|
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 January 17 2013 08:34 lachy89 wrote:
And you don't think its strange at all that you are allowed such a weapon?
Hypothetically if you had a bad day today, you could go home take such weapon into a shop, a school, a college and kill 10-15 people relatively easily before anyone could stop you. This is of no concern to you? (I know people will argue with the difficulty of doing such a thing, concealing a weapon etc... hide it in your car drive to a parade or something before unloading)
Not only that there are other people your age with the similar opportunity. Seems like a giant unnecessary risk to me.
Hypothetically, what's to stop you from having a bad day and driving your car down the street running people over? Pretty hard to stop a 1 tonne chunk of metal from killing (or seriously maiming) 10-15 people extremely easily before anyone could stop you. What's to stop you going on a massive stabbing spree? etc etc...
Point is, if someone is that deranged it doesn't matter what means they select.
|
On January 17 2013 08:41 v3chr0 wrote:
I don't understand how people think removing guns by law will stop them from being used to commit crimes. Most criminals acquire guns out of the laws bounds.
Irrational gun laws impede law abiding citizens from protecting themselves from threats, including our own Government should it ever come to that. There are already fairly strict regulations and laws surrounding firearms, we have to be careful with any more.
You never hear about how many times a gun has saved a persons life, only about people who don't even care about the laws or value of life anyway. How can written laws impede people unrestrained by them? How is that better than having an honest person armed, capable of defending him or herself, or their family, etc.
Legal gun ownership does more to protect people than laws, there will always be atrocities. An armed guard or teacher in that school,may have made a difference.
At least a decent response here.I disagree with you but your response is worth a debate.
It's a cultural thing, Americas gun laws run so deep they are imbedded in the constitution. You are unable to see ways of defending oneself in your environment (America) without the use of a gun. To me that in itself is sad.
Living in Australia I have no gun, I have no intention of having a gun and I don't see any need for me to protect myself with the use of one. The whole concept of always being paranoid about defending oneself and not feeling safe without a gun... It just is sad that America has come to that. One does not feel safe without a gun... its just hard to comprehend.
|
On January 17 2013 08:48 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 08:41 v3chr0 wrote:
I don't understand how people think removing guns by law will stop them from being used to commit crimes. Most criminals acquire guns out of the laws bounds.
Irrational gun laws impede law abiding citizens from protecting themselves from threats, including our own Government should it ever come to that. There are already fairly strict regulations and laws surrounding firearms, we have to be careful with any more.
You never hear about how many times a gun has saved a persons life, only about people who don't even care about the laws or value of life anyway. How can written laws impede people unrestrained by them? How is that better than having an honest person armed, capable of defending him or herself, or their family, etc.
Legal gun ownership does more to protect people than laws, there will always be atrocities. An armed guard or teacher in that school,may have made a difference.
At least a decent response here.I disagree with you but your response is worth a debate. It's a cultural thing, Americas gun laws run so deep they are imbedded in the constitution. You are unable to see ways of defending oneself in your environment (America) without the use of a gun. To me that in itself is sad. Living in Australia I have no gun, I have no intention of having a gun and I don't see any need for me to protect myself with the use of one. The whole concept of always being paranoid about defending oneself and not feeling safe without a gun... It just is sad that America has come to that. One does not feel safe without a gun... its just hard to comprehend.
You're sipping the juice again. Its completely unreasonable to say that if you dont own a gun, that you feel unsafe in america. I dont know where you get this idea. Do some people who own guns sleep better at night because they own them? Sure. And they are probably inner folk. I didnt buy my gun for protection (although it doubles as such) and there are many many other people like that as well.
|
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar.
|
I can safely assume you are pro-gun.
Would you argue that changes to gun laws would reduce the occurrence of massacres in the US?
Also, you may agree with me that changes would have an impact on these mass crimes but as many people have often stated these mass crimes account for less than 1%. Would you say that you would prefer to keep your gun and leave this figure at 1% or make some changes and reduce it as much as possible.
You want to keep your gun, are the lives of 10-20 school children worth sacrificing every now and then for you to keep your gun? As people are correct, 10-20 people every 3 months, every year or even every 5 years is not a lot in the greater scheme of things.
Changing the gun laws may only prevent half of these incidents. To me, that would be a win.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2013 09:10 StarStrider wrote:
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar.
