|
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 11:45 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:16 Myrddraal wrote: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.
You didn't answer my question. In the future, would it have been worth the lives of those specific people who died, so you could feel safer about a situation that did not happen.
Yes or No.
|
On January 17 2013 11:38 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:26 KnT wrote: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.
Agreed. Its the biggest difference tbh. There are many pistols which offer similar stopping power, but you have to use a rifle if you want the kind of range it offers.
|
On January 17 2013 11:38 Myrddraal wrote:
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.
Very true, but why is it that most shootings aren't done with these kinds of weapons? IIRC most are pistols/shotguns which somehow are less scary than a military-esque rifle. Pistols and sawnoffs are easy to conceal, carbines are not.
|
On January 17 2013 11:51 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:45 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 11:16 Myrddraal wrote: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. You didn't answer my question. In the future, would it have been worth the lives of those specific people who died, so you could feel safer about a situation that did not happen. Yes or No.
What a loaded question
|
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?
I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does.
I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning.
|
On January 17 2013 11:56 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:51 Myrddraal wrote:On January 17 2013 11:45 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 11:16 Myrddraal wrote: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. You didn't answer my question. In the future, would it have been worth the lives of those specific people who died, so you could feel safer about a situation that did not happen. Yes or No. What a loaded question
I'm not actually trying to imply anything, I'm just trying to get people to look at things from the perspective of life and death, and to consider that there is always a cost.
Discussions like this ultimately are about whether the outcome is worth the cost, I just want everyone to consider the cost.
|
On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning.
Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it.
The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck.
|
On January 17 2013 11:55 KnT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:38 Myrddraal wrote:
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. Very true, but why is it that most shootings aren't done with these kinds of weapons? IIRC most are pistols/shotguns which somehow are less scary than a military-esque rifle. Pistols and sawnoffs are easy to conceal, carbines are not.
Mass shootings usually take place at close ranges (less than 25 yards). At that range I much rather have a shotgun/pistol over a rifle. That is usually why I do not recommend an AR for the "bump in the night" gun.
|
On January 17 2013 12:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning. Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it. The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck.
Your fear of being violently struck by the US government has a very, very, very low probability of being a reality in your lifetime. However, thousands do die every year due to gun violence.
Fear of tyranny > lives currently being lost?
|
On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning.
All I have talked about since I began a couple pages back with my scenario is 'assault rifles' (semi auto long rifles). The ones that everyone can find 'no practical use for'. I am talking about those specifically. I am answering the question specifically. If you want to talk about ALL gun violence, that's a different conversation.
"Vast amounts of gun violence"??? With these rifles = .6% of the total for 2011 = 52 deaths.
I don't consider that vast at all in a nation of 330 million. Call me heartless, call me cold and calloused for saying hundreds of thousands of Americans should be entrusted with the decision they made to keep one, in light of just 52 deaths per year. Just like I'm sure you don't think we need sweeping legislation to end senseless deaths in other areas where the number is so negligible.
And I do not desire to discuss the tyrannical regime argument, as I don't believe in it.
|
On January 17 2013 12:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:13 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning. Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it. The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck. Your fear of being violently struck by the US government has a very, very, very low probability of being a reality in your lifetime. However, thousands do die every year due to gun violence. Fear of tyranny > lives currently being lost?
Even in the tyranny argument, you're conflating all gun deaths (handguns, shotguns, automatics included) with the debate about assault rifles specifically. Please specify which one you want to talk about.
|
On January 17 2013 12:25 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 12:13 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning. Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it. The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck. Your fear of being violently struck by the US government has a very, very, very low probability of being a reality in your lifetime. However, thousands do die every year due to gun violence. Fear of tyranny > lives currently being lost? Even in the tyranny argument, you're conflating all gun deaths (handguns, shotguns, automatics included) with the debate about assault rifles specifically. Please specify which one you want to talk about.
