|
United States42821 Posts
Gun prohibition is both a question of lethality and purpose.
Guns are a tool to simplify the killing of people. That is their only purpose (in the UK at least because we don't do hunting). In a society that disagrees with the killing of people it seems absolutely logical that tools to facilitate the killing of people are illegal. Their purpose is to cause gunshot wounds and the British society believes gunshot wounds are a relatively negative thing.
Knives have a different purpose. They are a tool that enables a human to cut through things more simply. There is a lot of stuff that needs cutting (compared to relatively few things that require shooting) and therefore the negative purposes of knives, such as stabbing people, are outweighed by the positive purposes, such as cooking. Fortunately the law is able to distinguish between the two so if I'm caught in a public place with a hunting knife I'm going to be fucked whereas if I'm caught in my kitchen with a cooking knife I'm fine.
On to the question of lethality. I have no idea where the American obsession with handguns comes from given how far technology has moved on. You're thinking far too small. After all you can hardly expect to overthrow a tyrannical Government with some pistols and a few hunting rifles. The army has fucking tanks. Somewhere along the line the "right to bear arms" has become "the right to bear small arms". You were given the right to arm yourselves with any weapon you saw fit in the Constitution and yet as newer weapons have been introduced and the weapons of the founding fathers became obsolete the law was twisted. There has been nobody to defend your right to because the average man cannot afford heavy artillery so it doesn't really come up. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to it. If he forms a citizens militia they could club together and maybe buy a few humvees with mounted machine guns. Get enough people together and you could get a tactical nuke or two. That'd show King George if he tried to oppress you.
The writers of the constitution would be ashamed if they saw you today. Sure, you can still own handguns and rifles but what are they worth in a modern war. There's a reason they wrote "bear arms" rather than "bear rifles, muskets and pistols". They realised that weaponry evolves and old weapons become obsolete so they were clear to allow you access to any weapons, not simply the weapons of their time. But you've not only given up the right to keep a tactical nuclear weapon in your house in case the Redcoats attack but now see the idea as ridiculous. They must be spinning in their graves.
The point I am attempting to make here is that there is no argument you can use for making handguns legal that does not apply to making all tools for killing others legal. No fucker would dare murder you if you had your hand on a dead mans switch wired to a nuclear weapon. You could walk the streets safe at night.
|
I'm just going to link two articles:
...one to point out that the UK has always had a lower homicide rate than the USA, and UK crime rates rose as tighter gun-control and disarmament laws were put into place:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
...and one to point out the regional variations in violence are much larger than the country-to-country variations, and the gun control efforts in those regions do not appear to reduce violence:
http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/2005/10/comparing-us-and-uk-murder-rates.html
There is no point in arguing with someone who is incapable of understanding your arguments, or unwilling to apply honest logic to their own justifications of their positions. I don't remind myself of that enough.
|
On July 09 2008 00:30 Kwark wrote:
Gun prohibition is both a question of lethality and purpose.
Guns are a tool to simplify the killing of people. That is their only purpose (in the UK at least because we don't do hunting). In a society that disagrees with the killing of people it seems absolutely logical that tools to facilitate the killing of people are illegal. Their purpose is to cause gunshot wounds and the British society believes gunshot wounds are a relatively negative thing.
Knives have a different purpose. They are a tool that enables a human to cut through things more simply. There is a lot of stuff that needs cutting (compared to relatively few things that require shooting) and therefore the negative purposes of knives, such as stabbing people, are outweighed by the positive purposes, such as cooking. Fortunately the law is able to distinguish between the two so if I'm caught in a public place with a hunting knife I'm going to be fucked whereas if I'm caught in my kitchen with a cooking knife I'm fine.
On to the question of lethality. I have no idea where the American obsession with handguns comes from given how far technology has moved on. You're thinking far too small. After all you can hardly expect to overthrow a tyrannical Government with some pistols and a few hunting rifles. The army has fucking tanks. Somewhere along the line the "right to bear arms" has become "the right to bear small arms". You were given the right to arm yourselves with any weapon you saw fit in the Constitution and yet as newer weapons have been introduced and the weapons of the founding fathers became obsolete the law was twisted. There has been nobody to defend your right to because the average man cannot afford heavy artillery so it doesn't really come up. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to it. If he forms a citizens militia they could club together and maybe buy a few humvees with mounted machine guns. Get enough people together and you could get a tactical nuke or two. That'd show King George if he tried to oppress you.
The writers of the constitution would be ashamed if they saw you today. Sure, you can still own handguns and rifles but what are they worth in a modern war. There's a reason they wrote "bear arms" rather than "bear rifles, muskets and pistols". They realised that weaponry evolves and old weapons become obsolete so they were clear to allow you access to any weapons, not simply the weapons of their time. But you've not only given up the right to keep a tactical nuclear weapon in your house in case the Redcoats attack but now see the idea as ridiculous. They must be spinning in their graves.
