|
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 09:57 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it.
They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora.
After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows.
As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with.
|
On January 17 2013 09:59 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 09:51 StarStrider wrote: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).
Correct. And I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
|
On January 17 2013 10:01 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Right, I don't expect people in podunk Iowa or the backwoods of Tennessee or any remote, rural county to be affected as much. My main concern would be any suburb or connected area to major populations, where resources would become scarce in a blink.
Like mine.
|
On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with.
Congratulations. You're batman.
No, seriously. You're trying to be batman with guns.
With that type of time and money invested you could have just built a bunker...
In your dystopian apocalypse where people become rabid immoral animals, everyone is out to get you. Street bandits, gangsters, even the police are out to kill you! But not former military, they're all going to become vigilantes (on your side of course). So you have the military on your side. So you don't need AR-15s because there are tanks on the street keeping order. Something known as martial law, it's generally pretty effective. Or, if they don't turn out to be good guys after all, then you're completely screwed.
|
On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with.
My main problem with this is that something should have been done, previously, to keep these sorts of weaponry/equipment away from the thugs (which would only be possible if supposed law abiding citizens were also unable to obtain them) so it would not be necessary for you to be so well armed. But as they say, the monkey is already out of the bottle.
|
On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with.
Somebody give this guy more guns, stat.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 17 2013 10:48 Myrddraal wrote:
My main problem with this is that something should have been done, previously, to keep these sorts of weaponry/equipment away from the thugs (which would only be possible if supposed law abiding citizens were also unable to obtain them) so it would not be necessary for you to be so well armed. But as they say, the monkey is already out of the bottle.
It's not possible, even with law abiding citizens being unable to get them. Look at every single illegal drug out there in the world, no one is allowed to have them and yet they're still here. Same principal with firearms, black banning them only serves to create a commodity on the black market.
Australia is the perfect example of this. There is a shooting almost every 3 days in Sydney alone and that's more than a decade after the gun laws came in
|
On January 17 2013 10:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with. Congratulations. You're batman. No, seriously. You're trying to be batman with guns. With that type of time and money invested you could have just built a bunker... In your dystopian apocalypse where people become rabid immoral animals, everyone is out to get you. Street bandits, gangsters, even the police are out to kill you! But not former military, they're all going to become vigilantes (on your side of course). So you have the military on your side. So you don't need AR-15s because there are tanks on the street keeping order. Something known as martial law, it's generally pretty effective. Or, if they don't turn out to be good guys after all, then you're completely screwed.
I don't exaggerate. So I'm not going to respond to exaggerations.
Not everyone, or even a large portion of the population, will become rabid immoral animals. And I was including police and military together, just as you did, when I responded that I don't believe most of them would 'use their powers for evil'.
And I thought I made it clear that tanks will be dead weights because the dollar will be worthless and no one can afford oil (not even the military). Was that not clear?
|
On January 17 2013 10:56 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with. Somebody give this guy more guns, stat.
Yes, paint the guy with the orderly plan to deal with chaos as a lunatic.
Again, I'm not asking how likely you think this all is, I'm asking if, we assume that this hypothetical becomes reality, owning a high powered rifle would be justified? And if this situation demands the ownership of one much moreso than the tyrannical regime scenario?
|
On January 17 2013 10:57 KnT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 10:48 Myrddraal wrote:
My main problem with this is that something should have been done, previously, to keep these sorts of weaponry/equipment away from the thugs (which would only be possible if supposed law abiding citizens were also unable to obtain them) so it would not be necessary for you to be so well armed. But as they say, the monkey is already out of the bottle. It's not possible, even with law abiding citizens being unable to get them. Look at every single illegal drug out there in the world, no one is allowed to have them and yet they're still here. Same principal with firearms, black banning them only serves to create a commodity on the black market. Australia is the perfect example of this. There is a shooting almost every 3 days in Sydney alone and that's more than a decade after the gun laws came in
Drugs are slightly different, because people are able to grow/manufacture them in their own home, whereas guns, specifically high powered guns like assault rifles and such are a lot more difficult to create. Obviously a lot of drugs are imported from different places, but they had to be manufactured somewhere first.
Sydney must be a fair bit worse than Brisbane, because I hardly hear of any shootings. The point is though, are these shootings done with Assault Rifles and the like? Because that is the kind of weaponry I am talking about, I'm pretty sure it is not so easy to get a hold of such weapons in Australia compared to USA.
|
Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "high powered rifle" or "assault rifle" in people's eyes? Is it muzzle velocity, projectile diameter, penetration power, amount of rounds put downrange over x amount of seconds, amount of rounds in a magazine ??
Most of the weapons people are most afraid of (AR-15s get mentioned a lot so let's go with that) fire a .223 or 5.56mm round right?
Also, it really is not that difficult to get a hold of (or even make one really) a firearm illegally in Aus in any state/territory.
Sydney has the highest concentration of people so I guess we get the higher concentration of shit
Most are done with pistols and sawnoffs (picture Chopper Read, pretty accurate IMO) which people never really see as an issue for some reason - It's always the "assault" rifles :\
|
On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:
They already do. The thugs already have them.
