|
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. |
I think the argument against armed populace vs tyranny is interesting yet confusing:
If military is on your side, you don't need guns. If military is not on your side, you're fucked anyway. So why gun?
What is the military but a bunch of men with guns? Technologically superior to men with guns right?
Someone used an example of: Iraqi citizens had guns. Yes we invaded. Yes we overthrew their government. But the casualties went on and on and on even after 'victory' was declared.
You can never truly win against an armed populace that won't give up, even with superior technology. You have to hunt them all down and kill or capture every last one. But that will level the playing field -> Especially when the type of military grade footsoldier technology is currently cached and ready to be employed by many Patriots. I'm talking night vision, comm equipment, body armor, and high powered rifles. *and JESUS CHRIST I am not one of these preppers simply because I defend them okay? lol. Calm down.*
You can't airstrike and cruise missile them all.
|
I think this is a question that really just cannot be answered. This question should be divided into seperate questions like "Should people in the US be allowed to own and carry guns?" and "Should people in Western Europe be allowed to own and carry guns?". The differences in culture make it impossible to have a general answer for a very broad question like this.
|
On March 02 2012 00:25 Tarias wrote:
I think this is a question that really just cannot be answered. This question should be divided into seperate questions like "Should people in the US be allowed to own and carry guns?" and "Should people in Western Europe be allowed to own and carry guns?". The differences in culture make it impossible to have a general answer for a very broad question like this.
QFT
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 02 2012 00:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 00:14 TanGeng wrote:On March 02 2012 00:06 mcc wrote:
No, I am saying that sometimes societal pressure is bad and sometimes governmental pressure is bad. The specific verdict depends on the what is being forced. Mostly those two pressures coincide or at least do not diverge too much. When they diverge a lot it is often a sign that either government is doing something bad or society is and is definitely something that should be paid attention to. How is societal pressure bad? It's soft pressure, not binding, and not violence, unless you're talking about criminal activity in which case right to self-defense interdicts. It can't reach into the privacy of people's homes and only acts on what members show to the rest of society. There's discrimination, but there's always discrimination and often amplified in context of government organizations. You are assuming presence of government. Societal pressure in such scenario is softened by government and is one of its main purposes. But when government is weak or absent (see all the prehistoric societies) societal pressure can easily be backed by force and extremely violent.
I'm assuming the most basic form of justice system which along with trade economy is the basis for civil society. Perhaps that's government but it's functionally entirely different from one that is empowered to institute a general ban on guns.
That there needs to be a justice system is a true expression of public choice and societal pressures. Without one perhaps might makes right rules on matters large and small and that is not civil society. I think my assumption of justice system is derived from societal pressure and it is an example where such pressure is entirely positive. Where's the negatives?
|
On March 01 2012 23:38 churbro wrote:All these arguments about 'self defense' are ridiculous. If you weren't allowed to carry guns like you can candy bars in America, there would be no need for 'self defense' via a gun. If the media wasn't pumping biased fear into your brains on a daily basis, you wouldn't have this ridiculous train of thought that goes something like this, "ohhhh man, I'm probably going to get mugged or raped today, so i'll carry a gun in my purse!". Really? Now, don't get me wrong, I understand there are some unfortunate people in society who turn to crime, but where do they hang out? In the slums of course, if you travel there for an evening stroll, then tbh, you deserve to be mugged. Even then, the chances of you getting mugged is incredibly low. Seriously, self defense? What are you gonna do if someone comes up to and asks for your wallet, or invades your home? (the chances of a house invasion are almost 0, and I feel silly for even bringing it up, but in reality, some bozo would have rebutted me with it). kill him? Seems a bit harsh. Here's a train of thought, get some pepper spray, or even at most, a taser. Guns for personal protection is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. Guns should be used for hunting purposes only. A gun should be one of the hardest objects to attain, and you should have a proven track record of not being a lunatic to be able to get one. And you Americans that are all, "hurr durr it's my right to carry a gun".. well good on you, you're only making society a more dangerous and a more terrible place. Oh and don't forget your promoting an idea which is based on flawed logic and ideas. The right to bare arms? If those founding fathers of yours would see the mess guns has caused, they'd shit them selves. This thread alone, has just re-hashed the fact that America is more backwards that it ever has been. It's time the American people stop drinking the koolaid and wake up. What you see on cops, is facade, and not the truth of society. This 'fear' that so many of you seem to feel, or this, sense of responsibility to protect your family by means of a gun, is just absurd. If you knew the facts, the statistics, or even did a little research on the matter, you'd realize that guns cause far more harm than they do good. One last thing: roughly 100 years ago, it was your right as an American to own several slaves. Using simple propositional logic, you wouldn't give up your slave if that law was still around today? That my friends, is horribly close minded and dangerous. Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:39 Deadlifter wrote:
Peace and love, lmfao.