You have such little faith in your own country and political system that this is the reason you own a gun?
|
On January 17 2013 08:34 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 08:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:On January 17 2013 08:05 lachy89 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_InternationalWeapon of the Connecticut Massacre, in the hands of a citizen. Argue all you want with what you classify the gun as, its a gun designed to kill more than one person. Argue with names, dates, money all you want. This gun was available to a 21 year old, with no criminal record and 27 deaths later the argument begins. All I ask Is a legitimate reason why a citizen in the US should be allowed to carry this weapon under any circumstances, licenses, checks etc.. seems stupid to me He stole them from his mother. I own a LE6920, when Im away from my house I keep it in a gun safe that weighs 250 pounds with a giant combination lock. Im also 21. And you don't think its strange at all that you are allowed such a weapon? Hypothetically if you had a bad day today, you could go home take such weapon into a shop, a school, a college and kill 10-15 people relatively easily before anyone could stop you. This is of no concern to you? (I know people will argue with the difficulty of doing such a thing, concealing a weapon etc... hide it in your car drive to a parade or something before unloading) Not only that there are other people your age with the similar opportunity. Seems like a giant unnecessary risk to me.
Hypothetically, I could dress as a clown and kidnap, torture and murder children. John Wayne Gacy did that just fine without a gun. I could feign an injury and ask a woman for help before cutting her head off and keeping it at my home. Ted Bundy did that just fine without a gun. I could lure prostitutes to the banks of the Green River and strangle them to death. Gary Ridgway did that just fine, also without a gun. Hypothetically, I could do all those things. Doesn't that bother you? You should should ban clowns, and injured men, and well ... prostitution; in a lot of places, you've got me on that one.
None of that is a good argument, and doesn't move the conversation anywhere really, although some people might think it sounds good. I'm more interested at the moment in the NY State legislation, so I'm going back a few pages here. (A few more than I thought I would have to honestly)
On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. edit: another article: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16515653-new-york-poised-to-pass-major-gun-law-first-since-newtown-massacre?lite
This did pass for those who might have missed it. There's a questions I have about it that I wanted to pose, for anyone that knows more about it than I do.
How are they policing internet sales? Is it through vendor distribution with help from the federal level? As I understand it, interstate sale of firearms is filled with bureaucratic red tape that makes it easier for most gun distributors that operate between states to just have distribution facilities inside each state they operate in. So while the majority of gun sales I assume are done local to the state, there are still vendors that work across state lines. Does ATF handle the enforcement of this law, laying some of the funding for it on the federal government? It seems like that would be difficult to enforce any other way though.
What kind of background check does the sales of ammunition require? Would it mean the first time a New Yorker goes to purchase ammunition from a certain retail outlet they would have to register for a background check and wait a week or two before being able to purchase the ammunition, or are they streamlining some database of criminal offenders that is being made more readily available? This sort of goes into the last point about the registration database, but wouldn't it be easier to keep a list of those who have had their right to gun ownership removed by the State and refer to that instead of keeping a list of everyone who owns or wants to own a weapon? The computer programing student in me thinks it would be more effective to maintain a smaller database containing only the relevant information, than it would be to constantly query a larger one for the same limited information that is needed. In this case the larger database being the government records of all citizens of the state.
As far as therapists being required to report credible gun threats goes, aren't they already required to report any credible threats of a violent or destructive nature? Does this law just set a legal system for which those reports automatically mean that the 2nd amendment automatically does not apply to a person, just off the word of one person? So instead of having the threat be reported to the authorities who then investigate and possibly prosecute, the whole legal system step is bypassed?
What is the sentence increased to for shooting a first responder, and who is considered a first responder? This one is more just out of curiosity, because I've read some conflicting articles about the sentence being life imprisonment or not.
Then of course the obvious question. What exactly is a "military feature"?
|
Were you talking to me Iachy88? I apologize if you were talking to someone else. I'm not interested in discussing the general topic again as I have hundreds of pages ago. I'm only interested in a response or critique to the answer I've given to the question of "Why does an everyday citizen need an assault rifle?"
EDIT: Oops I see you posted again to respond to me. Yes, I understand how fragile our system is, how if the monetary infrastructure collapses, banks shut down, fuel runs out, electric grids shut down, and grocery shelves go empty, that people will have to take the law into their own hands to survive. I don't predict this happening soon or say that I'm sure that it is likely, I just want to be ready in case it ever does. I think all people who rely on the system should be ready if it goes. If you live off the land and are isolated, you don't need to worry about it.
EDIT2: It's the reason I own an assault rifle and high cap magazines. Everyday protection is the reason I own pistols. I live close and commute to a major city.
|
On January 17 2013 09:17 lachy89 wrote:
I can safely assume you are pro-gun.
