|
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. |
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On October 06 2017 05:19 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2017 01:18 ahswtini wrote:On October 06 2017 00:53 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 05 2017 23:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote:
One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed.
A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore.
I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" I'm not interested in making a pro gun argument, but this notion that because the US army is extremely powerful guns are useless, is quite simply nonsense. Guns can be used in guerrilla warfare style resistance, as tyranical governments tipically do not want to eliminate their citizens but rather control them. Plus, it is probable the U.S. Army would be divided in such scenario, so fighting capabilities for citizens would be valuable. Morever, in any lawless situation, guns become extremely valuable as a way to procure scarce resources (food, water) and self defense in the lack of police forces. The odds of this happening in the US. is extremely low, so you could argue that they are essentially a non issue, but saying guns would be useless in this unlikely scenario is a disservise to your argument. My 2 cents. To be extremly nitpicky about what you wrote, you say guns are useful in a zombie apocalypse or a breakdown of law and order so you can threaten/kill people to stay alive? I am not too happy with that argument. If society breaks down, i would rather like the populace not to be armed to the teeth so that people have no reason to feel extra threatened. I am pretty sure that if Europe and the States would be hit by the same catastrophe, Europe would survive longer because we wouldn't be as scared from each other. Resulting in more people surviving for longer. the gun is the great equaliser. the gun is what allows the 100 pound woman to stand up to a 200 pound man. what makes you think that when there is no more law and order, the strong won't prey on the weak, as has been the case ever since human history began? do you really think, if the police disappeared tomorrow and the concept of crime no longer existed, that a society without guns (and realistically, in places that have banned guns, with the police out of the way, the criminals would have the monopoly on guns) would be much better off? I think this is a vast misrepresentation of human psychology to think that with guns, there will be less predatory behavior. Who says that the physically weak (with the assistance of guns) are not just as likely to take from others more than their fair share? Look at all the amount of crime and injustice that does not involve direct physical violence. The most that gun proliferation does is erode trust and promote fear.
criminals are mostly opportunists. criminals don't want to die any more than you and i want to die. as with most predators, they want to prey on the weakest because that gives them the best chance of success and survival. if a mugger had a choice between mugging an armed and an unarmed person, which do you think they would choose?
|
On October 06 2017 06:30 Broetchenholer wrote:
Do you feel powerless for not owning a gun in Germany? Who threatens you exactly?
I own multiple guns of all kinds.
No one, yet.
if you wait until you get threatened to get a gun it's probably too late
|
i feel like i’m in the minority when i think using deadly force is not an acceptable response to non deadly force. if someone wants my wallet, i don’t think ‘shoot him’ i think ‘here’s my wallet.’
|
So what you are saying is, you have no idea what you are defending yourself from, but you are gonna be so ready. Tell me, in which situation do you think that gun is gonna come in handy? What gives you the right to use your weapons against the government?
|
2774 Posts
On October 06 2017 07:17 brian wrote:
i feel like i’m in the minority when i think using deadly force is not an acceptable response to non deadly force. if someone wants my wallet, i don’t think ‘shoot him’ i think ‘here’s my wallet.’
I believe this is quite a common opinion amongst Western Europeans, as laws and legal precedent seem to generally imply this in several countries. But amongst Americans it seems like it for sure.
|
On October 06 2017 06:30 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2017 05:19 Starlightsun wrote:On October 06 2017 01:18 ahswtini wrote:On October 06 2017 00:53 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 05 2017 23:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote:
One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed.
A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore.
