If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On February 20 2012 08:06 Djzapz wrote:
In the case of a superpower like the US, the population with their little rubberband launchers don't stand a chance, and shooting at the military will just wake up a sleeping giant that'll eat rubberbands for breakfast. If the US gvt. went crazy and I lived there, I'd be smart enough to realize that fighting for my country would be a lost cause unless they military also turned.

If the US went bad, the military would decide what happened next, not the people. And if the people shot at the military, I think that the military would agree with the government

On February 20 2012 08:13 Chargelot wrote:


I believe you did suggest that if we abolish all guns, no one will ever want power. The civilized world, as you put it, is a big fucking bullseye. When everyone disarms themselves but one guy, that one guy owns everyone else. I'd hate to say it, but if in 100 years Europe got rid of all their guns and solved all their problems nonviolently, in 101 years they'd be the United States of America v2.0. Again, if you want to trust the idea that no one in the future of all mankind will ever raise a gun against your people, then the "civilized world" argument makes great sense. But if one bastard keeps his gun, getting rid of yours only makes you vulnerable to him.

On February 20 2012 08:25 TheDraken wrote:


i find it interesting that a lot of non-americans are saying that the military would absolutely crush the population. i feel like a lot of people take our military as more powerful than it actually is.

by far the most compelling reason for why the citizenry would win is that the military is a voracious consumer of supplies. one of the main reasons why it's so powerful is because it has a massive industrial base supporting weapons manufacture, and the majority of the military's stuff is american made. if they turn against their own population, no one will make their shit for them anymore. the military would choke itself out.

On February 20 2012 08:25 Elegy wrote:


Cute.

The video shows a complete misunderstanding of the historical context of the colonial era, however. Militia and people in the context of the writing can hardly be separated. Most colonies, if not all, had required service in the local militia; moreover, given the antipathy exhibited towards a standing military for much of the time period, "security of a free state" can be construed to mean whatever the reader wants. As does "well regulated", and even the meaning of "militia" is thrown into question.

It's a stupid, vague, arbitrary clause, like much of the Constitution.

The idea of collective security is difficult to take seriously, as I can't imagine people seriously thinking they would win a revolution against the US military with pea shooters. You need serious weaponry, airplanes, armored vehicles, assault weapons...sounds almost like the national guard. You know...the direct descendent of the state militias found in colonial times.

On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....

In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.

From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

On February 20 2012 08:40 cLutZ wrote:
I just want to ask people in favor of gun control one question:

In a world without guns what is the point of a trained police force, brute strength and numbers is what will always win the day?

If only the police/government agents are to have guns, what is to stop them from erecting a tyranny?

On February 20 2012 08:40 cLutZ wrote:
I just want to ask people in favor of gun control one question:

In a world without guns what is the point of a trained police force, brute strength and numbers is what will always win the day?

then a follow up.

If only the police/government agents are to have guns, what is to stop them from erecting a tyranny?

On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....

In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.

From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

On February 20 2012 07:50 Chargelot wrote:


I wonder if they said the same thing about household swords and spears 3000 years ago.
Here's an idea, don't leave a gun loaded, fire-ready, in an unlocked contrainer, reachable by Lil-Jimmy. Teach Lil-Jimmy that the gun is not a toy, allow him to see it operated by yourself (being his father, in this example) in a safe and legal way, such as at a range, so that he knows it's not a toy, and that the mystery involved in guns goes away and he has no reason to explore.

The whole guns don't kill people, people kill people argument is moronic at best, obviously guns make killing a lot easier. But people were killed before guns. They'll be killed after guns too. The difference between having an armed society and an unarmed one, and I'm taking the Machiavelli route here, is that an unarmed society is powerless, much like an unarmed leader.

If you 'own' a nation, and you're on the path of conquest, who is your next target, the country where 10-25% of the people own guns, or the country in which less than 1% own guns? I'm thinking you're going for the easier target.

If your own government goes crazy one day, as governments have often proved to do, would you rather be unarmed against the government forces, or would you rather have a gun at your side?

If someone breaks into your house with a machete (note: he's not breaking in with a gun, to play off the idea that guns don't exist in your country), tell me, would you rather defend your family with a steak knife, or a pistol?

I'm working off the notion that power is directly related to your ability to impart death upon others. Not all power, granted, but the fastest, cheapest, most efficient forms of power are all related to the immediate projection of violence upon others. I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it. As a citizen of your own country, if you're willing to trust your government with your life, and your family members' lives, then go right ahead. And as a citizen of the world, if you're willing to trust your life to the fact that your neighbors don't want to kill you (laughable considering you live next to the US), go ahead. But for me? No, I won't give up this power. History has taught me of the need for auxiliary precautions.

If Lil-Jimmy blows his brains out, that's sad, but if something like that happened then his parents were so stupid the kid was liable to stab himself in the throat while running with scissors, or drown in the bathtub, or drink a bottle of drain cleaner. The tools in our homes which can be used to cause death are abundant, and guns get a bad rep because they happen to be the most efficient, albeit the most complicated. They're no more dangerous to a kid than a wall socket (read: an everyday tool which can very easily kill a child) if you teach your kid about them in the correct way, and you keep the gun away from the kid.