|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2012 04:41 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:37 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere? it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment). Taking away their explosives and their grenades will give militias a significant tactical disadvantage if King George tries to impose his colonial authority upon them or if the Government declares a dictatorship. The militia must be a credible threat to the US army or else it serves no purpose. Unfortunately, you can't tell the whackjobs on either side anything. I did my time as Infantry, and I know for a fact that every weapon me, friends, and family own, put together, wouldn't be enough to put a dent in a single Bradley or Abrams, let alone an F16. The "Overthrow the evil tyranny" argument is a dead-end street for people with no ability for critical thought, who shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of a gun, just as the "banning guns will stop all crime" argument coming from the other end of the spectrum. Somewhere, in between polarized politics, and poorly thought out concepts from the insane civilians, the middle ground exists, the only question is whether we ever find it.
The overthrowing tyranny argument still works. You just can't fight a conventional war. No military on Earth could defend every bridge, factory, refinery, pipeline, canal, reservoir, levee, dam, powerplant, airstrip, railyard, and harbor in the country. As long as the guerrillas avoid full-scale confrontations, I'd say they'd do pretty well.
The Taliban beat the Soviets, the VietCong were pretty successful, the Polish in Warsaw were never quelled, and I'm sure there's more guerrilla groups I'm forgetting.
|
On December 16 2012 05:05 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:56 JingleHell wrote:On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:
Don't wanna make my post too long, but I think you can see in Syria that the people, even with simple weapons, can overcome an army, even if they have jet aircraft and tanks...and they did it without any outside assistance. I don't think you should underestimate what a well-armed population can do.
I don't think anyone is going to fire their M16 at a tank like a fool (lol), but improvised explosives (and RPGs) could. And the army isn't going to fight with just tanks, its going to need foot soldiers, so in that regard obviously conventional weapons are important.
Dude, you're not talking about the US Army. No offense to the Syrians, and not to undermine what they accomplished, but it takes some badass shit to take down our equipment. I've used it, I've seen it in action. It's one thing to point to isolated incidents but a combination of numbers and technology are going to make it really challenging to do more than wage a guerilla war, which would NOT defeat the armed forces in and of itself. Even if there was a split within the military, and even if they somehow broke away with all the logistical elements in place to fight a war, both of which are a huge stretch, they'd be busy fighting their opposite number that didn't break away. There's a reason that every war the US has been involved in recently has become a matter of guerilla tactics. If you try to directly engage, even on the small unit tactical level, the training and equipment make for a big difference. I'm not saying civilians couldn't win some engagements, but a war, hell no. Let's leave all that behind, and discuss the reality, which is recreational and/or self defense, at which point it's obvious that the data is somewhat inconclusive for the US, but either way, the system itself needs an overhaul to actually protect anyone. Just the fact that Chicago hasn't managed to make itself a safer place should demonstrate that practically, there's more to it than strict gun control with this level of saturation, just as it's very obvious that it's too easy to get a gun that's off the books. Let's be fair, all the gun controls in the world can't stop someone from taking 30 minutes to drive over the border and buy a gun in a neighboring state with lax gun control laws and carry it over. This has to be done nation wide or not at all.
And I suppose all the laws in the world can make people that don't want to turn in guns? Not happening.
Also, for people who suggest the US should be able to defend itself against outside aggression... well, frankly, yes, we should, but I for one, don't trust an armed, untrained, moron no matter what the situation is. Me owning guns and being comfortable around them in general doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with lax laws regarding how easy it is for just anyone to get ahold of one.
For fuck's sake, when I bought my handgun, it took about 30 minutes, no shit. And that was THROUGH a licensed dealer. They just called a number for the US Marshals, gave them my info, and got a cursory response. Too easy.
|
On December 16 2012 04:59 Excludos wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that the non americans who wants gun control would far outweight, in percentage, the americans who doesn't.