The point I am attempting to make here is that there is no argument you can use for making handguns legal that does not apply to making all tools for killing others legal. No fucker would dare murder you if you had your hand on a dead mans switch wired to a nuclear weapon. You could walk the streets safe at night.
If you were to use nuclear weapons you would kill yourself and others. How is that in any way similar to the precision of a gun?
No argument used to make handguns legal apply to nuclear weapons if you would be bothered to think about it.
What on earth is going to stop large people from beating the crap out of small people and men beating up women if there were no guns at all? Of course you have the police and the fear of retribution and that would be all that prevented crime ultimately. But if the police don't get there in time you're at the mercy of whoever is near you if they happen to be large enough to beat the **** out of you.
Getting rid of guns simply makes it once again important to be a large gym-loitering beefcake.
What is strength training for? Beating the shit out of people? Well, for most people who don't have a job that requires lifting heavy things that would have to be the case if you are going to rule out gun collection as a valid reason to own a gun.
Are guns only about killing people? No. Obviously guns can be used to prevent robberies, injure morons who don't back down from a robbery, or ultimately DEFEND against murder. Why on earth would you think that killing someone who is trying to kill you a bad thing? How can that be considered part of the "guns are only tools for killing" shtick?
Guns used for killing would-be murderers are a valuable tool. Society benefits greatly with their use.
Guns are the ultimate equalizing tool. They are not only for murder, they are also for killing or maiming murderers. They can prevent rape, break-ins, animal-attacks...
Guns are the ultimate personal weapon. And for some reason all armies still carry them. Why don't you ask them why they don't just rely on tanks? Why don't you compare the amount of tanks countries have to the amount of infantry they have?
Why don't you figure out the new strategies required to clear a house with a tank? Or the new vehicles required to move through a wooded area? How paratroopers are going to fit tanks with parachutes.
Guerilla warfare works. Its prevalence is sort of a measure of how bad the ruling government is to the people. If it is really bad and the people have enough weapons they can resist the government or harm it enough to force it to be nicer to the populace. Firearms work well in that case.
|
United States42821 Posts
Guns are only used for killing people.You can argue that at times killing people is good, for example self defence. I never said that wasn't the case. I just said that all they can do is kill people. This is true. They prevent robberies by being able to kill people. It is a tool that allows one person to kill another.
If a gang were to attempt to rob me and I had a gun and they all had guns then the result would be for me to die and several of them to die. It's a numbers question, just as it is with the knife. The gun is not the perfect self defence weapon, a few of them would survive. You need a more powerful weapon. The natural conclusion of this, to protect the weak individual against the world, is a nuke for every man. All I'm doing is extending the logic that justifies the gun over the knife.
As for clearing a house with a tank, firing a shell at it should do the trick. Now figure out a strategy to take down a modern main battle tank with a gun.
Vehicles for wooded areas? Helicopter gunships seem to manage.
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Do you honestly believe the only reason your Government doesn't oppress you is because you could take it upon yourselves to start a rebellion? Do you have that little faith in democracy.
Now consider those 9/11 conspiracy nuts who believe the right wing media brainwash everyone and the left wing media is just another form of control for the people, while a business oligarchy rule as tyrants and own both political parties. In their mind it is a tyranny and it is perfectly justified to start shooting shit up. You cannot give people that freedom. We have conspiracy nuts over here and they write angry letters to newspapers and vote for stupid parties which never get elected and sign petitions. Arming them all and telling them it's their duty to overthrow the tyrannical Government seems pretty retarded to me.
|
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
Guns are only used for killing people.You can argue that at times killing people is good, for example self defence. I never said that wasn't the case. I just said that all they can do is kill people. This is true. They prevent robberies by being able to kill people. It is a tool that allows one person to kill another.
As for clearing a house with a tank, firing a shell at it should do the trick. Now figure out a strategy to take down a modern main battle tank with a gun.
Vehicles for wooded areas? Helicopter gunships seem to manage.
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Do you honestly believe the only reason your Government doesn't oppress you is because you could take it upon yourselves to start a rebellion? Do you have that little faith in democracy.
Now consider those 9/11 conspiracy nuts who believe the right wing media brainwash everyone and the left wing media is just another form of control for the people, while a business oligarchy rule as tyrants and own both political parties. In their mind it is a tyranny and it is perfectly justified to start shooting shit up. You cannot give people that freedom. We have conspiracy nuts over here and they write angry letters to newspapers and vote for stupid parties which never get elected and sign petitions. Arming them all and telling them it's their duty to overthrow the tyrannical Government seems pretty retarded to me.
