The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

The Dukes of Hazzard: CBS 1979 - 1985.

The Andy Griffith Show: CBS 1960 - 1968.

 

[rah]

More proof that I'm old. Memory is the first thing to go.
When we were yelling pig in Vietnam protests, cops ate a lot of donuts and were generally not in good shape. OK.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's the drugz, hippie.

 

[rah]

Valid point. Some of which made them look like actual pigs.

 

[Berzerker]

Just curious, what scenario are you imagining where someone wants to kill you this badly and a gun will stop it but a tank won't?

Would you rather be inside your home with a gun or sitting in a tank on the lawn if someone wanted to kill you? Better yet, if you wanted to kill someone would you find it easier setting a tank on fire than trying to hunt down someone with a gun defending their own house? The tank is a death trap.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, so long as you share.

 

[Lexicus]

On the lawn? If I had a tank I'd go out in the middle of an open field and no one could come near me without getting blown up or perforated.

 

[El_Machinae]

Honestly, discussing whether a tank is a tool for home defence is a bit of a red herring. It would be vital to the protection of a free state, and therefore (imo) part of the 2A. And honestly, I wouldn't want a tank for home defence. If we're discussing the 'right' to defend your home, then things like claymores are much more within the way I would set things up.

Right now for home defence, it's recommended that we hunker in the room and point the shotgun at the door and call the cops. Leaving the room is necessary if you weren't able to get your kids to you in time, and that would be terrifying. But the entire process is much easier if I can use CCTV and claymores. That way, I'm much less likely to need to GO to my kids if the badguys are in the way. Like, they're in the playroom and there are badguys in the living room? Well, then I just toggle the charges near them. No need to risk myself to rescue the kids.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If I was in a tank and there was someone who wanted to kill me I wouldn't be parked in my lawn, I would be parked on their house.

Meanwhile, I still haven't heard a good argument against, in the interest of home defense, just slaughtering everyone in my neighborhood.

 

[uppi]

If I was in a tank and there was someone who wanted to kill me I wouldn't be parked in my lawn, I would be parked on their house.

Meanwhile, I still haven't heard a good argument against, in the interest of home defense, just slaughtering everyone in my neighborhood.

Ah, but if you park a tank on their house, some people might think you have overstepped the bounds of home defense by putting foot...err...track on their property. You are much better off with an artillery gun, because you can level the entire neighborhood in self defense without ever leaving your property.

 

[El_Machinae]

Meanwhile, I still haven't heard a good argument against, in the interest of home defense, just slaughtering everyone in my neighborhood.

It violates the right to life. The premise of self-defence is that by initiating an attempt to 'murder', you waive your right to life. I know you're being silly in your question, but the answer is coherent.

'Murder' being an illegal killing, 'killing' is just a description of the event.

It sets up its own equilibrium. It can balloon into a tragedy if everyone is incompetent. If I'm fumbling for my bomb-vest trigger while someone is brandishing on me, and you're in the potential blast radius, you have the permission to kill either of us. I've waived my right to life by initiating an action to that will result in your death. Accidentally killing people with a bomb-vest is not legally permitted.

The person brandishing would be convicted of attempted murder and thus manslaughter since I died as a result. You'd walk. If I was mistaken about him brandishing, you'd both walk. If the government could prove that you two colluded to arrange my death, you'd both be convicted of murder.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It violates the right to life. The premise of self-defence is that by initiating an attempt to 'murder', you waive your right to life. I know you're being silly in your question, but the answer is coherent.

'Murder' being an illegal killing, 'killing' is just a description of the event.

It sets up its own equilibrium. It can balloon into a tragedy if everyone is incompetent. If I'm fumbling for my bomb-vest trigger while someone is brandishing on me, and you're in the potential blast radius, you have the permission to kill either of us. I've waived my right to life by initiating an action to that will result in your death. Accidentally killing people with a bomb-vest is not legally permitted.