Would you argue that changes to gun laws would reduce the occurrence of massacres in the US?
Also, you may agree with me that changes would have an impact on these mass crimes but as many people have often stated these mass crimes account for less than 1%. Would you say that you would prefer to keep your gun and leave this figure at 1% or make some changes and reduce it as much as possible.
You want to keep your gun, are the lives of 10-20 school children worth sacrificing every now and then for you to keep your gun? As people are correct, 10-20 people every 3 months, every year or even every 5 years is not a lot in the greater scheme of things.
Changing the gun laws may only prevent half of these incidents. To me, that would be a win.
Im fine with closing the gunshow/private sale loophole. Requiring a background check now matter who you are getting a gun from is great. My state already requires that guns be stored properly. Im for schools having resource officers (school cops). My high school did. These make sense to me.
Banning guns based on cosmetics is dumb.
I get to keep my car no matter how many people die. I can tell you how to prevent all crime, you wanna hear the answer?
|
On January 17 2013 09:21 lachy89 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2013 09:10 StarStrider wrote:
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar. You have such little faith in your own country and political system that this is the reason you own a gun?
I think you completely missed StarStrider's point. It's not about faith in our political system, it's about faith in lawfulness of other citizens. People are savages when they are hungry and will have no compunction about committing violence in lawless situations that may arise from natural disasters or other breakdowns of normal society.
|
On January 17 2013 09:29 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 09:21 lachy89 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2013 09:10 StarStrider wrote:
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar. You have such little faith in your own country and political system that this is the reason you own a gun? I think you completely missed StarStrider's point. It's not about faith in our political system, it's about faith in lawfulness of other citizens. People are savages when they are hungry and will have no compunction about committing violence in lawless situations that may arise from natural disasters or other breakdowns of normal society.
I didn't miss his point, I said he has little faith in his country. I meant that by his fellow citizens and society as a whole. I would also claim that a governments responsibility is making sure that its people don't turn to savages in dire situations.
EDIT - Actions based on fear, this is not a new thing for humans to do, buying a gun for this purpose seems a little extreme.
|
On January 17 2013 09:32 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 09:29 Zealotdriver wrote:On January 17 2013 09:21 lachy89 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2013 09:10 StarStrider wrote:
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar. You have such little faith in your own country and political system that this is the reason you own a gun? I think you completely missed StarStrider's point. It's not about faith in our political system, it's about faith in lawfulness of other citizens. People are savages when they are hungry and will have no compunction about committing violence in lawless situations that may arise from natural disasters or other breakdowns of normal society. I didn't miss his point, I said he has little faith in his country. I meant that by his fellow citizens and society as a whole. I would also claim that a governments responsibility is making sure that its people don't turn to savages in dire situations.
Ok. Now suppose I take the fuel from the jets, the helicopters, the SWAT trucks and the squad cars. I take the electricity out because the grid has gone down, so communications are down apart from local radio. Now does the situation look different?
You're assuming the government will have any amount of control in this situation.
EDIT: Are you familiar with the LA riots? If not, please look into it before continuing the conversation.
|
On January 17 2013 09:21 lachy89 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2013 09:10 StarStrider wrote:
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar. You have such little faith in your own country and political system that this is the reason you own a gun?
Overthrowing the government is never a happy thought, but rather than "just keep swimming, just keep swimming" we acknowledge that it COULD happen again. It was the way America was founded so its not like its anything to outlandish.
|
You guys are reverting back to the standard answer and standard argument.
Again, I'm talking about a new perspective. Not a government AGAINST its citizens, not tyranny. I'm talking about a non-existent government, a powerless government. A government whose dollar means jack shit. We can't buy coal for power. We can't buy oil. We can't keep lights on. We can't keep cars running. See the difference?
|
I understand the difference. I find it interesting that this is what influences people such as yourself for owning a gun. Thanks for more insight into the debate, I believe its a little extreme but always good to get a broader perspective on the topic.
|
well. If the question is if I think people should be allowed to have guns?
My answer is firmly no.
Thats my take on it.
|
On January 17 2013 09:46 lachy89 wrote:
I understand the difference. I find it interesting that this is what influences people such as yourself for owning a gun. Thanks for more insight into the debate, I believe its a little extreme but always good to get a broader perspective on the topic.
Sure thing. Thanks for being amiable.