Actually, I don't think that is true. In large cities, that is probably very true, but I know for sure it's not that way where I live. Every Thanksgiving, my family gets together on my grandparent's property, and we will set up a table with an array of different guns, and we will shoot them at some targets down the hill. When we were young, my brother and I were given BB guns, and we were told how to carry and shoot them. Later on, we would shoot a .22 rifle on my great-grandfather's land to kill 13-lined ground squirrels because the holes that dug would break his cows' ankles and then he would have to put the cow down. Then, when I was about 15 or so, I got a 20 gauge shotgun for Christmas because my dad, brother, and I would go skeet shooting regularly, and I always used my dad's shotgun, but he bought me my own. Then, when I moved out of the house, he gave me an AR-15 which I took with me.
Most people around where I live are/were gun owners, and if people are educated about guns, then there shouldn't be that big of a problem. I say gun control should be about education, and not actually limiting the guns. Schools have a lot of education about drugs and alcohol, but I don't think they ever gave a talk about guns and gun safety. Boy scouts taught it, but I learned the most from actually going out and shooting with my dad. He always had a safety first mentality.
|
On December 16 2012 05:15 bleda wrote:
Most people around where I live are/were gun owners, and if people are educated about guns, then there shouldn't be that big of a problem. I say gun control should be about education, and not actually limiting the guns. Schools have a lot of education about drugs and alcohol, but I don't think they ever gave a talk about guns and gun safety. Boy scouts taught it, but I learned the most from actually going out and shooting with my dad. He always had a safety first mentality.
A fair point, but more severe drugs are also still prohibited.
|
On December 16 2012 05:18 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:15 bleda wrote:
Most people around where I live are/were gun owners, and if people are educated about guns, then there shouldn't be that big of a problem. I say gun control should be about education, and not actually limiting the guns. Schools have a lot of education about drugs and alcohol, but I don't think they ever gave a talk about guns and gun safety. Boy scouts taught it, but I learned the most from actually going out and shooting with my dad. He always had a safety first mentality. A fair point, but more severe drugs are also still prohibited.
Except no one pays attention to drug or alcohol education, at least in the US. The stuff the government and adults have put out from weed will turn you into an axe murderer to make you die on the spot, which are obviously 100% lies makes the kids not actually follow the education and go on to experiment with drugs on a massive scale. All that education is completely worthless in stopping the majority of kids from doing drugs or alcohol.
|
On December 16 2012 05:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:18 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2012 05:15 bleda wrote:
Most people around where I live are/were gun owners, and if people are educated about guns, then there shouldn't be that big of a problem. I say gun control should be about education, and not actually limiting the guns. Schools have a lot of education about drugs and alcohol, but I don't think they ever gave a talk about guns and gun safety. Boy scouts taught it, but I learned the most from actually going out and shooting with my dad. He always had a safety first mentality. A fair point, but more severe drugs are also still prohibited. Except no one pays attention to drug or alcohol education, at least in the US. The stuff the government and adults have put out from weed will turn you into an axe murderer to make you die on the spot, which are obviously 100% lies makes the kids not pay actually follow the education and go on to experiment with drugs on a massive scale. All that education is completely worthless in stopping the majority of kids from doing drugs or alcohol.
Whether it works or not is an entirely different conversation than whether it's there.
I was bringing up that limitation and education can go hand in hand, particularly when the topic has a variety of dangers.
