|
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 June 13 2016 06:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) An American would also say, look at the mass murdering dictatorships of the 20th century. Fewer privately owned guns around didn't make everyone safer then.
I'm sure an American could say that but it's also one of the stupidest arguments ever. Unless you think you can elect an Hilter-like character in power in the US and have muslims be safer than jews were in Germany because more people have guns (hint: that isn't the case).
|
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
|
On June 13 2016 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think of it more like a hobby. When the world goes to shit (rest assured it will one day, maybe sooner than later) it will be families who kept the traditions of owning, using, and understanding firearms that the people who advocated their ban will be seeking out for protection (in all fairness they'll probably be the ones ushering in the crapdom as well).
In that scenario I see it being foreign invaders capitalizing on a paralyzed US government more than a US gov turned against it's citizens. Being a well armed and trained country does increase a foreign nations case that nuking us is their only option though so I suppose there's that.
What? Is this what trying to explain American gun culture in a way that is not incredibly irrational look like? Amazing.
lol. Because thinking the world is never going to shit is rational? I mean it would just be the opposite of what we've seen in practically every century of human existence that we have records of, but I suppose there's a rational explanation for how that would happen?
"American Gun Culture" is a meaningless term though, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
It's not as if the Military would totally line up with the tyrant. Both sides would have access to a variety of Military equipment (plus plenty would just be stolen). I'd also say countries like Afghanistan show that an armed populace (especially one that blends in) can hold off far superior forces. It's not about beating them, it's about resisting a force preserving liberty (even if only in small pockets). But my personal perspective is it's more likely a scenario where a paralyzed US gov opens the door for a foreign nation to try to be aggressive, there's no doubt having 50 Texas's would be more intimidating to that foreign force than 50 California's (in reference to their gun laws).
But I don't think one even needs to get to that whole scenario to justify gun ownership in general. It's not like the people buying chain guns are the ones doing this stuff (or the suicides that represent most gun death) anyway and who are the primary ones who are into the whole, "this is to fend off the government" stuff anyway.
|
Sad to see another mass shooting, RIP @all the victims ;_;
|
On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
Tell that to the uneducated, untrained Vietnamese farmers. Then tell that to the drone and jet pilots and tank crews that you think would readily fight their own people for a "despotic tyrannical maniac". Hell, look around and you'll see drone pilots often have a hard enough time psychologically killing de facto combatants.
I hate the fact that this discussion only comes along after mass shootings that, while tragic, really account for almost none of the homicides in the United States, be they firearm related or otherwise. I also wish I had the time right now to discuss what I wanted to, but I'll be back if my better judgement doesn't get the best of me
|
This kind of tragedy are enraging. There is something completly unreal about a plane destroying a tower, but a guy a gunning down 50 people, like in Orlando or in France some month ago, is so real that it stayed into my skin for a few days. I'm thinking about you american friends.
|
As a dude who now owns guns in Canada and is planning to acquire a few more to do some target shooting, I really have no good argument for why random people should own AR15's or guns of that type. On one hand I kind of want an AR15 and I own a semi-auto rifle (a SKS)... On the other hand, it's clearly an extremely dangerous object and it can be used to kill a lot of people very rapidly. Whatever fun I may have with it while shooting up paper targets at the range just seems whimsical and meaningless next to the lives of the people who died because extremely efficient killing devices are being sold to the public. And we've all heard the asinine argument that AR15's will be available illegally or at gun shows with little to no background checks, the problem remains - easy access is not a non-issue.
I feel a bit conflicted with my beliefs on gun rights. On one hand, it's fun. I reload my ammo, develop loads for my bolt action rifle, I occasionally go out and shoot Czech milsurp 7.62x39 out of my SKS and it's a lot of fun. And yet my "right" to do that comes with certain consequences. It doesn't feel so bad up here in Canada because gun ownership is not as prevalent, and gun violence feels remote most of the time. But how does the NRA get away with specifically going against regulations such as "don't sell AR15's to people who are being investigated by the FBI"?
