|
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 06:09 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So if I went through sufficient training and vetting I could carry a weapon? Sounds like a concealed handgun license to me.
|
On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote: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. 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!".
Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want.
Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew
A has a high percentage of armed people
B are all defenseless
I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense.
|
On December 20 2012 06:13 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell 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. 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.
The gap between the guerrila force and the military force has never been as large as it has now. The point is moot anyway. If a small group were to begin a popular uprising against the government in the US, they would be branded by the media as "terrorists" and isolated. Without any support, they'd either sit out a war of attrition or be swiftly cleaned up by the military.
|
On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote: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. 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!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense.
Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place.
|
Let's think this way: guns are made to shoot. So the real question basically is "should people be allowed to shoot other people"?
Put in these terms I think the answer is pretty clear...
|
On December 20 2012 05:53 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:50 jinorazi wrote:On December 20 2012 05:32 Reaps 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. Lol why would anyone need experience in using one when it is common sense how exatcly effective a gun is, they are made for killing, nothing more.Only need to turn tv on and see just how effective they are when you hear about 20 dead kids. Majority of gun owners dont see it that way, thats the difference between the two sides. Its a hobby and passion, no one in right mind would want to shoot a human being. Also wrong. Some just see it as self defense. There are many who wish they never see the day they have to use their gun.
in that case you mean "also", not "also wrong".
those who own guns solely for self-defense wouldnt mind giving up their guns if the government can control gun ban effectively (unlikely).
its the gun hobbyists that would still be against it and that is what USA gun culture is, gun hobbyists.
|
On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote: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. 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!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place.
So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening.
Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well?
|
On December 20 2012 06:17 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:13 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell 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. 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. The gap between the guerrila force and the military force has never been as large as it has now. The point is moot anyway. If a small group were to begin a popular uprising against the government in the US, they would be branded by the media as "terrorists" and isolated. Without any support, they'd either sit out a war of attrition or be swiftly cleaned up by the military.
I see you are ignorant in history as well. Im not talking about a right wing group in Montana starting an uprising. Im talking about a hypothetical future where the government has a reached a point where its citizens realize the government has finally eroded away all the rights of the citizens and needs to be removed forcibly. This is what the 2nd amendment is for. It is the ultimate check to the governments power.
|
On December 20 2012 06:19 RedFury wrote:
Let's think this way: guns are made to shoot. So the real question basically is "should people be allowed to shoot other people"?
Put in these terms I think the answer is pretty clear...
Yes, very clear. Guns are made to shoot things but not necessarily human things.
|
On December 20 2012 06:20 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:53 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 05:50 jinorazi wrote:On December 20 2012 05:32 Reaps 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. Lol why would anyone need experience in using one when it is common sense how exatcly effective a gun is, they are made for killing, nothing more.Only need to turn tv on and see just how effective they are when you hear about 20 dead kids. Majority of gun owners dont see it that way, thats the difference between the two sides. Its a hobby and passion, no one in right mind would want to shoot a human being. Also wrong. Some just see it as self defense. There are many who wish they never see the day they have to use their gun. in that case you mean "also", not "also wrong". those who own guns solely for self-defense wouldnt mind giving up their guns if the government can control gun ban effectively (unlikely). its the gun hobbyists that would still be against it and that is what USA gun culture is, gun hobbyists.
I know, I was just being a smartass.
Wrong. No, I would mind giving up my guns even if the government hypothetically control all guns. Guns aren't the only weapon. This time, I'm not being a smartass. If the government could hypothetically control all weapons that can kill, then yes I wouldn't mind. But I digress.
|
The problem is the media blows these things way, way, way out of proportion. People aren't scared to death to drive their child in a car down to the school, but they are scared of their child getting shot in the school. The reason for that is 100% the media, not rationality, not facts or statistics, just sensationalism and saturation.
Every death is a tragedy, but not every death can be viewed as a tragedy, since death is a part of life. So the media picks and chooses the tragedies for us. Imagine if they reported cancer deaths, or heart attacks, or car accidents as a tragedy every single time someone died the way they report shootings. It would be round the clock 24 hour coverage every day of the year, "MORE people died of a heart attack in North Dakota, and in Minnesota, and in Nevada... in fact, every state in the country people are dropping dead from heart disease." The public would be far more concerned with heart disease instead of guns, and rightly so if you consider the statistics.
27 people dying is certainly a tragedy. But this is a nation of over 300,000,000. Most of those 300,000,000 are talking about those 27 people. They are not talking about 67 who died from alcohol that day, and the day after, and the day after. Or the 109 who died from car accidents that day. Or the 1643 who died from heart disease that day and every day since. And the reason for that is because of the media, and because weapons are just scary in a way heart attacks aren't.