Wow, ya I guess a democracy has never turned hostile to its population...
/sarcasm
I didn't think you would try to argue against modern military doctrine. You have no clue though how few tanks there actually are due to their expense, and the fact that sometimes buildings are desired to remain intact. Your strategy would work better for the Guerillas than for you as then all they'd have to do is make the government think that they were occupying a particular building and let the government do the shelling. Brilliant!
Helicopter gunships cannot see everything or remain in the air forever. You lack a sense of scale as well. These things are expensive.
The burning of the Reichstag is a very important model to watch out for in regards to 9/11. I don't see that 9/11 was an inside job, but to ignore history is done at your own peril.
Your own government is flatly refusing to give its population a say in a document that undermines your country's sovereignty... and they do it without a care evidently towards whether they are going to be re-elected. There is a thing called bribery and as the population rises while our number of representatives stays the same, the relative ease in which large concentrations of wealth take control increases.
You are not saying "its only a tool for killing" to make that statement itself, you are implying that everyone who owns a gun wants to kill someone with it, which implies murder, obviously. Its a ridiculous tactic. If you are aware of the fact that self defense is a good thing, that line in your statement shouldn't exist.
|
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol.
On long runways.
|
United States42821 Posts
Democracy in Germany was very new when Hitler happened. There was no great democratic tradition.
There is no threat of tyranny in the UK. It just wouldn't happen. There is absolutely no need for the people of Great Britain to arm themselves against the threat of Government tyranny. Furthermore take pretty much any police shootout. Who wins? The ones with the better guns, bullet proof jackets, snipers and helicopters? Or the ones with the handguns. Handguns are simply not a deterrent to a Government taking over if that is what it wishes to do.
|
And pulling a gun trigger is alot easier then stabbing someone directly.
|
United States42821 Posts
On July 09 2008 01:45 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
|
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
Guns are only used for killing people.You can argue that at times killing people is good, for example self defence.
Well, yeah.
If a gang were to attempt to rob me and I had a gun and they all had guns then the result would be for me to die and several of them to die. It's a numbers question, just as it is with the knife. The gun is not the perfect self defence weapon, a few of them would survive. You need a more powerful weapon. The natural conclusion of this, to protect the weak individual against the world, is a nuke for every man. All I'm doing is extending the logic that justifies the gun over the knife.
If a gang wanted to rob or kill you, that's going to happen regardless. The example is unrealistic.
I think the problem is that you view "bad guys with guns" like minor 1-hit-kill enemies from a video game, who are completely OK with suiciding themselves to attack you, the protagonist, to prevent you from saving the princess.
If it were common to carry, that in itself is a deterrant. But you're dismissing that. The data funchuk linked to corroborates that.
As for clearing a house with a tank, firing a shell at it should do the trick. Now figure out a strategy to take down a modern main battle tank with a gun.
Vehicles for wooded areas? Helicopter gunships seem to manage.
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
If the military turned on its own armed populace, they would lose. It's not just about having bigger guns. You are implying that somehow, the aims of the military would be not to quell but to demolish. Such a campaign would arguably fail for a number of obvious reasons.
Do you honestly believe the only reason your Government doesn't oppress you is because you could take it upon yourselves to start a rebellion? Do you have that little faith in democracy.
No, I don't think anybody is saying that. That's stupid. But ultimately, people should be able to defend themselves with deadly force. Up to and including from a rogue military, if necessary.
Now consider those 9/11 conspiracy nuts who believe the right wing media brainwash everyone and the left wing media is just another form of control for the people, while a business oligarchy rule as tyrants and own both political parties. In their mind it is a tyranny and it is perfectly justified to start shooting shit up.
"In their mind"? If it came down to revolting, it would be a far more dramatic situation, and would have to inspire solidarity and support from fellow countrymen. Again, you are brimming with distrust of the individual.
You and others keep alluding to this idea that individual people, who you interact with everyday, will go full tilt the moment they get a gun in their hands. That is ridiculous and unsupported by the facts.
You cannot give people that freedom. We have conspiracy nuts over here and they write angry letters to newspapers and vote for stupid parties which never get elected and sign petitions. Arming them all and telling them it's their duty to overthrow the tyrannical Government seems pretty retarded to me.
