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.
The frequent use of "The Left" was pretty annoying, imo, because I agree with him on most points but identify as politically left. I agree that we need to have better screening of gun transfers and more responsible behaviors in terms of physically securing legally owned guns (safes). Banning "assault rifles" will do nothing to mitigate massacres and it is annoying that we are wasting debate space on such a meaningless term. Ban all non-muzzleloading firearms if anything further will be banned, because all semi-automatic weapons and even bolt-action rifles and revolvers are capable of mass killing. Good luck with that, gun control fans.
Both pictures of the same caliber (.223) semi-automatic rifles. They function exactly the same way (rate of fire, size of bullet, even magazine capacity can be the same.) but people want to ban "assault rifles" cause they look scary.
"In the wake of December’s horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Vice President Joe Biden is chairing a panel of experts that will make gun-control recommendations to President Barack Obama by the end of the month. The president has said that enacting new restrictions on guns will be one of his highest priorities.
No one wants to ever again see anything like the senseless slaughter of 26 people – including 20 children - at a school. But as legislators turn toward creating new gun laws, here are five facts they need to know.
1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.
The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings - is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.
2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.
Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.
3. Schools are getting safer.
Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.
4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.
Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gunownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.
5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.
While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns that has no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. “Should it be renewed,” concludes a definitive study, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is as horrifing a crime as can be imagined. It rips at the country’s heart and the call to action is strong and righteous. But as Joe Biden and his panel of experts consider changes to gun laws and school-safety policies, they need to lead with their heads and not just their hearts.
Over the past dozen years, too many policies – the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the TARP bailouts – have been ruled by emotion and ideology.
Passing sweeping new restrictions on Second Amendment rights won’t heal the pain and loss we all feel but just may create many more problems in our future."
We have had 695 gun deaths since the newtown shooting in the united states.
Sorry, how does this relate to the article? Or are you replying to someone else?
The whole article was trying to downplay the whole issue as a non issue. It's not. There have been 695 gun deaths already since newtown, that's only 1 month.
695 gun deaths since newtown? Oh my god, that's terrible. Or wait, maybe it's average? Could it be good...?
If you are going to provide counter-evidence you should explain it and put it into the proper context.... unless you are just trying to use sensationalism to inappropriately sway people, of course.
I don't see how you can take 695 gun deaths in one month and think that could possibly be shown in a favorable light.
This is why you are not being an effective member of this discussion (you have plenty of company, don't worry). 695 gun deaths in a country of 695 people would be much different than 695 gun deaths in a country of 10 billion people. 695 self-suicide gun deaths, which comprise 100% of gun deaths, is much different than 695 gun deaths that are the result of one huge mass shooting where 695 people were gunned down. 695 gun deaths directly in the wake of a media frenzy involving gun discussions is much different than 695 gun deaths with no apparent trigger.
You think you have made a point regarding a simple issue, but you have not, and the issue is not simple.
See now what you are doing is just turning them from people to statistics. Because it's a small number when compared to the number of the population, when in reality 1 death is too many.
Both pictures of the same caliber (.223) semi-automatic rifles. They function exactly the same way (rate of fire, size of bullet, even magazine capacity can be the same.) but people want to ban "assault rifles" cause they look scary.
Assault rifles are already banned. It's assault weapons people are talking about right now.
The major difference between the two being, assault rifles are fully automatic. Assault weapons are defined as being semi automatic or burst capable, and the definition also includes the way they look in addition to the previous two features i mentioned.
"In the wake of December’s horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Vice President Joe Biden is chairing a panel of experts that will make gun-control recommendations to President Barack Obama by the end of the month. The president has said that enacting new restrictions on guns will be one of his highest priorities.
No one wants to ever again see anything like the senseless slaughter of 26 people – including 20 children - at a school. But as legislators turn toward creating new gun laws, here are five facts they need to know.
1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.
The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings - is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.
2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.
Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.
3. Schools are getting safer.
Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.
4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.
Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gunownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.
5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.
While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns that has no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. “Should it be renewed,” concludes a definitive study, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is as horrifing a crime as can be imagined. It rips at the country’s heart and the call to action is strong and righteous. But as Joe Biden and his panel of experts consider changes to gun laws and school-safety policies, they need to lead with their heads and not just their hearts.
Over the past dozen years, too many policies – the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the TARP bailouts – have been ruled by emotion and ideology.
Passing sweeping new restrictions on Second Amendment rights won’t heal the pain and loss we all feel but just may create many more problems in our future."
