3 ms·

Again: "So while the US is not a war zone, when does such a moral principle kick in?" Concerns over moral principles might be totally irrelevant to you though,

by woodman 10y ago

Again: "So while the US is not a war zone, when does such a moral principle kick in?" Concerns over moral principles might be totally irrelevant to you though, if you are a utilitarian/end-justifies-the-means sort of guy.

ryanmarsh 10y ago
Self defense doesn't require a 30 round mag.
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Bullshit it doesn't. Ever get in a firefight with a bolt-action and win? Didn't fucking think so. Fuck, a 15 minute firefight could have me expend 240+ rounds easy! (especially if our 249's were down or for suppressive reasons, but still)
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    Do you still suffer from PTSD or something? We're back home. You aren't going to find yourself in an L shaped ambush in the shopping mall.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- woodman 10y ago
  So utilitarian... you know that "self defense" covers scenarios that involve more than one aggressor right? Are you proposing a more democratic form of self defense, where the mob is effectively always right? That is ignoring the moral dimension of the problem; from a purely practical perspective you can be outvoted in your self defense.
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    See that's what you guys (assault weapon supporters) are really all about. Some kind of military style combat engagement where you'll have to defend your family from a full breakdown of society or the zombie apocalypse or something. That's not a likely enough occurence to justify my neighbors arsenal of mass casualty producing weapons. An even bigger fantasy: some of you guys dream of standing up to the US gov't. IIRC that rarely works out well. Sorry but in the US you're already at a disadvantage because you're digitally tracked here. Over there they don't have to use digital devices to conduct daily life. You already live in a police state.
    - woodman 10y ago
      > That's not a likely enough occurence to justify... Neither is the "mass shooting" likely enough to occur to justify a major curtailment of the second amendment. You are more likely to drown in a paint bucket. You aren't thinking, you've fallen under the spell of bloody shirt waving - which is fine if it ended there, but you want to impose your hysteria on others.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      First, I'm not a firearm owner, but a libertarian, in favor of less government and more personal liberty all around type... As to the police state, that's the point... there's no partial ban that shouldn't apply to the police as the police have no reason to use a firearm that shouldn't apply to someone in their own home.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      It gets even more interesting: these people support that individuals should be able to defend themselves against a zombie apocalypse with the argument (I assume) that "even though that is a very unlikely event, the consequences would be catastrophic, so we should be ready for that". Basically: probability * consequences > pain-threshold The same people are viscerally opposed to the fight against global warming, because it is an "unlikely event", even though the consequences would be vastly more catastrophic for humankind, if it turns out to be true. I don't understand their logic.
    - 10y ago

by woodman 10y ago

ryanmarsh 10y ago

Self defense doesn't require a 30 round mag.

arca_vorago 10y ago
Bullshit it doesn't. Ever get in a firefight with a bolt-action and win? Didn't fucking think so. Fuck, a 15 minute firefight could have me expend 240+ rounds easy! (especially if our 249's were down or for suppressive reasons, but still)
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  Do you still suffer from PTSD or something? We're back home. You aren't going to find yourself in an L shaped ambush in the shopping mall.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
woodman 10y ago
So utilitarian... you know that "self defense" covers scenarios that involve more than one aggressor right? Are you proposing a more democratic form of self defense, where the mob is effectively always right? That is ignoring the moral dimension of the problem; from a purely practical perspective you can be outvoted in your self defense.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  See that's what you guys (assault weapon supporters) are really all about. Some kind of military style combat engagement where you'll have to defend your family from a full breakdown of society or the zombie apocalypse or something. That's not a likely enough occurence to justify my neighbors arsenal of mass casualty producing weapons. An even bigger fantasy: some of you guys dream of standing up to the US gov't. IIRC that rarely works out well. Sorry but in the US you're already at a disadvantage because you're digitally tracked here. Over there they don't have to use digital devices to conduct daily life. You already live in a police state.
  - woodman 10y ago
    > That's not a likely enough occurence to justify... Neither is the "mass shooting" likely enough to occur to justify a major curtailment of the second amendment. You are more likely to drown in a paint bucket. You aren't thinking, you've fallen under the spell of bloody shirt waving - which is fine if it ended there, but you want to impose your hysteria on others.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    First, I'm not a firearm owner, but a libertarian, in favor of less government and more personal liberty all around type... As to the police state, that's the point... there's no partial ban that shouldn't apply to the police as the police have no reason to use a firearm that shouldn't apply to someone in their own home.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    It gets even more interesting: these people support that individuals should be able to defend themselves against a zombie apocalypse with the argument (I assume) that "even though that is a very unlikely event, the consequences would be catastrophic, so we should be ready for that". Basically: probability * consequences > pain-threshold The same people are viscerally opposed to the fight against global warming, because it is an "unlikely event", even though the consequences would be vastly more catastrophic for humankind, if it turns out to be true. I don't understand their logic.
  - 10y ago