People have a right to dissent. You are pretending that any amount of dissent will result in a full revolt. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to massacres of the people by the state, and frankly, it sickens me to read what you wrote here.
|
On July 09 2008 01:51 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 01:45 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways. Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in parachutes, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
EDIT: wrong word used
|
United States42821 Posts
The problem here is a conflict of cultures. In America gun ownership is seen as natural in order to defend oneself. In the UK it is not. I'd argue that the contexts are very different because of that and therefore the arguments of the other seem completely alien. I'll stop debating gun ownership in the US if you guys stop debating it in the UK.
|
United States42821 Posts
On July 09 2008 01:54 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 01:51 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:45 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways. Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong. I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry. I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
|
On July 09 2008 01:55 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 01:54 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:51 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:45 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways. Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong. I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry. I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks. Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes.
|
United States42821 Posts
On July 09 2008 02:00 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 01:55 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:54 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:51 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:45 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways. Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong. I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry. I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks. Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them. Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes.
If I understand it correctly the Abrams is a MBT and therefore not a light tank and therefore not what I said. But we don't use Abrams, we use Challenger 2s (which for the record are much more awesome). However I believe our Scimitars are parachutable.
I was sufficiently bored to look it up. The M551 Sheridan is a light tank fully deployable by parachute and has been parachuted into the field in Panama. The reason it's not in your airbourne division is because it's a tank and therefore rarely parachuted (ie only on terrain that makes parachuting worthwhile). As I suggested, if you wish to see a Sheridan, look in a tank division.
|
On July 09 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote:
The problem here is a conflict of cultures. In America gun ownership is seen as natural in order to defend oneself. In the UK it is not. I'd argue that the contexts are very different because of that and therefore the arguments of the other seem completely alien. I'll stop debating gun ownership in the US if you guys stop debating it in the UK.
Hmm, I can't agree to these terms. Everything I've said with respect to state and people is totally in line with Lockean social contract.
It holds for all people everywhere.
|
United States42821 Posts
On July 09 2008 02:10 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote:
The problem here is a conflict of cultures. In America gun ownership is seen as natural in order to defend oneself. In the UK it is not. I'd argue that the contexts are very different because of that and therefore the arguments of the other seem completely alien. I'll stop debating gun ownership in the US if you guys stop debating it in the UK. Hmm, I can't agree to these terms. Everything I've said with respect to state and people is totally in line with Lockean social contract.
Well you're refusing to accept my arguments regarding why the gun is a rather arbitary point on a scale between a penknife and a nuke and not some sacred guardian of personal liberty and I'm refusing to accept your arguments on how crime rates are unrelated to gun ownership and how the gun equalises things by removing the strength factor.
We could either keep repeating our points and dismissing the others because we are both fully indoctrinated in our own culture or we could just give up and play some bw.
|
On July 09 2008 02:05 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 02:00 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:55 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:54 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:51 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:45 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways. Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong. I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry. I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks. Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them. Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes. If I understand it correctly the Abrams is a MBT and therefore not a light tank and therefore not what I said. But we don't use Abrams, we use Challenger 2s (which for the record are much more awesome). However I believe our Scimitars are parachutable.
Well, regardless, each tank weighs about as much as 100 infantry so take your pick. There is also a lack of a sense of scale. They are very expensive and few in number. It isn't too hard to remove their tracks. And the ease of disabling them makes their expense negated cheaply in areas where there are cover. Tanks are not good in various terrain. One such terrain would be the city. If tanks were as numerous as needed to take over a country that is not smaller than the country that produced them, you would think there would be far fewer casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Yes finally you quote me. That's all I wanted.
Yeah, I troll.
|
United States42821 Posts
On July 09 2008 02:16 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 02:05 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 02:00 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:55 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:54 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:51 Kwark wrote:On July 09 2008 01:45 evandi wrote:On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote:
And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways. Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong. I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry. I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks. Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them. Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes. If I understand it correctly the Abrams is a MBT and therefore not a light tank and therefore not what I said. But we don't use Abrams, we use Challenger 2s (which for the record are much more awesome). However I believe our Scimitars are parachutable. Well, regardless, each tank weighs about as much as 100 infantry so take your pick. There is also a lack of a sense of scale. They are very expensive and few in number. It isn't too hard to remove their tracks. And the ease of disabling them makes their expense negated cheaply in areas where there are cover. Tanks are not good in various terrain. One such terrain would be the city. If tanks were as numerous as needed to take over a country that is not smaller than the country that produced them, you would think there would be far fewer casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What do you mean well regardless?
I said tanks could be deployed by air.
You said they couldn't be parachuted and acted like you'd made a great point.
I pointed out I didn't specifically say parachuted but actually some can be parachuted.
You claimed they can't and pointed out the biggest tank you could think of.
I demonstrated that actually Sheridans can and therefore you have no idea what you are talking about.
And then you say "well regardless"?
You lost the argument. You claim to have actually been in the army and yet somehow I know more about your armys capability than you do. You stood your ground over a rather stupid point and it turns out you were completely wrong. You have been fully discredited and you can't just say "well...." and move on as if it didn't happen and you might still have some credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