Are 24,500 deaths a year the price we pay for the freedom to drink alcohol? Are 40,000 deaths a year the price we pay for the freedom to drive cars? The answer is obviously yes. And so it is not about statistics which people bring up so often, it is simply about public prejudice against guns. When people think of guns, they see what the media has shown them, which is Sandy Hook. They don't see a purpose, a value, all they see is danger. And for that reason they feel justified in taking away that freedom from the people who do see value and purpose in the right to own them.
|
On December 20 2012 06:24 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:17 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:13 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell 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. 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. The gap between the guerrila force and the military force has never been as large as it has now. The point is moot anyway. If a small group were to begin a popular uprising against the government in the US, they would be branded by the media as "terrorists" and isolated. Without any support, they'd either sit out a war of attrition or be swiftly cleaned up by the military. I see you are ignorant in history as well. Im not talking about a right wing group in Montana starting an uprising. Im talking about a hypothetical future where the government has a reached a point where its citizens realize the government has finally eroded away all the rights of the citizens and needs to be removed forcibly. This is what the 2nd amendment is for. It is the ultimate check to the governments power.
It is moot. For an uprising like this to work you have to count on the soldiers valuing democracy&freedom more than the chain of command. The higher the ranks the better.
It is utterly moronic to engage the US Army with small weapons that are legally purchasable.
|
On December 20 2012 06:23 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote: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. 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!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place. So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening. Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well?
It's not a case of the gunman deciding to obey the law, it's a case of making it hard for him to get a gun. Doesn't matter how desperately he wants to go and shoot people if he can't get a gun.
Yes, if a teacher had a gun then he/she could've shot the gunman but it's better if the gunman can't get a gun to begin with (then nobody dies). Whether you think arming teachers is a sensible idea or not is an entirely different discussion though and I'm not about to open that can of worms here.
|
On December 20 2012 06:24 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:17 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:13 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell 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. 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. The gap between the guerrila force and the military force has never been as large as it has now. The point is moot anyway. If a small group were to begin a popular uprising against the government in the US, they would be branded by the media as "terrorists" and isolated. Without any support, they'd either sit out a war of attrition or be swiftly cleaned up by the military. I see you are ignorant in history as well. Im not talking about a right wing group in Montana starting an uprising. Im talking about a hypothetical future where the government has a reached a point where its citizens realize the government has finally eroded away all the rights of the citizens and needs to be removed forcibly. This is what the 2nd amendment is for. It is the ultimate check to the governments power.
If we're going with that sort of bizarre hypothetical, all forms of communication less primitive than couriered letters would be useless, they'd probably have made a solid start on removing privately owned weapons through illegal search and seizure, and our only hope would be that a sufficient percentage of the military, along with logistics trains and arms manufacturers, decided to mass defect.
Let's be reasonable here, if the US Government turned into the United States of KGB overnight, we wouldn't be able to go sign up at some public web site, or find recruitment posters telling us where to go sign up.
|
On December 20 2012 06:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The problem is the media blows these things way, way, way out of proportion. People aren't scared to death to drive their child in a car down to the school, but they are scared of their child getting shot in the school. The reason for that is 100% the media, not rationality, not facts or statistics, just sensationalism and saturation.
Every death is a tragedy, but not every death can be viewed as a tragedy, since death is a part of life. So the media picks and chooses the tragedies for us. Imagine if they reported cancer deaths, or heart attacks, or car accidents as a tragedy every single time someone died the way they report shootings. It would be round the clock 24 hour coverage every day of the year, "MORE people died of a heart attack in North Dakota, and in Minnesota, and in Nevada... in fact, every state in the country people are dropping dead from heart disease." The public would be far more concerned with heart disease instead of guns, and rightly so if you consider the statistics.
27 people dying is certainly a tragedy. But this is a nation of over 300,000,000. Most of those 300,000,000 are talking about those 27 people. They are not talking about 67 who died from alcohol that day, and the day after, and the day after. Or the 109 who died from car accidents that day. Or the 1643 who died from heart disease that day and every day since. And the reason for that is because of the media, and because weapons are just scary in a way heart attacks aren't.
Are 24,500 deaths a year the price we pay for the freedom to drink alcohol? Are 40,000 deaths a year the price we pay for the freedom to drive cars? The answer is obviously yes. And so it is not about statistics which people bring up so often, it is simply about public prejudice against guns. When people think of guns, they see what the media has shown them, which is Sandy Hook. They don't see a purpose, a value, all they see is danger. And for that reason they feel justified in taking away that freedom from the people who do see value and purpose in the right to own them.
I agree with most of your post (i.e. putting things into perspective). But I think it's hard to ignore the important difference that a person intentionally massacred defenseless kids. A car accident is well, an accident. Heart disease is a "natural" part of life. I don't like how much the media spins some back-handed anti-gun agenda, but I think it is rightfully a noteworthy event different from "regular life."
|
On December 20 2012 06:24 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:17 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:13 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell 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. 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. The gap between the guerrila force and the military force has never been as large as it has now. The point is moot anyway. If a small group were to begin a popular uprising against the government in the US, they would be branded by the media as "terrorists" and isolated. Without any support, they'd either sit out a war of attrition or be swiftly cleaned up by the military. I see you are ignorant in history as well. Im not talking about a right wing group in Montana starting an uprising. Im talking about a hypothetical future where the government has a reached a point where its citizens realize the government has finally eroded away all the rights of the citizens and needs to be removed forcibly. This is what the 2nd amendment is for. It is the ultimate check to the governments power.