You realize its common for people to get shot in cold blood so people can mug their bodies with less resistance right? And rape and murder happen daily... I think your peace and love point of view is incredibly naive. People need the means to protect themselves from people who don't play by the rules. The real world isn't disney land, and bad shit happens whether you like it or not.
Besides, the implication that if you own guns you can't be peaceful and loving is hillarious. If anything I'd say someone who doesn't care enough to bother taking the necessary steps to protect their family is the one who is not loving. Also, did you ever consider that the "peace" you speak of will very realistically be a product of armed people? Would you break into a house where you knew people were armed? Risking your life for a few dollars? Doubtful.
All I can say is: Wow, please, do some research, and get a clue.
Wow. I would never own a gun (just have no interest) but I also have no problem with people owning guns, just to preface this.
You seem to have an awful lot of insight into the day-to-day workings of American culture for living 5000 miles away. You would do well to stop spouting off nonsense about things where you clearly have no clue. It's rather nice that you want to trust the statistics that say you will (most likely) never be put in a situation where using a gun is necessary. For most people that probably works. But then there are the people that would rather not be a statistic, and know that carrying a gun makes it go from an "low %" chance they'll be raped, or mugged, or killed to an almost 0% chance.
And if the "hurr durr Americans" (seriously? Using language like this almost invalidates your entire argument) want to make their society a "more dangerous place," why the fuck do you care? It doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, and yet you're getting unbelievably angry on a Starcraft message board.
And your analogy to slavery is asinine. For one, slavery was abolished roughly 150 years ago, not 100. Since you seem to be so knowledgeable about the U.S., I expected you to know that. Second, yeah I'm sure there are still people who wouldn't mind owning a few slaves (racism still exists, *gasp*!). But you implying that gun owners would still have slaves if the law allowed it is just retarded. Slavery is most definitely infringing on another's liberties, while gun ownership only does that if the gun owner is a criminal. Newsflash for you, but criminals will be criminals whether or not the general populace has access to guns or not.
|
You are distorting what he said. His point was that the bill of rights or whatever its called, was made back in a time when civil unrest, tensions, etc. prevaled. Maybe it was justified back then to own a gun or have ease of access for means of protection, but it should've been ratified or modified to fit with current modern needs. His allusion to slavery was one such exemple, which clearly you did'nt understand.
Hurr durr indeed.
|
Less guns do reduce overall gun crime rate by a little bit, but it also raises knifings by a lot. So people will kill each other.
When you make something illegal, only criminals will have it.
|
In the case of guns, if you make them illegal, crimnals don't have them.
|
On March 02 2012 00:45 Honeybadger wrote:
Less guns do reduce overall gun crime rate by a little bit, but it also raises knifings by a lot. So people will kill each other.
When you make something illegal, only criminals will have it.
/sigh
|
On March 02 2012 00:44 AeroGear wrote:
You are distorting what he said. His point was that the bill of rights or whatever its called, was made back in a time when civil unrest, tensions, etc. prevaled. Maybe it was justified back then to own a gun or have ease of access for means of protection, but it should've been ratified or modified to fit with current modern needs. His allusion to slavery was one such exemple, which clearly you did'nt understand.
Hurr durr indeed.
I don't think the 2nd amendment is outmoded by any means though. My interpretation has always been that the freedom to bear arms is in regards to the idea that the people should always have a means to overthrow the government, should such an extreme be necessary. Having arms can sometimes be a necessity in that regard. Not saying that we need to exercise that right at the moment, but it should always be an option IMO. The US was founded on the idea that people should be free from tyranny, and the right to bear arms is an extension of that (as i see it)
|
On March 02 2012 01:12 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 00:44 AeroGear wrote:
You are distorting what he said. His point was that the bill of rights or whatever its called, was made back in a time when civil unrest, tensions, etc. prevaled. Maybe it was justified back then to own a gun or have ease of access for means of protection, but it should've been ratified or modified to fit with current modern needs. His allusion to slavery was one such exemple, which clearly you did'nt understand.
Hurr durr indeed. I don't think the 2nd amendment is outmoded by any means though. My interpretation has always been that the freedom to bear arms is in regards to the idea that the people should always have a means to overthrow the government, should such an extreme be necessary. Having arms can sometimes be a necessity in that regard. Not saying that we need to exercise that right at the moment, but it should always be an option IMO. The US was founded on the idea that people should be free from tyranny, and the right to bear arms is an extension of that (as i see it)
The question is : is the fact to give guns to criminal (and please don't discuss that, it is a fact) compensated by the fact that maybe one day you could use your weapon against a goverment which would may have turned evil?
|
On March 02 2012 00:30 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 00:25 Tarias wrote:
I think this is a question that really just cannot be answered. This question should be divided into seperate questions like "Should people in the US be allowed to own and carry guns?" and "Should people in Western Europe be allowed to own and carry guns?". The differences in culture make it impossible to have a general answer for a very broad question like this. QFT
Not really. People too easily forget that guns are a weapon of death. Knives, bats, chainsaws, etc., have other functions before they were thought to be used for killing. But guns sole and main purpose is to kill and efficiently kill people, regardless or race nationality religion whatever. Tell me how Europeans are different from US that a different set of gun ownership should aplly to them?