|
On December 16 2012 05:15 bleda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:59 Excludos wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that the non americans who wants gun control would far outweight, in percentage, the americans who doesn't. Actually, I don't think that is true. In large cities, that is probably very true, but I know for sure it's not that way where I live. Every Thanksgiving, my family gets together on my grandparent's property, and we will set up a table with an array of different guns, and we will shoot them at some targets down the hill. When we were young, my brother and I were given BB guns, and we were told how to carry and shoot them. Later on, we would shoot a .22 rifle on my great-grandfather's land to kill 13-lined ground squirrels because the holes that dug would break his cows' ankles and then he would have to put the cow down. Then, when I was about 15 or so, I got a 20 gauge shotgun for Christmas because my dad, brother, and I would go skeet shooting regularly, and I always used my dad's shotgun, but he bought me my own. Then, when I moved out of the house, he gave me an AR-15 which I took with me. Most people around where I live are/were gun owners, and if people are educated about guns, then there shouldn't be that big of a problem. I say gun control should be about education, and not actually limiting the guns. Schools have a lot of education about drugs and alcohol, but I don't think they ever gave a talk about guns and gun safety. Boy scouts taught it, but I learned the most from actually going out and shooting with my dad. He always had a safety first mentality.
Actually that enforces my point. You are part of the "americans who doesn't want gun control" (Altough you do want gun education at least, which is commendable), and obviously theres a lot of those. But I also happen to think that most people outside of us wants gun control of some sort.
And do you mind if I ask? What in the world do you plan to do with that AR-15? Its purpose is very spesific, and its not deer hunting.. For collecting and or recreational, I think its fine. But both of those are completely possible with strict gun regulations (heavy background checks on both you and your family, required education on security and useage before buying etc..well, you'd probably have to forget the "fully automatic part", but honestly why do you need that anyways?).
|
This is actually an amazing read. Do you know of any other thorough studies such as this one?
|
On December 16 2012 05:26 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:On December 16 2012 05:18 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2012 05:15 bleda wrote:
Most people around where I live are/were gun owners, and if people are educated about guns, then there shouldn't be that big of a problem. I say gun control should be about education, and not actually limiting the guns. Schools have a lot of education about drugs and alcohol, but I don't think they ever gave a talk about guns and gun safety. Boy scouts taught it, but I learned the most from actually going out and shooting with my dad. He always had a safety first mentality. A fair point, but more severe drugs are also still prohibited. Except no one pays attention to drug or alcohol education, at least in the US. The stuff the government and adults have put out from weed will turn you into an axe murderer to make you die on the spot, which are obviously 100% lies makes the kids not pay actually follow the education and go on to experiment with drugs on a massive scale. All that education is completely worthless in stopping the majority of kids from doing drugs or alcohol. Whether it works or not is an entirely different conversation than whether it's there. I was bringing up that limitation and education can go hand in hand, particularly when the topic has a variety of dangers.
But if it doesn't work the fact that it's offered is moot. Then you also get into the argument of we've got bigger fish to try in school anyway with our current education system. Gun use and safety aren't pressing issues when our math and science lag behind most of the civilized world, etc.
Back onto the topic at hand. I'm sure I've posted previously in this thread somewhere. I'm not anti-gun, guns can be a ton of fun at the shooting range. If they said they were going to take them all away (which is absurd) I wouldn't cry about it. I can take it or leave it.
I do believe that some form of psychological evaluation should be in place to keep nutbars from getting guns. If you fail you can't buy that gun sir. If you fail and own some already we take them away. Even have another evaluation every 5 or so years to check for some new developments in someone. But of course that's all truly a pipedream since many people wouldn't be able to afford said evaluation with the medical system as it is. It's a beast with many heads.
|
On December 16 2012 04:56 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:
Don't wanna make my post too long, but I think you can see in Syria that the people, even with simple weapons, can overcome an army, even if they have jet aircraft and tanks...and they did it without any outside assistance. I don't think you should underestimate what a well-armed population can do.
I don't think anyone is going to fire their M16 at a tank like a fool (lol), but improvised explosives (and RPGs) could. And the army isn't going to fight with just tanks, its going to need foot soldiers, so in that regard obviously conventional weapons are important.
