|
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 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century.
This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar.
Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks 
|
On December 20 2012 05:53 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:49 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:47 Rhino85 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:44 KingLol wrote:
Addressing the gun problem is the easiest of the causes. By limiting gun proliferation, you can limit the extent to which individuals can cause damage. A crazy guy with a gun is far more dangerous than a crazy guy with a knife.
The thread title is "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?" and at no point have you said why you think they should or shouldn't be able to. Instead, you're just telling me that I know nothing about guns and that 'there are other problems'. True, a crazy guy with a gun is more dangerous then a crazy guy with a knife. But if a crazy guy comes at me with a knife I want to have a gun not a knife. Same goes if the crazy guy has a gun, I still want to have a gun, not a knife. Yep, I understand that you'd rather have a gun but it's not practical to let the 'good guys' have guns and keep them out of the hands of bad guys. The difference between the crazy guy having a knife and a gun is that you can run if he has a knife. Its not practical, here in the US, to keep them out of the hands of bad guys. I could run away if he had a gun too. Granted I know I'm not faster then a bullet but maybe I'm not faster then the bad guy with a knife either.
But you have more chance of outrunning him than a bullet.
|
On December 20 2012 05:55 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security.
I guess you ignored this post.
On December 20 2012 05:38 Dzemoo wrote:
Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.
|
On December 20 2012 05:55 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security.
I would like to hear your argument that owning a gun is less freedom then banning them.
|
On December 20 2012 05:52 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:50 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:49 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:46 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:39 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 05:37 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:29 jacosajh wrote:
Ironic how people who are anti-gun, and therefore probably with no experience using one, would try to argue how effective a gun is. It's effective no doubt, but you all seem to think this is "zomg i got a 30 round mag imma get 30 peoplez" Why is that ironic? Do you really think there's another, more effective weapon available in the US? There IS a reason that soldiers aren't running around with swords and baseball bats. If James Holmes had used a few gallons of gasoline and something to bar the doors of the theater he would have killed 20 times more people. What? how would u plan on getting a few gallons of gasoline into the theater while people are inside, then barring the doors. You obviously have not thought much about that. Guns make everything easier and after almost 300 pages its shocking that people have not understood that part yet. Holmes spent weeks prepping the attack. All it would take to accomplish an arson attack is a few hours to get chain and locks from a store then you buy the gas. It doesnt take much to deliver the gas. I wont speculate on methods and getting 5 gallons of gasoline into a theater is no more difficult than walking in body armor carrying several guns. Apart from the fact that it is, it is much harder espically considering the fact he walked through the back exit of the theater. If he walked through the back exit and started pouring gallons of gasoline around people he would of been caught and most likely stopped. Saying he wouldn't is just absurd. Can not belive we are even having this discussion. You are really not very imaginative. But better then having a dumb imagination that makes no sense.
FYI the greatest mass killings in single incidents by small groups or individuals have not been done with firearms. But you cling to your fantasy that banning all guns will stop all mass killings.
|
On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:55 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security. I guess you ignored this post. Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:38 Dzemoo wrote:
Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.
I read the post. It's not exactly compelling evidence: it's easy to cherry-pick stats to support your point. Similarly to that poster's point about Texas murder rates, if crime were to be constant for a year and then decrease, you would be able to say "the rate at which crime decreased increased by infinity percent in the last year!".
|
On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks
Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq.
|
On December 20 2012 06:02 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq.
Oh ok so you want everyone to carry around RPG's and bombs incase you get invaded.
Cant take this thread seriously anymore.
|
On December 20 2012 06:02 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq.
lol, are you seriously suggesting that gun ownership in the US is partially justified in the name of a possible Iraq insurgency style guerilla war against the US military/government? It is precisely this sort of logic that feeds into caricatures of both sides of the debate.
|
On December 20 2012 06:03 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:02 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq. Oh ok so you want everyone to carry around RPG's and bombs incase you get invaded. Cant take this thread seriously anymore.
Point is that a population with a little means can defeat a much superior army. A population with no means though can do little. Look at the Egyptian massacres.
lol, are you seriously suggesting that gun ownership in the US is partially justified in the name of a possible Iraq insurgency style guerilla war against the US military/government? It is precisely this sort of logic that feeds into caricatures of both sides of the debate.
That is how the US gained its Independence in the first place.
|
Why do the President and other elected officials get to have armed security guards and why do they have a right to protect themselves against the crazies more then every other citizen? Do they get more civil liberties because they're elected officials? Are they above the law in this case?
|
On December 20 2012 06:05 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:03 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 06:02 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq. Oh ok so you want everyone to carry around RPG's and bombs incase you get invaded. Cant take this thread seriously anymore. Point is that a population with a little means can defeat a much superior army. A population with no means though can do little. Look at the Egyptian massacres. Show nested quote +
lol, are you seriously suggesting that gun ownership in the US is partially justified in the name of a possible Iraq insurgency style guerilla war against the US military/government? It is precisely this sort of logic that feeds into caricatures of both sides of the debate.
That is how the US gained its Independence in the first place.
Unfortunately, I don't think the French are going to come this time.
|
anyone arguing guns should be legal to fight the government is deluded. just as anyone arguing for complete removal of firearms from america is living in fantasy land. so lets drop both of those things from the discussion considering they will not happen in our lifetimes making them essentially irrelevant to current debate.
|
On December 20 2012 06:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:05 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:03 Reaps wrote:On December 20 2012 06:02 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq. Oh ok so you want everyone to carry around RPG's and bombs incase you get invaded. Cant take this thread seriously anymore. Point is that a population with a little means can defeat a much superior army. A population with no means though can do little. Look at the Egyptian massacres.
lol, are you seriously suggesting that gun ownership in the US is partially justified in the name of a possible Iraq insurgency style guerilla war against the US military/government? It is precisely this sort of logic that feeds into caricatures of both sides of the debate.
