way a society can operate as a political entity sans social engineering of some form.

Try, please, you'll fail.

I wouldn't dare to try. I just wasn't thinking of it along the lines of politics is all...maybe I should have been.

It just seems weird to address criminals shooting people by targeting punitive measures against non-criminals in order to change their behavior, which would change the culture, which would change the economics, which would adversely affect a criminal's ability to shoot people.

It seems Rube Goldbergian to me.

Spot seems to be under the impression that all gun owners AKA "gun culture" are all members of the same club. The responsible 50 year old who takes his pistol to the shooting range once a month hangs out with the 30 year old drug dealer with a prior conviction for aggravated assault. And he seems to lump both of these together as having the same level of likely danger to society.

Because there is a continuous spectrum from anarchist to totalitarian doesn't mean that all points on that spectrum are equally desirable.

For me, social engineering by the state crosses a philosophical line when it seeks to override our own personal preferences and decision-making in situations where the rights of others are not imperiled. The state can (in my view) legitimately attempt to socially engineer conditions where all are compelled to observe the rights of others, but cannot go further than that. In cases where the state deems our personal choices are harmful to ourselves, it should be limited to informing us. The state has no business telling us where to live, what career to pursue, which friends to have, which opinions to support, which foods to eat, etc. The state has no legitimate interests in overriding our personal autonomy in matters such as those, whether to create a better society or for any other purpose. The state is our servant, not our parent.

I agree, fuck the police.

Define "imperiled"? Just how direct does that peril have to be?

Does "attempting to socially engineer conditions where all are compelled to observe the rights of others", not incorporate the right to live as freely as is reasonably possible from the threat of violence?

You are talking about non criminals under the current legislation. However the advantages of legal systems which take a different stance on that are hard to ignore. The justification for guns that they make society safer is frankly a non starter, they clearly demonstrate a risk factor as borne out by pretty much any objective reading of the statistics. Even if they aren't directly employed as the instrument they are significantly linked to higher murder rates for any number of reasons.

Is an evidence based improvement of the legal system really "punitive" where we are talking about restricting a behaviour whose outcomes are currently detrimental to society, even if that detriment is abstracted? If a road is deemed to be unsafe with the current speed limit is reducing that limit punitive to those who wish to drive fast?

Nope, I just prefer to base risk assessment on the evidence, not a fantasy.

I'm a great believer in being a risk taker as a matter of personal choice. What I don't believe is that choice should extend to undue risks to others and the evidence is strongly in favour of this risk being undue.

"Nope, I just prefer to base risk assessment on the evidence, not a fantasy.

I'm a great believer in being a risk taker as a matter of personal choice. What I don't believe is that choice should extend to undue risks to others and the evidence is strongly in favour of this risk being undue." - spot261

fair enough! So why fuck around? Why half-ass this? Oh yeah, you know where I'm going with this:
1) booze ban it! Sure some people can handle it but many can't, and nobody really needs it. Complete ban & confiscation. Failing that, raise the price to 500 dollars for a bottle of beer.
Can you make booze at home? Yes, but you can make gun ammo at home too. You get caught making booze, 10 years in prison with zero chance of parole.

2) 40 MPH maximum speed limit on all US freeways & roads. It's been proven that the faster you drive, the more fatal the wreck. Get caught speeding and your car is confiscated and you do
5 years in prison, no chance of parole. Raise the driving age to 26, when our brains are fully mature.

3) mandatory weigh-ins to screen for obesity (the silent killer). If you don't make weight/pass the body composition test you are committed to a government run hospital until such time as you
can make weight or pass the body fat ratio test.

DAMN! I feel safer just thinking about these new measures! What say you spot?

A's action directly imposes on B's rights. B's rights are negated or suppressed.

Note that if the State is A, its action are even more limited, because the State does not possess freedom of association.

Pretty direct.

I don't accept arguments such as "Your opinion leads to a coarser society which could be dangerous for someone, therefore your speech can be regulated." Nope, not nearly direct enough.

We've seen limitations on government such as the Interstate Commerce Clause get twisted into a license for government to have unlimited power (because, gosh, everything connects to interstate commerce somehow), even to the point of regulating non-commerce. Absurd.

^Okay, I've fucked the quotes up so bad I can't untangle them. Every time I try to fix them it just makes them worse.

welcome to my world!

How about "Your right to a gun led directly to someone else having one and ending an innocent persons' life with it?". Would that constitute direct?

1) We've done this, both metaphorically here in WF and out there in the real world. People do home brew/distill and the organised crime associated leads to more innocent deaths the alcohol. The same can't be said for gun bans, your projection of people home manufacturing ammo en masse doesn't bear out in practise.

2) Actually no, higher motorway/freeway speeds have been shown to reduce fatalities given correct driver training by virtue of reducing congestion. The consequences for a collision are higher but the likelihood for having one actually drops provided the correct measures are in place.

3) Risk to the self only, doesn't apply.

"Actually no, higher motorway/freeway speeds have been shown to reduce fatalities given correct driver training by virtue of reducing congestion." - spot261

well we don't have correct driver training in the US. Anyone with a pulse can get a driver's license.
Regardless then let's forget freeways - lowering speed limits saves lives in congested areas though. Here's a link.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/05/ne...ing-ways-slower-driving-creates-better-cities

here's an interesting fact from the article:

Speeding cars can limit physical activity, use of public space and quality of life, and the impacts are felt most by the least advantaged . Lower-income residents often live in close proximity to roads with dangerously fast-moving traffic.

why do you hate the disadvantaged? To counter your callous disregard for (poor) human life I suggest cutting all speed limits in half on roads & streets with a lot of pedestrian deaths.
40 MPH will now be 20. If it saves one life here in Augusta Ga it will be worth it. We did crack the top 20 for most dangerous US cities for pedestrians. And the vast majority of pedestrian deaths are blacks.