Dude, you're not talking about the US Army. No offense to the Syrians, and not to undermine what they accomplished, but it takes some badass shit to take down our equipment. I've used it, I've seen it in action. It's one thing to point to isolated incidents but a combination of numbers and technology are going to make it really challenging to do more than wage a guerilla war, which would NOT defeat the armed forces in and of itself. Even if there was a split within the military, and even if they somehow broke away with all the logistical elements in place to fight a war, both of which are a huge stretch, they'd be busy fighting their opposite number that didn't break away. There's a reason that every war the US has been involved in recently has become a matter of guerilla tactics. If you try to directly engage, even on the small unit tactical level, the training and equipment make for a big difference. I'm not saying civilians couldn't win some engagements, but a war, hell no. Let's leave all that behind, and discuss the reality, which is recreational and/or self defense, at which point it's obvious that the data is somewhat inconclusive for the US, but either way, the system itself needs an overhaul to actually protect anyone. Just the fact that Chicago hasn't managed to make itself a safer place should demonstrate that practically, there's more to it than strict gun control with this level of saturation, just as it's very obvious that it's too easy to get a gun that's off the books.
Well it is kind of important to consider, I don't think it is going to happen in the near future, but you never know what might happen over the long term. There could be a lot of powerful forces, or key decisions made by politicians, that could lead to a very unstable situation. Financial collapse? Extreme climate change? All of this coupled with increased corruption and control over the economy by the government, leading to record levels of poverty? Its a possibility. I don't personally stockpile any weapons, but I think it is at least an important hypothetical scenario to discuss.
I think at a certain level, the government could have technology advanced enough that it could kill millions with ease (nuclear weapons)? But it would probably not want to use them because that's too extreme.
I think you are right, and that it would basically become a war of attrition. But haven't some wars been decided based on this? In Vietnam, wasn't the US forced to pull out because they couldn't make any inroads, and it was costing too much to continue fighting? I think its that same underestimation of terrorist forces in Afghanistan that has led to two incredibly costly wars. Who knew that terrorists hiding in caves, with essentially primitive technology, could cause the modern US military so much trouble?
Basically what millitron said  .
But anyway, I agree that in the end, gun control isn't the solution as the studies repeatedly show. If you want to stop gun violence you need to look at other causes. Early intervention strategies, making sure we have more funding for extra-curricular activities in poverty-stricken neighbourhoods and their schools, to me these are the real tools that need to be used to combat this problem.
|
On December 16 2012 05:39 sCCrooked wrote:This is actually an amazing read. Do you know of any other thorough studies such as this one?
Well, they're trying to claim that over 1/3 of the Norwegian population own guns, and that there are guns in 32% households..Which would be absolutely insane. Maybe they included the AG3s used by the National guard? In which case 1. they are not owned by the people, only stored, and 2, are unable to fire due to missing pins (which where retracted exactly because one was misused to kill a bunch of guys).
+ forgive me if I'm wrong, the document is long so I didn't read through all of it. It only touches on "allowed" and "completely banned". What we want is restrictions, which most countries, with the exceptions of USA, have in varying doses. Thats what we really want, not a complete outright ban of all guns ever.
|
On December 16 2012 05:52 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:39 sCCrooked wrote:This is actually an amazing read. Do you know of any other thorough studies such as this one? Well, they're trying to claim that over 1/3 of the Norwegian population own guns, and that there are guns in 32% households..Which would be absolutely insane. Maybe they included the AG3s used by the National guard? In which case 1. they are not owned by the people, only stored, and 2, are unable to fire due to missing pins (which where retracted exactly because one was misused to kill a bunch of guys).
GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003).
Guess we'll have to look into this source to see how they got that then. Even though its from Harvard, no reason not to check up on it
|
On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Thank you so much!! This is exactly what the gun control debate needs. Cold hard facts in the form of statistics analyzed by experts in the field. No more endless talk about people's personal, biased views, or wishy washy anecdotal evidence that gets people nowhere. Its certainly nice to talk about in its own right, but if you actually want to find a meaningful conclusion about whether gun control is a good idea, then simply look at the these scientific review papers; at the very least its as close as you're going to get to an answer.