Guns increasingly feel like a frivolous luxury with major consequences. And yet gun people consistently refuse reasonable regulation even for safety. Why should we spend time filling out annoying forms and going through annoying bureaucracy just because a few nutjobs shoot up schools and gay bars? Because filling out paper is easy. It doesn't fucking matter. I may have my restricted firearms license in 4-5 months (pending slow admin and background checks) and I'll be able to purchase a handgun shortly after that, I had to take 2 safety classes and I'll have to take 1 competency class and I'll need to go shoot at least once a year and maintain my expensive shooting range membership to be able to keep the P226 I intend to buy. It cost me $300 in formations, I'll have to dish out $300 a year for my range membership on top of the stacks of paperwork. It's hard to get firearms here and that's fine.
|
This may sound rather ignorant of me, especially since I am a US citizen, but why are civilians allowed to buy lethal ammunition? Obviously, banning live ammunition would not fix a damn thing, since there is already a large amount of live ammunition floating around, but it just never made sense to me how or why people would need ammunition that is meant to kill people. Why not just sell beanbag rounds or rubber bullets?
|
On June 13 2016 08:20 imBLIND wrote:
This may sound rather ignorant of me, especially since I am a US citizen, but why are civilians allowed to buy lethal ammunition? Obviously, banning live ammunition would not fix a damn thing, since there is already a large amount of live ammunition floating around, but it just never made sense to me how or why people would need ammunition that is meant to kill people. Why not just sell beanbag rounds or rubber bullets?
Well there are a few reasons for that...
1: All "normal" or "standard" ammunition is lethal in the first place, because they use a metal projectile. Even the arguably least lethal metal projectiles called full-metal jacket projectiles are lethal, and yet they're not at all meant for killing people. They don't really expand upon impact, making a small wound, and yet it still kills.
2: Guns in the US are used for hunting. Hunting ammunition like hollow points and soft points happen to be good for killing people.
3: Less lethal ammunition would be less accurate for shooting targets, you need a metal projectile to get the most accurate. So that kind of ammo would be useless for hunting, useless for target practice and useless for competition shooting. "Less lethal" ammo is only ever useful for crowd control and such uses.
4: Rubber bullets out of an AR15 would still be lethal as fuck.
|
I saw the line about how the NRA was against people on the watch list or under FBI investigation and people were confused about it. But the precident about that is mid level government bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it. I can understand if you don't agree with the second amendment or don't think it should apply to the second amendment to buy an "assault weapon" but thats for the courts to decide. The no fly list alone is flimsily as hell and isn't even directly against your constitutional rights.
|
To me the most infuriating part of gun discussions in the US is not really the casualties or the absurdity of it all, it's the framing of the situation.
- On specific gun control proposals, you reach absurdly high level of acceptance from american people. 85% are for expanded background checks (that includes 79% of republicans), and 79% of Americans think the mentally ill shouldn't be able to buy guns. Yet when you ask a less specific question like "should gun regulation be more strict?" you get 55% approval. That number displays that you've been fooled. It means that around 25% of you are actually in favor of more gun régulations, but answer that they aren't when asked about it. The propaganda machine has been so persuasive in telling you that gun regulation supporters wanted to take away your guns that a significant number of Americans now hold a view that is counterfactual to their own beliefs. When you're asked about gun control, you think "my gun". When you're asked about specific instances where gun control is applied, you think about the actual situation, and come to the rational conclusion.
- The very fact that notions that are supported by 80%+ of people, in a democracy, aren't put into law, is evidence that your democracy is corrupted by money interests in an incredibly significant way. Yet you can regularly hear that it's not the case or that it's a "conspiracy theory", you don't even have to leave TL to hear it.
- In order to prevent acts of terrorism and mass murder occurrences, a non-negligeable percentage of Americans have implicitly or explicitly argued that it's better to propose a ban on all muslims than it is to propose a regulation on some gun usage. Picture that in your head for a second and feel sorry for where you are.
- I'm sure a lot of Americans who read that got defensive, I'm sure even some who aren't gun advocates. The very fact that you got defensive should be enough for you to understand that saying "islam" a little more often after events like these won't solve or hinder radical islamic terrorism. Notice that "gun violence" is a much more necessary and unarguable consequence of "guns" than "islamic radicalism" is a necessary consequence of "islam". One cannot believe that gun violence perverts guns in the same way that one can believe islamic terrorism perverts islam (regardless of where you stand on the question). And yet you still got that reaction, it didn't stop you. Many people who got defensive about my little piece here also believe that talking about the link between islam and terrorism a little more is just what we lack in our war against terror.
|
Armed civilians do make up a decent size of self-defense cases especially in the case of store clerks defending their property/stores. Mass shootings themselves make up far less though.
|
On June 13 2016 08:32 Nebuchad wrote:
To me the most infuriating part of gun discussions in the US is not really the casualties or the absurdity of it all, it's the framing of the situation.