We have had 695 gun deaths since the newtown shooting in the united states.
Sorry, how does this relate to the article? Or are you replying to someone else?
The whole article was trying to downplay the whole issue as a non issue. It's not. There have been 695 gun deaths already since newtown, that's only 1 month.
695 gun deaths since newtown? Oh my god, that's terrible. Or wait, maybe it's average? Could it be good...?
If you are going to provide counter-evidence you should explain it and put it into the proper context.... unless you are just trying to use sensationalism to inappropriately sway people, of course.
I don't see how you can take 695 gun deaths in one month and think that could possibly be shown in a favorable light.
This is why you are not being an effective member of this discussion (you have plenty of company, don't worry). 695 gun deaths in a country of 695 people would be much different than 695 gun deaths in a country of 10 billion people. 695 self-suicide gun deaths, which comprise 100% of gun deaths, is much different than 695 gun deaths that are the result of one huge mass shooting where 695 people were gunned down. 695 gun deaths directly in the wake of a media frenzy involving gun discussions is much different than 695 gun deaths with no apparent trigger.
You think you have made a point regarding a simple issue, but you have not, and the issue is not simple.
See now what you are doing is just turning them from people to statistics. Because it's a small number when compared to the number of the population, when in reality 1 death is too many.
In the United States of Fantasy we can have an ideal society with no unnatural deaths.
For those of us who actually want to have a useful discussion, however, we generally prefer to try to make progress. Part of the process involves accurately identify trends of improvement, or the opposite. From this we can try to find relationships which show how certain triggers cause our problems to get worse, or better.
If you are not interested in this general process then I ask you what your specific objective is in this discussion. Is it to do what I said earlier: "unless you are just trying to use sensationalism to inappropriately sway people..."
Not just that one, but also the alex jones argument too. The conduct of alex jones and other gun proponents really speaks volumes as to how nutty and ideologically extreme many pro-gun people have become. You could easily pass alex jones off as a religious nut, some kind of cult member, fanatic, etc.
the country needs intelligent and rational debaters not this kind of childish stuff
And I'm sure you'd say the exact same thing if they had someone who was on the extremist gun control side that calls for the death of NRA members and anyone who wants to keep their guns and not give them all up to the government?
If you're honestly going to group up the crazies and say that they're all that you need to see to see that "evil" side you really are no different then they are.
Any normal non-insane, rational person would call that person completely crazy too, I don't see what you're trying to get at tbh.
Ofc hes a crazy anyone whos anyone can see that. Why are we looking at that crazy person though? because a guy on a tv show whos raitings are the worst cnn has seen in 20 odd years wanted to bring him on. why did he want to bring him on? Because the guy with the TV show is completely for gun control and wants to discredit the people who are against gun control. Why did he bring that specific person on the show? did he want a rational discussion with a credible respectful person with experience and is well spoken? No he brought a crazy on his tv show so he could mock all the people on the other side of the debate.
This is exactly what fox news has been doing for years now.
I don't disagree with any of that. But it's still because of people like that, we can't properly do anything with gun control without them all going beserk and trying to cecede or something. The non-fanatical republicans need to stop listening to them and giving them any kind of power.
Do you really think that the NRA only exists in the republican party? that a whole bunch of democrats as well are supported by the NRA because they label themselves "conservative democrats"? Do you want people to fight tooth and nail about constitutional rights? But Its still beacuse of people like that, we can't properly do anything with press control. But its still because of people like that, we can't properly do anything about abortion control.
Like arn't we suppose to be a bit fanatical when it comes to the bill of rights and the constitution? Isn't separation and church of state no different then the right to bear arms?
My thoughts are like what John Stewart said on the daily show. Fear of an imaginary dystopic future, preventing them from addressing our actual dystopic present.
But doesn't he still address the actual "dystopic" present in the video with his alternative solutions? Unless you don't think his alternative solutions are solutions at all. If that's the case, why aren't they?
I like John Stewart but that seems to be a cute punch phrase more than an actual argument.
It's a completely valid point. We're a truer Republic now than we've ever been. Sure people rightfully still hate the system, but at least blacks and women get to vote now.
We've enslaved, wrongfully executed thousands.
We basically imprisoned every Asian in America during WW2, for the crime of being Asian. Definition of that: Dystopic. So, it begs to question, by the logic of you freedom-loving gun-enthusiasts, should every law-abiding Asian-American not have grabbed their gun and shot back at those of us persecuting them? Because, yes, that is what this argument of "gun freedom" boils down to. [sarcasm]How wonderful that would've been, to have these wrongfully persecuted Americans rightfully rebel against their government.[/sarcasm]
I mentioned in an earlier post, Sacco and Venzetti, but there are just so many examples of egregious government control over our people. Freedoms should not to be confused with privileges, that our government may not grant you, but other countries may. We're hardly the most free people that have ever existed.