I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" I'm not interested in making a pro gun argument, but this notion that because the US army is extremely powerful guns are useless, is quite simply nonsense. Guns can be used in guerrilla warfare style resistance, as tyranical governments tipically do not want to eliminate their citizens but rather control them. Plus, it is probable the U.S. Army would be divided in such scenario, so fighting capabilities for citizens would be valuable. Morever, in any lawless situation, guns become extremely valuable as a way to procure scarce resources (food, water) and self defense in the lack of police forces. The odds of this happening in the US. is extremely low, so you could argue that they are essentially a non issue, but saying guns would be useless in this unlikely scenario is a disservise to your argument. My 2 cents. To be extremly nitpicky about what you wrote, you say guns are useful in a zombie apocalypse or a breakdown of law and order so you can threaten/kill people to stay alive? I am not too happy with that argument. If society breaks down, i would rather like the populace not to be armed to the teeth so that people have no reason to feel extra threatened. I am pretty sure that if Europe and the States would be hit by the same catastrophe, Europe would survive longer because we wouldn't be as scared from each other. Resulting in more people surviving for longer. the gun is the great equaliser. the gun is what allows the 100 pound woman to stand up to a 200 pound man. what makes you think that when there is no more law and order, the strong won't prey on the weak, as has been the case ever since human history began? do you really think, if the police disappeared tomorrow and the concept of crime no longer existed, that a society without guns (and realistically, in places that have banned guns, with the police out of the way, the criminals would have the monopoly on guns) would be much better off? I think this is a vast misrepresentation of human psychology to think that with guns, there will be less predatory behavior. Who says that the physically weak (with the assistance of guns) are not just as likely to take from others more than their fair share? Look at all the amount of crime and injustice that does not involve direct physical violence. The most that gun proliferation does is erode trust and promote fear. criminals are mostly opportunists. criminals don't want to die any more than you and i want to die. as with most predators, they want to prey on the weakest because that gives them the best chance of success and survival. if a mugger had a choice between mugging an armed and an unarmed person, which do you think they would choose?
I don't deny that not having a weapon and someone else having a weapon means, you are screwed. And if in your breakdown of society for some reasons all the good people stay good people and all the criminals have guns, this means criminals are in the advantage. The thing is, the USA have already shown us that with everyone having guns you don't get a safer society. And the breakdown of civilization will be no different. If more guns = more deaths, which the statistics seem to show, the USA will be Fallout land while Europe will be back in the middle ages. I prefer the middle ages. The individual without the gun might not see it that way when his equality is removed, but society will live on. Still, it's a stupid scenario that we only discuss because GoTunk said having guns would help in the inevitable breakdown of society.
|
On October 06 2017 07:22 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2017 07:17 brian wrote:
i feel like i’m in the minority when i think using deadly force is not an acceptable response to non deadly force. if someone wants my wallet, i don’t think ‘shoot him’ i think ‘here’s my wallet.’ I believe this is quite a common opinion amongst Western Europeans, as laws and legal precedent seem to generally imply this in several countries. But amongst Americans it seems like it for sure.
I don't think that this is a minority opinion either.
Also, i don't feel threatened in the slightest, despite not owning a gun. Germany is incredibly save, and a gun does nothing against the things that are most dangerous to you anyways. I feel more threatened by random chance than by strangers by far. Stuff like randomly being run over by a car, slipping in the bathroom and hitting my head. Also stuff like not being able to pay rent for some reason, failing my exams, finding out that the job i am studying for will turn out to be something i hate.
None of these are something that a gun would help me with. Random people murdering me on the street? Doesn't really happen here in any significant amount. People breaking and entering in my flat? They will do their very best to do that while i am not there, and if i am there, they will almost certainly just try to get out.
|
On October 06 2017 07:18 Broetchenholer wrote:
So what you are saying is, you have no idea what you are defending yourself from, but you are gonna be so ready. Tell me, in which situation do you think that gun is gonna come in handy? What gives you the right to use your weapons against the government?
if the government somehow decided to take all of my possessions and imprison or kill me because of my ethnicity or whatever, i would be quite happy to take at least some of its goons with me
|
I would feel a whole lot unsafer if every random person here could walk around with a gun on his hip. It would significantly increase my chance of a deadly gun encounter compared to the status quo.
|
On October 06 2017 05:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote:
One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed.
A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore.
I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" ya, i think private citizens should be able to have their own F35 or Tank along with re enforced bunkers as houses. i'd like to see bullet proof vests legalized in Canada. its complete BS that i can't wear one. You have to be available to be shot by the cops at any minute of the day.
Kind of lost me with your reply as it was all cleary sarcastic, can you please elaborate as to what your point is?
|
On October 06 2017 06:21 yB.TeH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote:
One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed.
A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore.
I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" let's assume your ridiculous statement that planes and drones are an adequate tool to control a country is true than are you asking for less gun control, or do you want the people to be even more powerless?