- On specific gun control proposals, you reach absurdly high level of acceptance from american people. 85% are for expanded background checks (that includes 79% of republicans), and 79% of Americans think the mentally ill shouldn't be able to buy guns. Yet when you ask a less specific question like "should gun regulation be more strict?" you get 55% approval. That number displays that you've been fooled. It means that around 25% of you are actually in favor of more gun régulations, but answer that they aren't when asked about it. The propaganda machine has been so persuasive in telling you that gun regulation supporters wanted to take away your guns that a significant number of Americans now hold a view that is counterfactual to their own beliefs. When you're asked about gun control, you think "my gun". When you're asked about specific instances where gun control is applied, you think about the actual situation, and come to the rational conclusion.
- The very fact that notions that are supported by 80%+ of people, in a democracy, aren't put into law, is evidence that your democracy is corrupted by money interests in an incredibly significant way. Yet you can regularly hear that it's not the case or that it's a "conspiracy theory", you don't even have to leave TL to hear it.
- In order to prevent acts of terrorism and mass murder occurrences, a non-negligeable percentage of Americans have implicitly or explicitly argued that it's better to propose a ban on all muslims than it is to propose a regulation on some gun usage. Picture that in your head for a second and feel sorry for where you are.
- I'm sure a lot of Americans who read that got defensive, I'm sure even some who aren't gun advocates. The very fact that you got defensive should be enough for you to understand that saying "islam" a little more often after events like these won't solve or hinder radical islamic terrorism. Notice that "gun violence" is a much more necessary and unarguable consequence of "guns" than "islamic radicalism" is a necessary consequence of "islam". One cannot believe that gun violence perverts guns in the same way that one can believe islamic terrorism perverts islam (regardless of where you stand on the question). And yet you still got that reaction, it didn't stop you. Many people who got defensive about my little piece here also believe that talking about the link between islam and terrorism a little more is just what we lack in our war against terror.
The problem with the "expanded background checks" is that no one can come up with a system that doesn't semi sound like a national gun registration system. Democrats in america have also embarrassed themselves when talking about guns and legislating for gun control. Things like "assult weapons" is a huge farce that confuses anyone who doesn't know about guns and angers people who do know about them. Automatic weapons are ilegal to buy in america (in non grandfathered cases) and automatic rifles are called "assault rifles". the problem now is about how to regulate semi-automatic rifles (the ones where you need to pull the trigger each time you fire) and that is much harder to do. Throw in the federatlist sytem of state to state gun regulations and you have a terrible system no one can touch.
As hard as it is to believe gun violence is actually down a ton in america and outside of these mass shooting events the country is doing pretty well. focusing the conversation on mental illness would be much more productive to help the issue.
|
Those are excuses more than they are motives. In a democracy you don't elect politicians so that they can tackle only the easy issues or the ones where they don't get embarrassed. You elect them to reflect your will. Your will isn't being reflected here, and that is supposedly true in every state according to the "79% of republicans" number. What do you think is the bigger issue, the difficulty of the task, or the pression that is consistently being put against it?
It's basically the difference between "it's difficult doing what you want, so we're going to have trouble while attempting to make it happen" and "it's difficult doing what you want, so fuck you."
|
On June 13 2016 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think of it more like a hobby. When the world goes to shit (rest assured it will one day, maybe sooner than later) it will be families who kept the traditions of owning, using, and understanding firearms that the people who advocated their ban will be seeking out for protection (in all fairness they'll probably be the ones ushering in the crapdom as well).
In that scenario I see it being foreign invaders capitalizing on a paralyzed US government more than a US gov turned against it's citizens. Being a well armed and trained country does increase a foreign nations case that nuking us is their only option though so I suppose there's that.
What? Is this what trying to explain American gun culture in a way that is not incredibly irrational look like? Amazing.