We're also in many ways one of the worst police-states. We literally imprison a higher percentage of our population than most other countries in the world.
Since our War on Terror, we've imprisoned American citizens without due process. Annie grab your gun? Why aren't you and other Constitution lovers helping all these victims of American oppression? Simple cowardice?
So it seems the argument of "We need our guns to keep our government from having too much power over us", is actually code for "We need our guns in case the government prevents us from having guns".
To which the only real reply is, "**** you, you don't get to hold our Republic hostage".
Not just that one, but also the alex jones argument too. The conduct of alex jones and other gun proponents really speaks volumes as to how nutty and ideologically extreme many pro-gun people have become. You could easily pass alex jones off as a religious nut, some kind of cult member, fanatic, etc.
the country needs intelligent and rational debaters not this kind of childish stuff
And I'm sure you'd say the exact same thing if they had someone who was on the extremist gun control side that calls for the death of NRA members and anyone who wants to keep their guns and not give them all up to the government?
If you're honestly going to group up the crazies and say that they're all that you need to see to see that "evil" side you really are no different then they are.
Any normal non-insane, rational person would call that person completely crazy too, I don't see what you're trying to get at tbh.
Ofc hes a crazy anyone whos anyone can see that. Why are we looking at that crazy person though? because a guy on a tv show whos raitings are the worst cnn has seen in 20 odd years wanted to bring him on. why did he want to bring him on? Because the guy with the TV show is completely for gun control and wants to discredit the people who are against gun control. Why did he bring that specific person on the show? did he want a rational discussion with a credible respectful person with experience and is well spoken? No he brought a crazy on his tv show so he could mock all the people on the other side of the debate.
This is exactly what fox news has been doing for years now.
I don't disagree with any of that. But it's still because of people like that, we can't properly do anything with gun control without them all going beserk and trying to cecede or something. The non-fanatical republicans need to stop listening to them and giving them any kind of power.
Do you really think that the NRA only exists in the republican party? that a whole bunch of democrats as well are supported by the NRA because they label themselves "conservative democrats"? Do you want people to fight tooth and nail about constitutional rights? But Its still beacuse of people like that, we can't properly do anything with press control. But its still because of people like that, we can't properly do anything about abortion control.
Like arn't we suppose to be a bit fanatical when it comes to the bill of rights and the constitution? Isn't separation and church of state no different then the right to bear arms?
Dude you asked me like 10 questions and only said 1 thing. This thread is too intense and hardcore for me, was just curious how this thread was going since the last time I peaked. It's still no better and the same arguements are being used over and over again. Could literally just quote answers from past pages to answer all those questions. I'm out, peace :/ gonna go watch Zero Dark Thirty and see what the fuss is about.
Both pictures of the same caliber (.223) semi-automatic rifles. They function exactly the same way (rate of fire, size of bullet, even magazine capacity can be the same.) but people want to ban "assault rifles" cause they look scary.
Assault rifles are already banned. It's assault weapons people are talking about right now.
The major difference between the two being, assault rifles are fully automatic. Assault weapons are defined as being semi automatic or burst capable, and the definition also includes the way they look in addition to the previous two features i mentioned.
Wrong, assault rifle/weapon has no meaning whatsoever aside from aesthetics. Aesthetics that make a gun look "scary" as opposed to how they operate. Also fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and very expensive but a civilian can legally own one (they have to manufactured before 1986).
My point was that the ban on these types of weapons because of aesthetics is nonsense and doesn't solve anything.
My thoughts are like what John Stewart said on the daily show. Fear of an imaginary dystopic future, preventing them from addressing our actual dystopic present.
But doesn't he still address the actual "dystopic" present in the video with his alternative solutions? Unless you don't think his alternative solutions are solutions at all. If that's the case, why aren't they?
I like John Stewart but that seems to be a cute punch phrase more than an actual argument.
It's a completely valid point. We're a truer Republic now than we've ever been. Sure people rightfully still hate the system, but at least blacks and women get to vote now.
We've enslaved, wrongfully executed thousands.