No. My most was to suggest that increased gun control would be sensible, as they do not serve the purpose of the original laws made to govern them, and their readily available status is only arming people who would use them to murder others.
Can you cut the hostility out of your replies please, it makes it hard to have a level headed debate.
|
On October 06 2017 08:14 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2017 06:21 yB.TeH wrote:On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote:
One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed.
A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore.
I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" let's assume your ridiculous statement that planes and drones are an adequate tool to control a country is true than are you asking for less gun control, or do you want the people to be even more powerless? No. My most was to suggest that increased gun control would be sensible, as they do not serve the purpose of the original laws made to govern them, and their readily available status is only arming people who would use them to murder others. Can you cut the hostility out of your replies please, it makes it hard to have a level headed debate.
Shamelessly pasta'd:
You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships, drones, or any of these things that you believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms. A fighter jet, tank, drone, whatever, cannot stand on street corners. Or enforce "no assembly" edicts. An F35 cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search for contraband.
None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening, and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting the militaries of other states. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of DC into glowing green glass they would be the rulers of a big worthless pile of radioactive shit.
Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing. But, if every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR15 all of that goes out the window because now the police are outnumbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.
If you want a real example of this look at every insurgency the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK47s, pick-up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but useless for dealing with them. And all that is also assuming you could get the majority of US troops to fire on their own citizens.
For what it's worth I personally think it's worth looking at our country's gun laws and trying to improve them but to suggest that the 2nd amendment is obsolete is ludicrous.
|
So in that terroristic guerrilla warfare you are talking about, you and your friends and family start a war on your government. How did it get to that? At what point did your civil peaceful unrest not cause the whole fucking thing to come down? If your government is so dangerous that you have a valid reason to take up arms and be a guerrilla militia, this means your own government has started to not only infringe on your freedom a little bit, it also means they have started to murder people. There is little else that gives you the right to start mowing down police men. So let's assume that happened, there is a regime in place in the US and it violates the right of life of it's citizens. The military supports them and is killing you whenever you show your head.
First, that regime has more then the cops you have know. They are legion. They are heavily armed and ready.
Second, you are not in the majority. To allow such a regime to exist, a major part of your country needs to support them. An even bigger part of your country is too fucking scared to overthrow them. They know that the rest of the country is out to get them, their neighbours would tell on them if they knew. You are a small minority that is willing to fight for an ideal and the first uprising is turned into glowing green grass. What is left runs to the hills. Turns out, you don't need to have those guns in your houses, the small rebellion can smuggle them in.
"And all that is also assuming you could get the majority of US troops to fire on their own citizens." Exactly. If the military is not firing on you, you don't need guns.
Learn from the Third Reich. The road to hitler saw almost civil war between left and right. Murderous groups of both sides trying to kill each other. No glorious rebellion of the people of Germany against the installment of a dictatorship, just a bloody brawl between the fanatics. And then, when they lost their freedom, the people cheered. Germany had a lot of private guns. They were never used though.
The USA is not exceptionally different. Your 2nd amendment is not useful except for a shitty guerilla war in the depths of the rockies that will not help a single person in that country.
|
My point has gotten hopelessly lost here.
More gun control good! Less gun control bad.
|
United States24769 Posts
Is gun control a one dimensional sliding scale? I think when people try to simplify it like that they do the country a disservice.
Many attempts at tightening gun control have been counterproductive because of failed implementation. Changes need to be specific, well researched, not rushed (a la NY SAFE Act), and have some mitigations in place during initial implementation.
|
No, I would agree that there is a lot more at play than what I said in my last post
I think my last statements were made in frustration with the level of discourse I encountered
|
|
|
|
|
On October 03 2017 16:47 Nebuchad wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The conversation around gun control is hollow because the reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't genuine political disagreement, it's lobbying.
You will have progress on this question not the day you gain the hearts and minds of your opponents (who btw, are something like 10% of the population when you're pushing for some specific gun regulations as opposed to a gun ban), but the day people who have a lot of money to gain from the system staying the same stop being able to dictate whether the system gets to change or not.
The approach of attempting to convince an opposition that there's a problem only works if the opposition is actually oblivious to said problem, and not willingly ignoring it because they have been told to do so by people who benefit from the situation.
|
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