That is how the US gained its Independence in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't think the French are going to come this time.
They did little initially and not a whole more eventually.
|
On December 20 2012 06:02 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq.
Go read the actual posts he referenced, where I pointed specifically to the difference between "defeats" in the form of tactical losses to change political will via attrition, and a shooting war where nobody has the option to pack up and go home.
Were you in the Army in Iraq? I was. And "defeat" was a political consideration, not a military one. If you look at the initial invasion, where the Iraqi Armed forces were infinitely better equipped than American civilians, how long was it before the most idiotically ironic and asinine banner ever was being flown?
I was there later, but let's face it, in the shooting war, the US Army rolled the Iraqi Army in just days, with irregular guerrilla warfare eventually convincing America it was time to go the fuck home since the original pretense was just plain incorrect to begin with. The losses were counterproductive, especially since the guerrillas were importing more people, expertise, and materiel from elsewhere just to go to insurgency basic training.
In a Civil War, armed Americans vs the US Army wouldn't be able to end that way, and it would take a shooting war rather than guerrilla tactics to change the political will by force of arms, in a hypothetical tyranny.
Look at the last American Civil War, where the gap between the South and the North, in materiel, was far smaller than it would be now if the people tried to overthrow the government. The South lost that one.
|
On December 20 2012 06:05 Rhino85 wrote:
Why do the President and other elected officials get to have armed security guards and why do they have a right to protect themselves against the crazies more then every other citizen? Do they get more civil liberties because they're elected officials? Are they above the law in this case?
The armed security guards aren't civilians in this case. They don't have a right to protect themselves more than any other citizen, but they can have guns to protect themselves with because it's assumed they've been through sufficient training and vetting to ensure that they will stay within the boundaries of the law.
|
On December 20 2012 06:08 heliusx wrote:
anyone arguing guns should be legal to fight the government is deluded. just as anyone arguing for complete removal of firearms from america is living in fantasy land. so lets drop both of those things from the discussion considering they will not happen in our lifetimes making them essentially irrelevant to current debate.
I'm fairly certain the productive juice has been squeezed from this lemon of a thread. Those of reasonable temperament have pretty much agreed that guns are here to stay in the US, and that they should be properly regulated with an emphasis on better education and screening procedures. Everything else is just paranoia or stupidity.
|
On December 20 2012 06:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:08 heliusx wrote:
anyone arguing guns should be legal to fight the government is deluded. just as anyone arguing for complete removal of firearms from america is living in fantasy land. so lets drop both of those things from the discussion considering they will not happen in our lifetimes making them essentially irrelevant to current debate. I'm fairly certain the productive juice has been squeezed from this lemon of a thread. Those of reasonable temperament have pretty much agreed that guns are here to stay in the US, and that they should be properly regulated with an emphasis on better education and screening procedures. Everything else is just paranoia or stupidity.
They're not necessarily here to stay, but I don't think any reasonable person would argue that they could be removed within the short term (i.e. within 50 years).
|
On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:02 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks Tell that to the US army who failed to win Iraq despite having the best and strongest army in the world. They sure as hell didnt go up against well trained, organized and equipped opponents yet suffered a defeat in streets of Iraq. Go read the actual posts he referenced, where I pointed specifically to the difference between "defeats" in the form of tactical losses to change political will via attrition, and a shooting war where nobody has the option to pack up and go home. Were you in the Army in Iraq? I was. And "defeat" was a political consideration, not a military one. If you look at the initial invasion, where the Iraqi Armed forces were infinitely better equipped than American civilians, how long was it before the most idiotically ironic and asinine banner ever was being flown? I was there later, but let's face it, in the shooting war, the US Army rolled the Iraqi Army in just days, with irregular guerrilla warfare eventually convincing America it was time to go the fuck home since the original pretense was just plain incorrect to begin with. The losses were counterproductive, especially since the guerrillas were importing more people, expertise, and materiel from elsewhere just to go to insurgency basic training. In a Civil War, armed Americans vs the US Army wouldn't be able to end that way, and it would take a shooting war rather than guerrilla tactics to change the political will by force of arms, in a hypothetical tyranny. Look at the last American Civil War, where the gap between the South and the North, in materiel, was far smaller than it would be now if the people tried to overthrow the government. The South lost that one.
You grossly underestimate how powerful a popular uprising is. History is full examples of both occupation forces and native armies being worn down and eventually defeated by vastly inferior forces.
|
On December 20 2012 06:12 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:11 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 06:08 heliusx wrote:
anyone arguing guns should be legal to fight the government is deluded. just as anyone arguing for complete removal of firearms from america is living in fantasy land. so lets drop both of those things from the discussion considering they will not happen in our lifetimes making them essentially irrelevant to current debate. I'm fairly certain the productive juice has been squeezed from this lemon of a thread. Those of reasonable temperament have pretty much agreed that guns are here to stay in the US, and that they should be properly regulated with an emphasis on better education and screening procedures. Everything else is just paranoia or stupidity. They're not necessarily here to stay, but I don't think any reasonable person would argue that they could be removed within the short term (i.e. within 50 years).
It's not only physically impossible it's also politically impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