As an American myself I'll oppose his argument, and those like it, as being completely irrational. That's honestly one of the most frustrating things about defenders of our 2nd amendment is this underlying belief that they have the right to bear arms because they're seriously afraid of the government turning on them or an invading force suddenly sweeping in. I'm personally anti-gun in general, but I'll at least concede that the self-defense arguments (of home and family) hold a bit more weight. Anything involving the founding fathers and the "defense against tyranny" discussion is just BS...
|
On June 13 2016 09:02 Nebuchad wrote:
Those are excuses more than they are motives. In a democracy you don't elect politicians so that they can tackle only the easy issues or the ones where they don't get embarrassed. You elect them to reflect your will. Your will isn't being reflected here, and that is supposedly true in every state according to the "79% of republicans" number. What do you think is the bigger issue, the difficulty of the task, or the pression that is consistently being put against it?
It's basically the difference between "it's difficult doing what you want, so we're going to have trouble while attempting to make it happen" and "it's difficult doing what you want, so fuck you."
I think/hope that Americans look at things like Congress not moving on universal background checks and realize that in our democracy we don't elect people to reflect our will, we elect politicians to convince people that corporate/special interests are the same as their interests, and paper over issues like refusing the will of the people on background checks.
Just since ~2000 the two leading candidates have both been accused of being on both sides of this issue, it's all kabuki.
|
bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it How?
Quite frankly that's an assumption disguised as an argument to win over gun owners, who fear for their legal right to own one.
As long as your not on a potential terrorist list, you can keep your guns and potential terrorists won't!
You won't get on that list just for laughs and giggles, they need proper evidence for that (like a summer vacation to Syria/Iraq or Afghanistan). I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against that!
|
On June 13 2016 09:47 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it How? Quite frankly that's an assumption disguised as an argument to win over gun owners, who fear for their legal right to own one. As long as your not on a potential terrorist list, you can keep your guns and potential terrorists won't! You won't get on that list just for laughs and giggles, they need proper evidence for that (like a summer vacation to Syria/Iraq or Afghanistan). I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against that!
But who decides whos a potential terrorist now and whos not? Or is it the restriction of being able to purchase a weapon being your second amendment rights being taken away that you are arguing about?
It doesn't matter how much evidence you or I think may be enough its up to a judge to decide if its enough to take away your rights. Thats why people with felons or other crimes can take away your second amendment rights without a problem.
|
On June 13 2016 09:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 09:47 thePunGun wrote:bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it How? Quite frankly that's an assumption disguised as an argument to win over gun owners, who fear for their legal right to own one. As long as your not on a potential terrorist list, you can keep your guns and potential terrorists won't! You won't get on that list just for laughs and giggles, they need proper evidence for that (like a summer vacation to Syria/Iraq or Afghanistan). I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against that! But who decides whos a potential terrorist now and whos not? Or is it the restriction of being able to purchase a weapon being your second amendment rights being taken away that you are arguing about? It doesn't matter how much evidence you or I think may be enough its up to a judge to decide if its enough to take away your rights. Thats why people with felons or other crimes can take away your second amendment rights without a problem.
The Orlando shooter wasn't even on that list, because the FBI didn't have enough evidence. Even though they interviewed him in 2! terror-related cases...
What about other cases in Heston ,Kansas for example a felon illegaly bought a gun at a gunshow goes on a shootingspree, kills 3 people and wounds 15 others, this February.
You think that's okay?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the second amendment, as long as you're a law-abiding citizen....
But there are some sick bastards out there, who just don't deserve the right to protect themselves with a gun as long as they endanger others!
|
On June 13 2016 07:55 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
Tell that to the uneducated, untrained Vietnamese farmers. Then tell that to the drone and jet pilots and tank crews that you think would readily fight their own people for a "despotic tyrannical maniac". Hell, look around and you'll see drone pilots often have a hard enough time psychologically killing de facto combatants. I hate the fact that this discussion only comes along after mass shootings that, while tragic, really account for almost none of the homicides in the United States, be they firearm related or otherwise. I also wish I had the time right now to discuss what I wanted to, but I'll be back if my better judgement doesn't get the best of me
North Vietnam fighters were heavily trained and funded by the Chinese.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