The person brandishing would be convicted of attempted murder and thus manslaughter since I died as a result. You'd walk. If I was mistaken about him brandishing, you'd both walk. If the government could prove that you two colluded to arrange my death, you'd both be convicted of murder.

My silliness is rooted in the real world truth that gun ownership being billed as "necessary for self defense" is making everyone, including the gun owners, less safe, but is being hand-waived based on "but it makes me feel more safe." So we have a precedent of my actual safety being infringed for someone else's feeling of safety. We also have been on a path of "if you feel threatened then self defense applies" as a justification for avoiding murder charges and convictions. So, is it really that far fetched and silly to ask why that stops short of "having other people on the planet scares me, so I should be allowed to get rid of them"? I mean, they do present a genuine threat, since I would surely be safer if I did get rid of them.

 

[Berzerker]

On the lawn? If I had a tank I'd go out in the middle of an open field and no one could come near me without getting blown up or perforated.

if its your field... just dont fall asleep

 

[rah]

In all fairness, if I wanted to kill somebody and they were in a tank parked on their front lawn, I would probably look for someone else to kill.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Most people have families to protect, that aint moving the goal posts.

Yes it is. You asked how you could defend yourself with a tank, not how you could defend yourself and your family (although the answer would still be "sit inside the tank")

And those that dont aint gonna live in a tank for self defense.

People aren't going to live behind a shield either. Shields are still defensive.

If someone wanted to kill you a tank wont save your life, it'll be a death trap.

I'm no military historian, but I maintain this would be remarkably easy to disprove.

Would you rather be inside your home with a gun or sitting in a tank on the lawn if someone wanted to kill you? Better yet, if you wanted to kill someone would you find it easier setting a tank on fire than trying to hunt down someone with a gun defending their own house? The tank is a death trap.

Most people have trouble getting the barbecue lit. I don't think setting a tank on fire would be easier than that. Unless it's one of those straw tanks. Again, I'm no military historian, but I don't recall ever hearing that the best tactic to deal with tanks on the battlefield was for a single man to run right up to them with a box of matches.

But as much as I like arguing minutiae, even I have to admit this exchange is so tangential to anything of relevance to be utterly pointless.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes it is. You asked how you could defend yourself with a tank, not how you could defend yourself and your family (although the answer would still be "sit inside the tank")

We're talking about a tank vs a gun for home defense, families are part of that picture.

People aren't going to live behind a shield either. Shields are still defensive.

Use a shield then...good luck

I'm no military historian, but I maintain this would be remarkably easy to disprove.

A few gallons of gas and a match is it all would take

Most people have trouble getting the barbecue lit. I don't think setting a tank on fire would be easier than that. Unless it's one of those straw tanks. Again, I'm no military historian, but I don't recall ever hearing that the best tactic to deal with tanks on the battlefield was for a single man to run right up to them with a box of matches.

But as much as I like arguing minutiae, even I have to admit this exchange is so tangential to anything of relevance to be utterly pointless.

You're not on a battlefield, you're sitting in a tank...or asleep in a tank. Somebody could walk right up with a gas can and you wouldn't know what was happening until you smelled the gas. You're right on the last point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Berzerker, you are showing a pretty impressive lack of knowledge about tanks. Or are you assuming that the tanks available for home defense are going to be WWI technology?

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh no Tim, handwaiving like that is your framing, and it is a common argument in significantly more applications than gunz. The argument revolves around there being things that are more important than maximizing safety and efficiency in the macro. The safety argument is then secondary. And that's how it will always be. No matter how any of these specific issues plays out.

 

[Broken_Erika]

ph33r my awesome tank!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh no Tim, handwaiving like that is your framing, and it is a common argument in significantly more applications than gunz. The argument revolves around there being things that are more important than maximizing safety and efficiency in the macro. The safety argument is then secondary. And that's how it will always be. No matter how any of these specific issues plays out.

Yeah, like the more important "but my feelies are that I'm safer!!!!"