Isn't this thread called 'should people be allowed to own and carry guns'? Are we restricting things to rifles now because they are an easier case to argue?
|
I'll agree that I think the assault weapons ban is largely symbolic; it will accomplish very little in preventing deaths.
The recent fervor over guns and gun control is not restricted to assault weapons. What we're really talking about is the role of guns, as a whole, in the country.
Eventually we'll start talking about handguns, and then we'll actually start seeing actual steps forward.
|
On January 17 2013 12:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:25 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 12:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 12:13 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning. Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it. The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck. Your fear of being violently struck by the US government has a very, very, very low probability of being a reality in your lifetime. However, thousands do die every year due to gun violence. Fear of tyranny > lives currently being lost? Even in the tyranny argument, you're conflating all gun deaths (handguns, shotguns, automatics included) with the debate about assault rifles specifically. Please specify which one you want to talk about. Isn't this thread called 'should people be allowed to own and carry guns'? Are we restricting things to rifles now because they are an easier case to argue?
No, we're restricting it because that's the post I presented. Feel free to talk to other people about the overarching issue, but I am not interested in it. I presented a case scenario where I felt it was more tenable to own a quote unquote assault rifle, than the somewhat untenable and unfathomable 'standing up against a tyrannical regime' argument, if you want to have a conversation within that context, feel free to reply to me, if you don't, feel free to ignore my posts.
|
On January 17 2013 12:31 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 12:25 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 12:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 12:13 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning. Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it. The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck. Your fear of being violently struck by the US government has a very, very, very low probability of being a reality in your lifetime. However, thousands do die every year due to gun violence. Fear of tyranny > lives currently being lost? Even in the tyranny argument, you're conflating all gun deaths (handguns, shotguns, automatics included) with the debate about assault rifles specifically. Please specify which one you want to talk about. Isn't this thread called 'should people be allowed to own and carry guns'? Are we restricting things to rifles now because they are an easier case to argue? No, we're restricting it because that's the post I presented. Feel free to talk to other people about the overarching issue, but I am not interested in it. I presented a case scenario where I felt it was more tenable to own a quote unquote assault rifle, than the somewhat untenable and unfathomable 'standing up against a tyrannical regime' argument, if you want to have a conversation within that context, feel free to reply to me, if you don't, feel free to ignore my posts.
I agree that in the scenario you described, with no government, no laws, yes, having an assault rifle would be very helpful. I just don't see how getting me to concede that justifies assault rifle ownership right here, right now.
|
On January 17 2013 12:29 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
I'll agree that I think the assault weapons ban is largely symbolic; it will accomplish very little in preventing deaths.
The recent fervor over guns and gun control is not restricted to assault weapons. What we're really talking about is the role of guns, as a whole, in the country.
Eventually we'll start talking about handguns, and then we'll actually start seeing actual steps forward.
Which is exactly my point, if it makes no realistic difference (as evidenced by the 1994 - 2004 AWB) then why are we bothering talking about it at all?
Which leads us back to the overarching issue again. Yes private guns (of all sorts) or no private guns (of all sorts).