Okay, there's some double-sided rhetoric here that I'd like clarification on.
On one hand, you have people saying they want semi-automatic rifles because criminals already own them.
On the other hand, you have people saying that ownership of semi-automatic rifles is not an issue for killings because they are almost a non-issue when it comes to crimes and killings.
So which is actually true?
|
On January 17 2013 11:07 KnT wrote:
Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "high powered rifle" in people's eyes? Is it muzzle velocity, projectile diameter, penetration power??
Most of the weapons people are most afraid of (AR-15s get mentioned a lot so let's go with that) fire a .223 or 5.56mm round right?
I only used the term to convey my meaning so I didn't have to use the misnomer of 'assault rifle'.
In my eyes, it is about stopping power.
I can tell you what it isn't... a .22 caliber rifle
Did you read this quick site from earlier in the thread? http://www.assaultweapon.info Pretty nice presentation of the 'terms and definitions' confusion.
|
On January 17 2013 11:03 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 10:56 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with. Somebody give this guy more guns, stat. Yes, paint the guy with the orderly plan to deal with chaos as a lunatic. Again, I'm not asking how likely you think this all is, I'm asking if, we assume that this hypothetical becomes reality, owning a high powered rifle would be justified? And if this situation demands the ownership of one much moreso than the tyrannical regime scenario?
Sure, if this situation were to come to pass then it would be fully justified for someone like you to own a high powered rifle.
I have a question for you now, if this situation does not come to pass, is it worth the lives of people who have died to crazy people legally acquiring such weaponry just so you could feel safer about a situation that never actually happened?
|
On January 17 2013 11:14 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:07 KnT wrote:
Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "high powered rifle" in people's eyes? Is it muzzle velocity, projectile diameter, penetration power??
Most of the weapons people are most afraid of (AR-15s get mentioned a lot so let's go with that) fire a .223 or 5.56mm round right? I only used the term to convey my meaning so I didn't have to use the misnomer of 'assault rifle'. In my eyes, it is about stopping power. I can tell you what it isn't... a .22 caliber rifle Did you read this quick site from earlier in the thread? http://www.assaultweapon.info Pretty nice presentation of the 'terms and definitions' confusion.
Yeah I read something VERY similar which is why I was bringing it up  It's always interesting to hear peoples ideas on the matter.
What if one had a .22 250? (ie a .22 with a TONNE more powder in the cartridge) I've seen one in action when doing some hunting and I can tell you that they can easily drop a fully grown, adrenaline happy red kangaroo or pig in one round.
As I was saying before, an AR-15/M4/M16 etc etc fire a round that is .01 times as big as a .22 calibre rifle like the one I just mentioned - The only difference is how the firearm looks.
Having seen and used a fair few in my time, the stopping power from these weapons comes from the amount of rounds they can fire in any given timeframe. Round for round I'd put shotgun on the top of the list for stopping power, followed by high calibre rifle/pistol followed by intermediate cartridge weapons like the AR-15/.22 pistol
|
5.56/.223 is much larger than a .22. The only similarity is the diameter. The length and mass are much higher. Not to mention the damage capability is much higher, especially at range.
|
On January 17 2013 10:59 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 10:35 Jormundr wrote:On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with. Congratulations. You're batman. No, seriously. You're trying to be batman with guns. With that type of time and money invested you could have just built a bunker... In your dystopian apocalypse where people become rabid immoral animals, everyone is out to get you. Street bandits, gangsters, even the police are out to kill you! But not former military, they're all going to become vigilantes (on your side of course). So you have the military on your side. So you don't need AR-15s because there are tanks on the street keeping order. Something known as martial law, it's generally pretty effective. Or, if they don't turn out to be good guys after all, then you're completely screwed. I don't exaggerate. So I'm not going to respond to exaggerations. Not everyone, or even a large portion of the population, will become rabid immoral animals. And I was including police and military together, just as you did, when I responded that I don't believe most of them would 'use their powers for evil'. And I thought I made it clear that tanks will be dead weights because the dollar will be worthless and no one can afford oil (not even the military). Was that not clear?
You are exaggerating. Your entire plan has nothing to do with owning a semi automatic rifle. Your entire plan hinges on mountains of preparation. You could put a 3" steel box around your house. You could bullet proof your car and use that to escape to canada.
Not exaggerating? You and everyone on your block have suddenly decided to go through SWAT training, buy thousands of dollars worth of protective armor, thousands more on guns and ammunition to protect yourself in the event of an apocalypse and you somehow believe that this is a worthwhile contribution to a discussion on why there is a general need for regular citizens to be allowed to own more than just handguns?
You've already established that your neighborhood is a highly coordinated task force using pre-planned tactics in their own backyard(literally) against an unprepared foe. In the world you've created you could be using bows and arrows, and you'd win.
|
On January 17 2013 11:26 KnT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:14 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 11:07 KnT wrote:
Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "high powered rifle" in people's eyes? Is it muzzle velocity, projectile diameter, penetration power??