We basically imprisoned every Asian in America during WW2, for the crime of being Asian. Definition of that: Dystopic. So, it begs to question, by the logic of you freedom-loving gun-enthusiasts, should every law-abiding Asian-American not have grabbed their gun and shot back at those of us persecuting them? Because, yes, that is what this argument of "gun freedom" boils down to. [sarcasm]How wonderful that would've been, to have these wrongfully persecuted Americans rightfully rebel against their government.[/sarcasm]
I mentioned in an earlier post, Sacco and Venzetti, but there are just so many examples of egregious government control over our people. Freedoms should not to be confused with privileges, that our government may not grant you, but other countries may. We're hardly the most free people that have ever existed.
We're also in many ways one of the worst police-states. We literally imprison a higher percentage of our population than most other countries in the world.
Since our War on Terror, we've imprisoned American citizens without due process. Annie grab your gun? Why aren't you and other Constitution lovers helping all these victims of American oppression? Simple cowardice?
So it seems the argument of "We need our guns to keep our government from having too much power over us", is actually code for "We need our guns in case the government prevents us from having guns".
To which the only real reply is, "**** you, you don't get to hold our Republic hostage".
Lol. You do realize this argument is the definition of a strawman? You don't just get to make up an argument give weak examples for the other side and then definitively say that you've won the argument and the only answer that someone can give is completely irrational and makes no sense.
In a rational debate you make points and then have examples to support your point. Then the other guy makes points to counter your points and use's examples and facts to support theirs.
The government doesn't go out and tell everyone in the country all the horrible things that it does. Yeah it enslaved a bunch of Japanese Americans but that was half of for their safety if anything (how do you think people would feel if the Japanese had killed their child and then saw a Japanese person walking down the street?).Why didn't the government do the same for the German-Americans? We imprison so many because they commit crimes because of gangs drugs and other things we don't want our people do be doing. The "war on terror" is on terrorists that want to do terrorist things to us because they don't like america. Its not against the american government its against all of us. People are going to hate you for the very things that your bashing the us government for.
Firearm related suicides account for roughly 60% of all suicides and also count under firearms related deaths, thus artificially inflating the seeming danger of firearms to the public. If you remove firearm related suicides, the firearms related death rate in the United States falls from 31,347 to 12,612. That's 4.204 deaths per 100000 people. Fairly negligible.
I'm not convinced guns cause enough deaths to warrant their wholesale removal, or even limitation based on the current gun ownership.
My thoughts are like what John Stewart said on the daily show. Fear of an imaginary dystopic future, preventing them from addressing our actual dystopic present.
But doesn't he still address the actual "dystopic" present in the video with his alternative solutions? Unless you don't think his alternative solutions are solutions at all. If that's the case, why aren't they?
I like John Stewart but that seems to be a cute punch phrase more than an actual argument.
It's a completely valid point. We're a truer Republic now than we've ever been. Sure people rightfully still hate the system, but at least blacks and women get to vote now.
We've enslaved, wrongfully executed thousands.
We basically imprisoned every Asian in America during WW2, for the crime of being Asian. Definition of that: Dystopic. So, it begs to question, by the logic of you freedom-loving gun-enthusiasts, should every law-abiding Asian-American not have grabbed their gun and shot back at those of us persecuting them? Because, yes, that is what this argument of "gun freedom" boils down to. [sarcasm]How wonderful that would've been, to have these wrongfully persecuted Americans rightfully rebel against their government.[/sarcasm]
I mentioned in an earlier post, Sacco and Venzetti, but there are just so many examples of egregious government control over our people. Freedoms should not to be confused with privileges, that our government may not grant you, but other countries may. We're hardly the most free people that have ever existed.
We're also in many ways one of the worst police-states. We literally imprison a higher percentage of our population than most other countries in the world.
Since our War on Terror, we've imprisoned American citizens without due process. Annie grab your gun? Why aren't you and other Constitution lovers helping all these victims of American oppression? Simple cowardice?
So it seems the argument of "We need our guns to keep our government from having too much power over us", is actually code for "We need our guns in case the government prevents us from having guns".
To which the only real reply is, "**** you, you don't get to hold our Republic hostage".
I don't know why you're presuming you know my stance on gun control and the second amendment, and then mocking me for it, but you should avoid generalizations and personal attacks if you actually want to have an intellectual discussion, not to mention randomly straw-manning anyone who shows signs of disagreeing with you.
You didn't even answer what I was asking either because you didn't once address why his alternative solution of having more strict gun laws, background checks, etc, isn't a solution at all to preventing further killings with firearms. So, you have yet to demonstrate why this wouldn't be a solution to addressing our "dystopic" present of gun-related killings.