|
On March 02 2012 01:23 Abort Retry Fail wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 00:30 StarStrider wrote:On March 02 2012 00:25 Tarias wrote:
I think this is a question that really just cannot be answered. This question should be divided into seperate questions like "Should people in the US be allowed to own and carry guns?" and "Should people in Western Europe be allowed to own and carry guns?". The differences in culture make it impossible to have a general answer for a very broad question like this. QFT Not really. People too easily forget that guns are a weapon of death. Knives, bats, chainsaws, etc., have other functions before they were thought to be used for killing. But guns sole and main purpose is to kill and efficiently kill people, regardless or race nationality religion whatever. Tell me how Europeans are different from US that a different set of gun ownership should aplly to them?
From what i've read in this thread it seems like Europeans are different in that they feel less safe with the thought of guns being legal for everyone. Europeans like the thought that noone has acces to guns. Not having a gun, but the knowledge that the mugger or burgler doesn't have one either feels safer to me. In the US we see the opposite. People feel safer having guns, they accept the fact that you're going to have a school shooting incident every now and then and argue that the pros outweigh the cons. Weither you agree or not doesn't really matter. If most Americans want their guns, who are we (europeans) to tell them they can't have them?
I don't think democracy is always the best approach to ruling a country, but when it comes to making people feel safe it would seem to be the best way. If the majority of your population wants everyone to have guns, then by all means let them have their guns! I would even argue that giving people a sense of security and safety, even if it's a false sense (which is a completely different debate), is worth any lives the lack of gun control may or may not cost. Think about it, when you have to live in constant fear of people breaking into your house and raping and killing your family, and when you feel that having a gun is the best way to protect yourself from this, you would also want a gun! Now even though you may not be able to relate to this fear at all (like me), that doesn't give you the right to make other people live their lives in fear.
You can also argue the other way around, if the majority of the people don't want to live in fear of criminals with easy acces to guns then you don't give them easy acces to guns.
|
opportunity creates the criminal IMO. People will use them the more accessible they are. Guns here just are not part of the culture and to be honest I'm glad they're not. Its a scary thought that all the douche bags and want to be tough guys I know could have a gun.
Also: Tyranny of the majority, just because the majority wants it doesn't make it right. I don't think an industry making loads of cash is going to sit down and let guns become less accessible, because their voices are louder maybe skews the consensus a little bit? I think its pretty obvious that guns cause a much bigger problem when looking at the murder rates than they help. But its a vicious cycle i guess since everyone knows the bad guy has a gun than everyone wants guns to protect themselves etc.
|
A quick search on Academy's website shows these options. It is understandable if someone wants a pistol or something to defend their home from a criminal, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone would need a semiautomatic rifle for merely self-defense. The more accessible they are the more dangerous of a place it becomes.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wv8M8.jpg)
|
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up.
|
On March 02 2012 02:04 Leeto wrote:A quick search on Academy's website shows these options. It is understandable if someone wants a pistol or something to defend their home from a criminal, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone would need a semiautomatic rifle for merely self-defense. The more accessible they are the more dangerous of a place it becomes.
Most pistols sold in the US today are semi-automatic. The only difference between a semi-automatic pistol and a semi-automatic rifle are the effective distance at which they can be used.
The top rifles pictured are used as sport/hunting rifles. Since recorded human history man has enjoyed the thrill of the hunt and providing his own food for himself. Obviously these rifles could be used by men to "hunt" other men but they aren't sold that way.
Then there are semi-automatic ASSAULT rifles pictured at the bottom left (the KMP). They are sold that way. These rifles are specifically designed for combat purposes. The only reason one might own one of these is for fear of multiple assailants threatening him and the need for fast, reliable, low recoil, maximum stopping power. The only situation I can think for these to be neccesary is for a civil breakdown cache (ie at the ready in case of economic collapse or civil unrest that involves large numbers of people threatening your family's safety).
I definitely don't support a ban on these types of rifles. But I don't support most Americans buying them. Most American's needs will be served by the pistol or hunting rifle.
I feel like this info needed to be clarified for people misunderstanding terminology a bit.
|
On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up.
Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm*
|
On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm*
Then offer a statistic that you think shows crime rates increase because of guns and I'll say the same thing. You're free to draw your own conclusions from whatever stats you like....the stats remain unchanged. He is free to do the same. Of course you'll draw the conclusion that fits your bias, just like him.
To what do you attribute the reduction in crime rates?
|
On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm*
Exactly my point smart guy. There are so many variables that saying our high rate is directly gun related is invalid. One thing you can say though is our rate is not going up because of guns. Also this isn't just a random fluctuation in the rate. Its a steady decline over a 20 year period that's still on the decline. The US is getting SAFER, and its not because we are restricting guns. *facepalm*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