|
On January 17 2013 12:33 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 12:31 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 12:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 12:25 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 12:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 12:13 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 11:58 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 11:03 StarStrider wrote:On January 17 2013 10:56 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On January 17 2013 10:10 StarStrider wrote:
[quote]
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? I didn't read the whole discussion, but I'm assuming you were planning on your course of action when the apocalypse takes place and anarchy rules. And, as reasonable as your answer may be in that situation, that apocalyptic world being described doesn't exist, while vast amounts of gun violence does. I also don't like the tyrannical regime argument. It's a sweeping statement that justifies you using your guns whenever you see fit. What you view as a tyrannical government I might well view as sane and well meaning. Which is why violence is a last resort. I would never escalate to violence, but if a tyrant decides to make that leap, I would prefer to be able to do something about it. The defense against tyranny argument does not justify escalating to violence, only striking back when struck. Your fear of being violently struck by the US government has a very, very, very low probability of being a reality in your lifetime. However, thousands do die every year due to gun violence. Fear of tyranny > lives currently being lost? Even in the tyranny argument, you're conflating all gun deaths (handguns, shotguns, automatics included) with the debate about assault rifles specifically. Please specify which one you want to talk about. Isn't this thread called 'should people be allowed to own and carry guns'? Are we restricting things to rifles now because they are an easier case to argue? No, we're restricting it because that's the post I presented. Feel free to talk to other people about the overarching issue, but I am not interested in it. I presented a case scenario where I felt it was more tenable to own a quote unquote assault rifle, than the somewhat untenable and unfathomable 'standing up against a tyrannical regime' argument, if you want to have a conversation within that context, feel free to reply to me, if you don't, feel free to ignore my posts. I agree that in the scenario you described, with no government, no laws, yes, having an assault rifle would be very helpful. I just don't see how getting me to concede that justifies assault rifle ownership right here, right now.
Because modern society is not guaranteed permanent. Because we stand on the knife edge of the dollar collapsing. Whether you think the possibility of that dystopic world materializing is high or infintesimile is not relevant to whether being prepared for it is a good thing or not. And that is just one of many reasons why people own these rifles.
You're saying the risk 'cost' of 52 lives per year isn't worth any or all of those reasons. I heartlessly say, yes, it most certainly is.
|
What would be wrong with only allowing guns that require a bullet to be placed in the chamber each time? Would be fine for hunting, and you could point it in someone's face if they invaded your house.
On January 17 2013 12:36 StarStrider wrote:
Because modern society is not guaranteed permanent. Because we stand on the knife edge of the dollar collapsing. Whether you think the possibility of that dystopic world materializing is high or infintesimile is not relevant to whether being prepared for it is a good thing or not. And that is just one of many reasons why people own these rifles.
You're saying the risk 'cost' of 52 lives per year isn't worth any or all of those reasons. I heartlessly say, yes, it most certainly is.
I just can't understand you. I can't believe you allow the possibility of society collapsing to be a factor in this discussion. It literally boggles my mind. Do you have loads of contingencies prepared for this eventuality because you probably will be completely fucked if it does, seeing as if the police and army are dissolved (for example) then you'll be dealing with gangs running around and you on your own with your fortress of automatic weapons probably aren't going to do much when they come in force and sell you into the dystopic slave trade. In such a situation most people who type in forums on computers and play starcraft are going to be, for want of a better phrase, royally ass raped.
|
On January 17 2013 12:37 sc4k wrote:
What would be wrong with only allowing guns that require a bullet to be placed in the chamber each time? Would be fine for hunting, and you could point it in someone's face if they invaded your house.
I am totally for that! If only there were a way to universally guarantee that no criminal or absolute authority with semi automatic could exceed that firepower.
I would love to see a gun free world, if there were a way to remove all guns from criminals and absolute powers I would be the first to hand in every one I own.
|
On January 17 2013 12:37 sc4k wrote:
What would be wrong with only allowing guns that require a bullet to be placed in the chamber each time? Would be fine for hunting, and you could point it in someone's face if they invaded your house.
It's impractical.
Imagine being a farmer, needing to do a little pest control and needing to reload every single time. You'd hit one, the rest scatter and you spend the next hour hunting them down again to repeat the process.
Imagine having 2 people invade your house with the intention of hurting you. You threaten one, they call the bluff, you shoot, best case scenario, you've got one scared/pissed off person trying to hurt you but worst case is you miss.
Imagine how slow watching the Olympic shooting would be...
On the topic of massacres/murders: The ones where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns.
Also;
On January 17 2013 12:37 sc4k wrote:
...you on your own with your fortress of automatic weapons...
He doesn't have an automatic weapon. He as the semi-auto civilian variant of the M4 as he stated on the last page (albeit typo? AR-14 or 15?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