Your argument that having guns puts us in no stronger a position to ultimately resist dystopic tyranny is interesting though, and if true, it directly shuts down Shapiro's defense of the second amendment. Whether it's actually true or not, I'm not so sure as you.
On January 12 2013 08:27 Kimaker wrote: Interesting numbers I found:
Firearm related suicides account for roughly 60% of all suicides and also count under firearms related deaths, thus artificially inflating the seeming danger of firearms to the public. If you remove firearm related suicides, the firearms related death rate in the United States falls from 31,347 to 12,612. That's 4.204 deaths per 100000 people. Fairly negligible.
I'm not convinced guns cause enough deaths to warrant their wholesale removal, or even limitation based on the current gun ownership.
Why does the fact that firearms are used in the majority of suicides detract from the regulation argument? It seems quite reasonable to think that a reduction in careless firearm sales would lead to fewer suicides, which is a good thing. It is significantly harder to kill yoursf without a gun.
On January 12 2013 08:27 Kimaker wrote: Interesting numbers I found:
Firearm related suicides account for roughly 60% of all suicides and also count under firearms related deaths, thus artificially inflating the seeming danger of firearms to the public. If you remove firearm related suicides, the firearms related death rate in the United States falls from 31,347 to 12,612. That's 4.204 deaths per 100000 people. Fairly negligible.
I'm not convinced guns cause enough deaths to warrant their wholesale removal, or even limitation based on the current gun ownership.
Why does the fact that firearms are used in the majority of suicides detract from the regulation argument? It seems quite reasonable to think that a reduction in careless firearm sales would lead to fewer suicides, which is a good thing. It is signifancy harder to kill yoursf without a gun.
Whether or not suicide can be ethical or not is opening up an entirely different argument.
Regardless of whether or not you think suicide is wrong though, you probably can at least concede that it isn't as wrong as homicide.
Most people (including myself before considering it after reading that post) probably assume that when those statistics are presented as such, they are specifically representative of homicide and not inclusive of suicide deaths as well. At the very best, it's still deceptive and misleading.
On January 11 2013 23:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I don't understand why people are so squeamish. Don't kill the poor burglar, he's not out to kill you? Seriously? Why would you even care? That level of empathy for someone you don't even know, and whose first action against you is one of aggression, is simply unnatural and worthy of ridicule. This modern age is far too soft.
I completely agree, this day in age people are too sensitive. I have even seen people suggest filming the intruder for insurance, or using a baseball bat (which is somewhat reasonable), which is unheard of. if an intruder is in MY home, he is going to be shot, plain and simple. I'm not taking the chance of having anyone in my family (future wife, kids, myself etc) in danger, regardless if he has a firearm or not. If he is desperate enough to break into a home, he most likely could be desperate enough to be violent, and I'm NOT taking that chance.
On January 11 2013 23:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I don't understand why people are so squeamish. Don't kill the poor burglar, he's not out to kill you? Seriously? Why would you even care? That level of empathy for someone you don't even know, and whose first action against you is one of aggression, is simply unnatural and worthy of ridicule. This modern age is far too soft.
I completely agree, this day in age people are too sensitive. I have even seen people suggest filming the intruder for insurance, or using a baseball bat (which is somewhat reasonable), which is unheard of. if an intruder is in MY home, he is going to be shot, plain and simple. I'm not taking the chance of having anyone in my family (future wife, kids, myself etc) in danger, regardless if he has a firearm or not. If he is desperate enough to break into a home, he most likely could be desperate enough to be violent, and I'm NOT taking that chance.
Do you believe that if someone breaks into a house and is caught in the act by the police that they deserve to be maimed or executed as a punishment?
On January 11 2013 23:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I don't understand why people are so squeamish. Don't kill the poor burglar, he's not out to kill you? Seriously? Why would you even care? That level of empathy for someone you don't even know, and whose first action against you is one of aggression, is simply unnatural and worthy of ridicule. This modern age is far too soft.
I completely agree, this day in age people are too sensitive. I have even seen people suggest filming the intruder for insurance, or using a baseball bat (which is somewhat reasonable), which is unheard of. if an intruder is in MY home, he is going to be shot, plain and simple. I'm not taking the chance of having anyone in my family (future wife, kids, myself etc) in danger, regardless if he has a firearm or not. If he is desperate enough to break into a home, he most likely could be desperate enough to be violent, and I'm NOT taking that chance.
Do you believe that if someone breaks into a house and is caught in the act by the police that they deserve to be maimed or executed as a punishment?