I have to say, you mentioned fear as the driving force. Well hell yeah it is. It's the furthest thing from a bad thing when used responsibly and properly, and not taken to an extreme. Fear of negative possibilties has led to how far we've come as a species, as a modern society. In agriculture, architecture, war, education, health, exercise, entertainment... in all areas of life, fear has been beneficial and led us to the great triumphs of mankind and leaps ahead in technology.
I guess where we differ is you think I am being too extreme in recognizing the possibility of societal collapse and desiring to be as secure as possible should it ever become a reality.
|
On January 17 2013 09:10 StarStrider wrote:
I have been discussing this issue with a multitude of people. I wanted to bring up a scenario here to see what TL thinks about it.
So, the standard question about assault rifles, 'semi-auto' 'military' style weapons, is "Why does the average citizen need something with that capacity and that killing power? Even people who are for having semi auto pistols as home and self defense ask this question.
The standard answer is "Those types of guns are for if the people ever have to rise up and defend themselves from tyranny"
Now, I want to answer the same question with a different answer. I don't think I will ever need my AR-14 for defending myself against the government. I think that if there is ever an overthrow of tyranny here, it will be bloodless because our military will stand with the people, and even if we come to a situation of tyranny where SS-type militia go door to door in people's homes, confiscating and arresting, I don't think AR's will be able to stop that type of power.
No, the reason I own my AR and want to fight to keep high cap high powered rifles and large magazines absolutely legal is not to protect myself from the government, but to protect myself from NO government.
What I mean by that is, should our financial system and infrastructure collapse, and police, national guard, and militia become unavailable or stretched too thin, I want to know that I can protect myself from multiple assailants from a distance. If you suddenly imagine our infrastructure collapsing, and the just-in-time system we live in grinding to a halt, your house and your possessions, specifically food and potable water, will be at the mercy of whoever has the biggest guns. Martial law, anarchy, the wild west... that is why I want one. Look at the lawlessness during the LA riots. Not enough law enforcement to go around, and people's inner thug comes out, roving gangs loot and plunder, take what they will. The only way you're going to stop them is if you can out shoot them. Imagine the LA riots on a national scale, now imagine no power, no food on the shelves of your local grocer. I'm not saying your nice neighbors will turn on you, I'm considering the gangs that will form and then roam far and wide, even through your little peaceful suburban neighborhood. And in that situation, a pistol just won't cut it.
I'm interested to hear responses on this different perspective. Do you write it off as just as ludicrous as the 'defense against tyrrannical gov't' argument? Do you at least understand how real these problems could be if we're ever facing this situation, regardless of how likely you think that situation occurring is?
EDIT: grammar.
Bolded is where your argument fails. You assume that they don't have ar-15s (or fully automatics). You want everyone to be able to purchase AR-15s. You're on an even playing field. Thus, according to you, there is no way to stop them because you can't out shoot them.
This doesn't even begin to address the problem that the biggest gangs in a lawless dystopia would probably be former military/police who have far superior equipment anyway.
|
On January 17 2013 09:51 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 09:46 lachy89 wrote:
I understand the difference. I find it interesting that this is what influences people such as yourself for owning a gun. Thanks for more insight into the debate, I believe its a little extreme but always good to get a broader perspective on the topic. Sure thing. Thanks for being amiable. I have to say, you mentioned fear as the driving force. Well hell yeah it is. It's the furthest thing from a bad thing when used responsibly and properly, and not taken to an extreme. Fear of negative possibilties has led to how far we've come as a species, as a modern society. In agriculture, architecture, war, education, health, exercise, entertainment... in all areas of life, fear has been beneficial and led us to the great triumphs of mankind and leaps ahead in technology. I guess where we differ is you think I am being too extreme in recognizing the possibility of societal collapse and desiring to be as secure as possible should it ever become a reality.
Fear is the path to the dark side 
So as a different way to look at the debate. We lie somewhere different on a scale of 'being fearful and prepared' and 'optimistic and unprepared' (for lack of a better word).
|
On January 17 2013 09:39 StarStrider wrote:
You guys are reverting back to the standard answer and standard argument.
Again, I'm talking about a new perspective. Not a government AGAINST its citizens, not tyranny. I'm talking about a non-existent government, a powerless government. A government whose dollar means jack shit. We can't buy coal for power. We can't buy oil. We can't keep lights on. We can't keep cars running. See the difference?
I think that what you just said is a little extreme but in a country as big as the US there are definitely places where the government struggles to keep control. Me and my GF were talking about how shockingly similar Detroit is to a post apocalyptic wasteland already just yesterday.
In general I think your scenario is much more likely to happen in some parts of the country than tyrannical dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