Most of the weapons people are most afraid of (AR-15s get mentioned a lot so let's go with that) fire a .223 or 5.56mm round right? I only used the term to convey my meaning so I didn't have to use the misnomer of 'assault rifle'. In my eyes, it is about stopping power. I can tell you what it isn't... a .22 caliber rifle Did you read this quick site from earlier in the thread? http://www.assaultweapon.info Pretty nice presentation of the 'terms and definitions' confusion. Yeah I read something VERY similar which is why I was bringing it up It's always interesting to hear peoples ideas on the matter. What if one had a .22 250? (ie a .22 with a TONNE more powder in the cartridge) I've seen one in action when doing some hunting and I can tell you that they can easily drop a fully grown, adrenaline happy red kangaroo or pig in one round. As I was saying before, an AR-15/M4/M16 etc etc fire a round that is .01 times as big as a .22 calibre rifle like the one I just mentioned - The only difference is how the firearm looks. Having seen and used a fair few in my time, the stopping power from these weapons comes from the amount of rounds they can fire in any given timeframe. Round for round I'd put shotgun on the top of the list for stopping power, followed by high calibre rifle/pistol followed by intermediate cartridge weapons like the AR-15/.22 pistol
I think effective range is also an important factor, assault rifles generally have pretty decent range/accuracy which can make a huge difference compared to shotguns and pistols.
|
On January 17 2013 11:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:
They already do. The thugs already have them. Okay, there's some double-sided rhetoric here that I'd like clarification on. On one hand, you have people saying they want semi-automatic rifles because criminals already own them. On the other hand, you have people saying that ownership of semi-automatic rifles is not an issue for killings because they are almost a non-issue when it comes to crimes and killings. So which is actually true?
I don't see any kind of conflict there.
High powered rifles are made to do one thing really well: rip flesh from a distance. They aren't made for concealment, or subtlety. That is obvious. Whether black "military" rifles, or "hunting" rifles set in hard wood.... rifles are made to kill things at a distance, with good stable accuracy (stock braced on shoulder).......with great stopping power. Whether that be deer, bears, or humans.
Ok, now, when you envision circumstances where thugs could have X weapon, could be a rifle, could be a fully auto (god forbid they break THE LAW and obtain those), could just be a 9mm pistol..... you want to have the best possible weapon for that situation I mentioned. Worst case they are all armed. That is a situation that warrants that rifle.
Now, when it comes to those kinds of rifles being used in criminal killings: murders, mass killings, WHICHEVER, any time they are involved in human death in American society, we see that historically they have been responsible for around one percent of all killings, and that number has been steadily decreasing every year since 2004 and earlier, the year we let the Assault Weapons Ban expire, as has most violent crime in general. In 2011, 0.6% of all slayings involved these types of rifles.
So yes, they are very lethal, and are preferred for the scenarios of defense that I mentioned. But they are not preferred by people with evil intent of unjust slaying another human being with them. Not even close. Not even in the ballpark of comparisons to other types of weapons. Which is why the conversation of a specific "assault weapons" (semi auto rifle) ban is just silly. People are talking about a MARGINAL segment of all slayings.
If you have confusion about the terminology, this site is perfect and only takes a minute to browse:
http://www.assaultweapon.info
Again, not sure where the conflict is. Did this post help at all?
|
On January 17 2013 11:16 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:03 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 10:56 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 09:57 Jormundr wrote: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. Well since you are willing to discuss the hypothetical details, let's go for it. They already do. The thugs already have them. It already is an even playing field for cops. According to your logic, our police in current status are dealing with the same troubles I would be. And yet, they are able to handle these type of situations. How? Through training, superior numbers and superior technology. I can educate myself relatively easily. My neighbors who have also properly prepared assault weapons caches provide the numbers. Under the current law, we have access to the same technology police have. I can arm myself up to the same point as a SWAT team member. Legally. Just like Holmes did in Aurora. After that, it is logistics. Home neighborhood advantage. Positioning. Choke points of the front and back doors. and windows. Vantage points of upstairs windows. As to your assertion that former police would have the advantage, that would be true, if I didn't have access to the same training and equipment they do. There are only a select amount of items they might have as an advantage. And that assertion relies on the assumption that even a marginal number of those type of people would turn militant thug instead of vigilante, which I cannot agree with. Somebody give this guy more guns, stat. Yes, paint the guy with the orderly plan to deal with chaos as a lunatic. Again, I'm not asking how likely you think this all is, I'm asking if, we assume that this hypothetical becomes reality, owning a high powered rifle would be justified? And if this situation demands the ownership of one much moreso than the tyrannical regime scenario? Sure, if this situation were to come to pass then it would be fully justified for someone like you to own a high powered rifle. I have a question for you now, if this situation does not come to pass, is it worth the lives of people who have died to crazy people legally acquiring such weaponry just so you could feel safer about a situation that never actually happened?
0.6% of all slayings in 2011 were due to such weaponry.
Columbine and Virginia Tech, among many many other mass shootings, would have been precisely the same, because they didn't even involve these types of weapons.
Excuse me if I don't see the point of legislating rifles specifically.
It is irrelevant whether Adam Lanza used a rifle or pistols or a shotgun against defenseless children in Newtown.
Advocating removal of ALL firearms from private ownership, that's a different discussion entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