I would like to apologise for not being able to read your mind. Any kind of uprising like the one you mentioned would have to start somewhere. In your hypothetical situation, the government response would be the same as the one I suggested (and it would be even more effective).
|
On December 20 2012 06:34 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:23 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote: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. 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!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place. So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening. Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well? It's not a case of the gunman deciding to obey the law, it's a case of making it hard for him to get a gun. Doesn't matter how desperately he wants to go and shoot people if he can't get a gun. Yes, if a teacher had a gun then he/she could've shot the gunman but it's better if the gunman can't get a gun to begin with (then nobody dies). Whether you think arming teachers is a sensible idea or not is an entirely different discussion though and I'm not about to open that can of worms here.
I agree. I don't want to go there either.
But I guess you think that someone who is willing to kill 20 something kids is willing to give up once he can't get a gun via typical route. If he was prepared to die via suicide, you don't think he was prepared to get a gun via blackmarket or some other crazy ludicrous method I can't even think of? I mean, yeah I want a bazooka as much as the next GI-JOE-Wanna-be kid; I'm just going to shoot it off in the woods where no one will ever see. But I'm not going to even attempt to get one because I'm afraid of the legal implications on the rest of my life. But I have nothing to live for, what does it matter?
|
On December 20 2012 06:34 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:24 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:17 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:13 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell 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. 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. The gap between the guerrila force and the military force has never been as large as it has now. The point is moot anyway. If a small group were to begin a popular uprising against the government in the US, they would be branded by the media as "terrorists" and isolated. Without any support, they'd either sit out a war of attrition or be swiftly cleaned up by the military. I see you are ignorant in history as well. Im not talking about a right wing group in Montana starting an uprising. Im talking about a hypothetical future where the government has a reached a point where its citizens realize the government has finally eroded away all the rights of the citizens and needs to be removed forcibly. This is what the 2nd amendment is for. It is the ultimate check to the governments power. If we're going with that sort of bizarre hypothetical, all forms of communication less primitive than couriered letters would be useless, they'd probably have made a solid start on removing privately owned weapons through illegal search and seizure, and our only hope would be that a sufficient percentage of the military, along with logistics trains and arms manufacturers, decided to mass defect. Let's be reasonable here, if the US Government turned into the United States of KGB overnight, we wouldn't be able to go sign up at some public web site, or find recruitment posters telling us where to go sign up.
I guess nobody here has studied any history on how a government transitions to a tyrannical or unacceptable one or how popular uprisings spread and become effective.
Let me pose an example which has some similarities. The war on drugs and the drug using culture bears a very similar semblance to a popular uprising. In many ways it is a popular uprising by itself. How effective has the US government, with all its technology and resources, been at even putting a dent in it?
|
On December 20 2012 06:42 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:34 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 06:24 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:17 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:13 Mallard86 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:09 JingleHell 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. 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. The gap between the guerrila force and the military force has never been as large as it has now. The point is moot anyway. If a small group were to begin a popular uprising against the government in the US, they would be branded by the media as "terrorists" and isolated. Without any support, they'd either sit out a war of attrition or be swiftly cleaned up by the military. I see you are ignorant in history as well. Im not talking about a right wing group in Montana starting an uprising. Im talking about a hypothetical future where the government has a reached a point where its citizens realize the government has finally eroded away all the rights of the citizens and needs to be removed forcibly. This is what the 2nd amendment is for. It is the ultimate check to the governments power. If we're going with that sort of bizarre hypothetical, all forms of communication less primitive than couriered letters would be useless, they'd probably have made a solid start on removing privately owned weapons through illegal search and seizure, and our only hope would be that a sufficient percentage of the military, along with logistics trains and arms manufacturers, decided to mass defect. Let's be reasonable here, if the US Government turned into the United States of KGB overnight, we wouldn't be able to go sign up at some public web site, or find recruitment posters telling us where to go sign up. I guess nobody here has studied any history on how a government transitions to a tyrannical or unacceptable one or how popular uprisings spread and become effective. Let me pose an example which has some similarities. The war on drugs and the drug using culture bears a very similar semblance to a popular uprising. In many ways it is a popular uprising by itself. How effective has the US government, with all its technology and resources, been at even putting a dent in it?
You ignored the civil war analogy in favor of this? Yeah no. Try harder.
|
On December 20 2012 06:24 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:19 RedFury wrote:
Let's think this way: guns are made to shoot. So the real question basically is "should people be allowed to shoot other people"?
Put in these terms I think the answer is pretty clear... Yes, very clear. Guns are made to shoot things but not necessarily human things.
Please, don't pretend to be naive.
Most of people buy guns in name of the self defence thing, which is the real point behind the whole discussion. In this sense I think that no civilian should be allowed to shoot other people even to protect himself.
So just bans guns or more likely put way more restrictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
