Christchurch Mass Shooting

[Yukaphile]

See, I know another Libertarian precisely like you, Admiral X, preaching the evils of "government" and the glories of making sure everybody who wants it gets access to a gun. You don't fool me.

[Admiral X]

Yes it does. When "the government" oversteps its bounds in the name of security, you'll object. When it does so in trying to regulate guns to save lives, you'll object. Those two contradict.

No, they don't. The latter is simply an example of the former.

And this gun worship from many Americans does seem to place value on a weapon meant to maim or kill over a breathing person with the right to live.

The value is on the right to defend one's self.

[Yukaphile]

Exactly as I predicted. When the government regulates who can and can't get a gun, even if they have good intentions like saving lives, they are "tyrants." Simply for being "the government."

Let me hit you with an Ed Teller quote here.

"Total security has never been available to anyone. To expect it is unrealistic; to imagine that it can exist is to invite disaster."

At what point does the right to self-defense cede to something larger that's truly important for the greater good, like an unarmed person's right to live? That's up to the individual to decide, but it's why I refuse to arm. Even if it meant my life. It's such a pity too many ignorant apes here worship guns rather than good principles like life, liberty, love, and honor fail to do the same.

[Admiral X]

Exactly as I predicted. When the government regulates who can and can't get a gun, even if they have good intentions like saving lives, they are "tyrants." Simply for being "the government."

Yup. You are far too trusting of the government. I have to admit, I'm quite confused that you would see the effort to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms as being any different from how the Patriot Act came to pass, and that it is very much being done in the name of security, or rather the illusion of it, but I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising considering your posting history. The efforts to infringe on the second amendment represent a form of tyranny, every bit as much as how the fourth keeps getting stomped on by both of the main parties.

Let me hit you with an Ed Teller quote here.

"Total security has never been available to anyone. To expect it is unrealistic; to imagine that it can exist is to invite disaster."

At what point does the right to self-defense cede to something larger that's truly important for the greater good, like an unarmed person's right to live?

Everyone has a right to life. The fact that there are bad people who violate the rights of others doesn't mean the right to self defense should somehow suddenly become forfeit.

Oh, and

youtu.be/yUpbOliTHJY

That's up to the individual to decide, but it's why I refuse to arm. Even if it meant my life.

You have the freedom to choose to do so, and others should have the same freedom to choose.

It's such a pity too many ignorant apes here worship guns rather than good principles like life, liberty, love, and honor fail to do the same.

The right to self defense is right in there with that.

[Yukaphile]

Let me ask you... does a convicted ex-felon have the right to own a gun? To be perfectly honest, to my mind, that idea makes me very wary. And I don't think they should be allowed easy access to a gun. Of course, some might claim it depends on the crime, but still like murder and robbery should mean he never is allowed legal access to a gun, as I see it.

[Admiral X]

Let me ask you... does a convicted ex-felon have the right to own a gun?

If they have served their sentence, yes. Yes to having all their rights returned to them.

Of course, some might claim it depends on the crime, but still like murder and robbery should mean he never is allowed legal access to a gun, as I see it.

If that is the case, why free them from jail at all? Keep dangerous people like that in jail.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Of course, some might claim it depends on the crime, but still like murder and robbery should mean he never is allowed legal access to a gun, as I see it.

If that is the case, why free them from jail at all? Keep dangerous people like that in jail.

There might be limits to how severely the public can punish assailants depending on the crime. I could consider murder a pretty special situation for general consideration. A robbery doesn't necessarily tend to define the person as much as the former.

[Yukaphile]

And this is precisely why I find arguing with American Libertarians so frustrating. If they've committed crimes that involve arms, aren't the odds increasingly likely they will do so again once released? If they did so out of desperation, you could potentially appeal that, but outside it, I'd rather limited ex-cons and people who were sent to jail for beating their wives have access to a gun, thank you very much.

Because most people would agree that's overreaction. Obviously, if they've served their time, they should be allowed to go free, but our prison system doesn't offer rehabilitative services like they do in, um, say, Norway or some other Norwegian countries. It's about punishment, which I'm fine with, but then once you do the crime, you shouldn't be allowed a chance to hurt someone again given that jail could have very easily hardened you to the point you're even more likely to shoot someone - given that, again, prison is rough and you could have mental wounds that weren't being treated. This is why criminal justice reform is so important. Maybe you could give someone like that a LONG period of probation before they're allowed to buy a gun again - test them to see if they succumb to temptation and break parole, in which case, they'd be going right back. I'd personally make it ten years at the very least.

[Admiral X]

And this is precisely why I find arguing with American Libertarians so frustrating. If they've committed crimes that involve arms, aren't the odds increasingly likely they will do so again once released? If they did so out of desperation, you could potentially appeal that, but outside it, I'd rather limited ex-cons and people who were sent to jail for beating their wives have access to a gun, thank you very much.

And I think if someone is dangerous, they shouldn't be released from jail, and they should be given a sentence appropriate to their crime. Either someone has served their debt to society or they haven't. Either they are dangerous, or they aren't. Worried about prison overcrowding? Hell, end the "War on Drugs," that'll alleviate a good amount of it right there.

Because most people would agree that's overreaction. Obviously, if they've served their time, they should be allowed to go free, but our prison system doesn't offer rehabilitative services like they do in, um, say, Norway or some other Norwegian countries. It's about punishment, which I'm fine with, but then once you do the crime, you shouldn't be allowed a chance to hurt someone again given that jail could have very easily hardened you to the point you're even more likely to shoot someone - given that, again, prison is rough and you could have mental wounds that weren't being treated. This is why criminal justice reform is so important. Maybe you could give someone like that a LONG period of probation before they're allowed to buy a gun again - test them to see if they succumb to temptation and break parole, in which case, they'd be going right back. I'd personally make it ten years at the very least.

I'd at least agree that the prison system is in need of some good reform.

[Worffan101]

X, don't try to turn this into a "good guy with a gun" nonsense argument. The guy who tried to stop the shooter there managed to disarm the shooter there by throwing a credit-card reader at him, retrieved the shooter's dropped shotgun as the shooter retrieved a second weapon, and scared him off by shooting out his car window.

That's not a "good guy with a gun!" cowboy story.

Neither is that of Naeem Rashid, the Pakistani immigrant who charged the gunman unarmed at the Al Noor mosque trying to stop him but failed and died in the hospital. He didn't have a gun, he just tried to take on the guy with his bare hands and damn near took out the scrawny little shithead.

When the shooter attempted to continue his terrorist rampage, the cops didn't shoot him, they rammed his car off the road and hauled his ass out after he surrendered so he could get a media circus.

At no point did a "good guy with a gun" stop that psycho. It was good people with courage inside a shell of metal equipped with an internal combustion engine.

Yes, yes he did. You described exactly how it was done. He got lucky because he wasn't allowed to be already armed from the get-go and was able to use his would-be murderer's own weapon. He stopped shooting and ran away after that. No amount of whining or hair-slitting on your part is going to change that. The majority of mass shootings that end before they've managed to just kill everyone are because someone shot back at them. The mental gymnastics you gun-grabbers go through is hilarious.

The shotgun was empty, you fucking moron.

Abdul Aziz literally threw the fucking empty shotgun at the terrorist's car window. A "good guy with a gun", like Rashid, would have been shot by the terrorist as a priority target. With no warning, having a gun wouldn't have done such a person any good.

My god, arguing with you is like sticking my dick in a meat grinder.