Thats where the situation changes completely. If you can't differentiate the 2 situations you really shouldn't be asking that question.
My thoughts are like what John Stewart said on the daily show. Fear of an imaginary dystopic future, preventing them from addressing our actual dystopic present.
But doesn't he still address the actual "dystopic" present in the video with his alternative solutions? Unless you don't think his alternative solutions are solutions at all. If that's the case, why aren't they?
I like John Stewart but that seems to be a cute punch phrase more than an actual argument.
It's a completely valid point. We're a truer Republic now than we've ever been. Sure people rightfully still hate the system, but at least blacks and women get to vote now.
We've enslaved, wrongfully executed thousands.
We basically imprisoned every Asian in America during WW2, for the crime of being Asian. Definition of that: Dystopic. So, it begs to question, by the logic of you freedom-loving gun-enthusiasts, should every law-abiding Asian-American not have grabbed their gun and shot back at those of us persecuting them? Because, yes, that is what this argument of "gun freedom" boils down to. [sarcasm]How wonderful that would've been, to have these wrongfully persecuted Americans rightfully rebel against their government.[/sarcasm]
I mentioned in an earlier post, Sacco and Venzetti, but there are just so many examples of egregious government control over our people. Freedoms should not to be confused with privileges, that our government may not grant you, but other countries may. We're hardly the most free people that have ever existed.
We're also in many ways one of the worst police-states. We literally imprison a higher percentage of our population than most other countries in the world.
Since our War on Terror, we've imprisoned American citizens without due process. Annie grab your gun? Why aren't you and other Constitution lovers helping all these victims of American oppression? Simple cowardice?
So it seems the argument of "We need our guns to keep our government from having too much power over us", is actually code for "We need our guns in case the government prevents us from having guns".
To which the only real reply is, "**** you, you don't get to hold our Republic hostage".
I think there is probably a meaningful tipping point for which guns should be used. There is probably a fair bit of difference between imprisoning a few American citizens and a true government tyranny that is rounding people up into FEMA camps. In the former scenario it may be going overboard to use guns (to assault the capitol and kill politicians or what??), because change can be made in other ways that are far more likely to succeed (i.e. through the political process, rallies and demonstrations, etc.). Also I don't think that issue is necessarily black and white, fighting terrorism is most likely going to lead to some mistakes being made...I don't think that calls for a revolution to kill those in command (!)
Guns should only be used as a last resort, in such a case where the vast majority of the US population sees that they are necessary to stop some obvious "wrong", because otherwise there is no chance of success; violence would just beget violence and you'd have to be pretty prepared to take on the US military, or have some idea of where to escape. I think that might explain the whole Asian-American situation. Being imprisoned may be bad, but fighting back is kind of suicidal.
Also as an aside: Some people think that the US military is so powerful that a nearly universal uprising by the American people would be quashed easily; I personally don't have enough knowledge to say what would happen either way. I imagine it would be quite complicated, with many other countries potentially getting involved and aiding one or the other side. I think there will come a day when the military is sufficiently advanced that conventional civilian weaponry wouldn't do anything. But I'm not sure we're at that point yet.
It is a good question to think about though, i.e. at what point a revolution is legitimate.
On January 11 2013 23:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I don't understand why people are so squeamish. Don't kill the poor burglar, he's not out to kill you? Seriously? Why would you even care? That level of empathy for someone you don't even know, and whose first action against you is one of aggression, is simply unnatural and worthy of ridicule. This modern age is far too soft.
I completely agree, this day in age people are too sensitive. I have even seen people suggest filming the intruder for insurance, or using a baseball bat (which is somewhat reasonable), which is unheard of. if an intruder is in MY home, he is going to be shot, plain and simple. I'm not taking the chance of having anyone in my family (future wife, kids, myself etc) in danger, regardless if he has a firearm or not. If he is desperate enough to break into a home, he most likely could be desperate enough to be violent, and I'm NOT taking that chance.
Do you believe that if someone breaks into a house and is caught in the act by the police that they deserve to be maimed or executed as a punishment?
if the police catch a burglar in the act in a home, which would be somewhat rare, no, the person shouldn't be executed. the person should be executed if that robber killed someone that was living in that home, yes.
however, I'm realistic and I know police won't arrive in my home under 5 minutes, increasing the chance of a violent incident. what is an alternative? run out the backdoor like cowards and let them take my hard earned belongings? let them kill my wife/kids/myself? sure I can attack him with a baseball bat, but I'm not going to take any chance if he does have a firearm.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/223ar-15.jpg)