The paper was written by a guy who is part of a libertarian thinktank. Not really an academic paper as much as a paper parading around as one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against gun control as much as the next guy, but people need to see this crap for what it really is.
|
This is interesting, the shooter actually tried to buy a rifle days before the shooting but was denied due to mental illness:
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
This is for the people who think you can walk into a store and just buy a gun like you're buying a bottle of water, it is not true. The guns he used for the murders were stolen from his mother.
|
|
|
On December 16 2012 06:08 Esk23 wrote:This is interesting, the shooter actually tried to buy a rifle days before the shooting but was denied due to mental illness: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495This is for the people who think you can walk into a store and just buy a gun like you're buying a bottle of water, it is not true. The guns he used for the murders were stolen from his mother.
That video said nothing about being denied for having a mental illness, it said it was because they had stricter gun laws in that state and has a much longer waiting period. Where did you get mental illness from?
Also the fact he stole the weapons from his mom does not help your arguement, it actualy goes agaisnt it.
|
On December 16 2012 06:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Thank you so much!! This is exactly what the gun control debate needs. Cold hard facts in the form of statistics analyzed by experts in the field. No more endless talk about people's personal, biased views, or wishy washy anecdotal evidence that gets people nowhere. Its certainly nice to talk about in its own right, but if you actually want to find a meaningful conclusion about whether gun control is a good idea, then simply look at the these scientific review papers; at the very least its as close as you're going to get to an answer. The paper was written by a guy who is part of a libertarian thinktank. Not really an academic paper as much as a paper parading around as one. Don't get me wrong, I'm against gun control as much as the next guy, but people need to see this crap for what it really is.
"He holds views I disagree with so he's a fraud!"
Nice.
Here's another study, by those sinister libertarians, of civilians using guns to defend themselves against criminals in the US, using newspaper reports, crime records, and interviews:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
Guns are used hundreds of thousands - possibly millions - of times a year by civilians to defend themselves. And yet, the streets are not awash with blood shed by gun-crazy rednecks who shoot first and ask questions later. The vast majority of gun defenses consist of a civilian brandishing a gun and the criminal fleeing, no shots fired or needed to be fired. How is this possible? Is the fantasy of the civilian who cannot use his gun properly and cannot decide when to use it properly just that, a fantasy? (Of course it is. But the geniuses who know everything here don't care, they already know everything.)
|
On December 16 2012 03:45 Antyee wrote:
It is a document written by gun supporters. That't it. It is not more relevant then random-ass data pulled from wikipedia.
So you only look at sources prepared by people who agree with you? Cool.
|
On December 16 2012 06:18 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 03:45 Antyee wrote:
It is a document written by gun supporters. That't it. It is not more relevant then random-ass data pulled from wikipedia. So you only look at sources prepared by people who agree with you? Cool.
Other than outright making shit up through assumptions and asserting it as true, poisoning the well is the number one fallacy employed by gun-grabbers. Oh that's from a pro-gun organization, it must be lies! Here's this from the Brady Center, no questions about their agenda!
|
On December 16 2012 06:16 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:08 Esk23 wrote:This is interesting, the shooter actually tried to buy a rifle days before the shooting but was denied due to mental illness: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495This is for the people who think you can walk into a store and just buy a gun like you're buying a bottle of water, it is not true. The guns he used for the murders were stolen from his mother. That video said nothing about being denied for having a mental illness, it said it was because they had stricter gun laws in that state and has a much longer waiting period. Where did you get mental illness from? Also the fact he stole the weapons from his mom does not help your arguement, it actualy goes agaisnt it.
Wrong, because stolen weapons are guess what... illegal. They're discussing the legal variety right now and trying to increase restrictions on them when illegal firearms are usually the tool of choice.
You are, however, correct about that the video stated it was due to the waiting period and not mental illness. However you neglected the part where they said "...and he was denied that for a couple of reasons, one is that Connecticut is amongst the states with stricter gun legislation and there's a waiting period..." Even though they admit its a couple of reasons, they only gave us one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
