|
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 July 31 2018 02:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though. I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it.
I did. My first post directly responded to your post that was quoted in his and his.
I mean I'm just tired (and as micro showed reasonably) of the "US citizens have no chance against their military" being used to try to make reasonable opposition to shitty policy seem irrational.
There's plenty of bad and stupid arguments out there without making the bad one about "Tanks and planes means your AR 15 is useless" oneself.
@bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not?
|
On July 31 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 02:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though. I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it. I did. My first post directly responded to your post that was quoted in his and his. I mean I'm just tired (and as micro showed reasonably) of the "US citizens have no chance against their military" being used to try to make reasonable opposition to shitty policy seem irrational. There's plenty of bad and stupid arguments out there without making the bad one about "Tanks and planes means your AR 15 is useless" oneself. @bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not?
And as several people have pointed out, multiple times, the US vs Taliban is a different monster than military dictatorship vs US civilians. I would love to have a logistics discussion with someone who believes a US resistance would win (as in overthrow that dictatorship and reestablish a non-dictatorship).
If you're tired of people saying "US citizens lose to army", I'm tired of people saying "yes they could" and running off.
|
On July 31 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
@bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not?
It doesn't matter if he personally wants it to happen or not, no country would consider that. But let's say that they're willing to do so, how could the US possibly guarantee to those that have no say on their laws that they won't change their mind 10 years later and start selling them again?
|
On July 31 2018 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 02:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though. I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it. I did. My first post directly responded to your post that was quoted in his and his. I mean I'm just tired (and as micro showed reasonably) of the "US citizens have no chance against their military" being used to try to make reasonable opposition to shitty policy seem irrational. There's plenty of bad and stupid arguments out there without making the bad one about "Tanks and planes means your AR 15 is useless" oneself. @bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not? And as several people have pointed out, multiple times, the US vs Taliban is a different monster than military dictatorship vs US civilians. I would love to have a logistics discussion with someone who believes a US resistance would win (as in overthrow that dictatorship and reestablish a non-dictatorship). If you're tired of people saying "US citizens lose to army", I'm tired of people saying "yes they could" and running off.
People aren't saying "yes they could" and then running off it's literally been explained reasonably thoroughly a dozen+ times. It's almost always the "lol bro your guns are useless vs the military" a few people +1 it and they all ignore the refutation and move on.
@Dan: they wouldn't. It's strictly a matter of having less guns in the country for that time, as such it stands as the most viable way to do it imo, even if it's not great.
|
On July 31 2018 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 31 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 02:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though. I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it. I did. My first post directly responded to your post that was quoted in his and his. I mean I'm just tired (and as micro showed reasonably) of the "US citizens have no chance against their military" being used to try to make reasonable opposition to shitty policy seem irrational. There's plenty of bad and stupid arguments out there without making the bad one about "Tanks and planes means your AR 15 is useless" oneself. @bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not? And as several people have pointed out, multiple times, the US vs Taliban is a different monster than military dictatorship vs US civilians. I would love to have a logistics discussion with someone who believes a US resistance would win (as in overthrow that dictatorship and reestablish a non-dictatorship). If you're tired of people saying "US citizens lose to army", I'm tired of people saying "yes they could" and running off. People aren't saying "yes they could" and then running off it's literally been explained reasonably thoroughly a dozen+ times. It's almost always the "lol bro your guns are useless vs the military" a few people +1 it and they all ignore the refutation and move on.
So basically that's a no to a logistics discussion.
|
On July 31 2018 03:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 31 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 02:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though. I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it. I did. My first post directly responded to your post that was quoted in his and his. I mean I'm just tired (and as micro showed reasonably) of the "US citizens have no chance against their military" being used to try to make reasonable opposition to shitty policy seem irrational. There's plenty of bad and stupid arguments out there without making the bad one about "Tanks and planes means your AR 15 is useless" oneself. @bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not? And as several people have pointed out, multiple times, the US vs Taliban is a different monster than military dictatorship vs US civilians. I would love to have a logistics discussion with someone who believes a US resistance would win (as in overthrow that dictatorship and reestablish a non-dictatorship). If you're tired of people saying "US citizens lose to army", I'm tired of people saying "yes they could" and running off. People aren't saying "yes they could" and then running off it's literally been explained reasonably thoroughly a dozen+ times. It's almost always the "lol bro your guns are useless vs the military" a few people +1 it and they all ignore the refutation and move on. So basically that's a no to a logistics discussion.
I mean I'm not personally very interested in rehashing it. But if you want to make your case I'll consider it. Presumably you'll be bringing something novel to it as opposed to the multiple times this has been hashed.
|
On July 31 2018 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 03:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 31 2018 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 31 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 02:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though. I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it. I did. My first post directly responded to your post that was quoted in his and his. I mean I'm just tired (and as micro showed reasonably) of the "US citizens have no chance against their military" being used to try to make reasonable opposition to shitty policy seem irrational. There's plenty of bad and stupid arguments out there without making the bad one about "Tanks and planes means your AR 15 is useless" oneself. @bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not? And as several people have pointed out, multiple times, the US vs Taliban is a different monster than military dictatorship vs US civilians. I would love to have a logistics discussion with someone who believes a US resistance would win (as in overthrow that dictatorship and reestablish a non-dictatorship). If you're tired of people saying "US citizens lose to army", I'm tired of people saying "yes they could" and running off. People aren't saying "yes they could" and then running off it's literally been explained reasonably thoroughly a dozen+ times. It's almost always the "lol bro your guns are useless vs the military" a few people +1 it and they all ignore the refutation and move on. So basically that's a no to a logistics discussion. I mean I'm not personally very interested in rehashing it. But if you want to make your case I'll consider it. Presumably you'll be bringing something novel to it as opposed to the multiple times this has been hashed.
I mean, I've already brought up why guerrilla warfare doesn't win when the opposing army isn't losing money and isn't fighting purely for socio-political reasons. I'm sure that probably has been brought up before, but if "the Taliban" is going to keep being brought up in this context it's going to keep being refuted.
Also I don't see how:
You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest.
Is an argument against, rather than just a reality of military dictatorships. All the money and resources gets funnelled into maintaining the army, and the rest of the population is destitute or dead. That's post civil-war Russia, North Korea, several African nations...
|
On July 31 2018 04:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 03:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 31 2018 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 31 2018 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 02:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed.
That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though. I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it. I did. My first post directly responded to your post that was quoted in his and his. I mean I'm just tired (and as micro showed reasonably) of the "US citizens have no chance against their military" being used to try to make reasonable opposition to shitty policy seem irrational. There's plenty of bad and stupid arguments out there without making the bad one about "Tanks and planes means your AR 15 is useless" oneself. @bro As to why "internationally funded"? Well do you want it to happen or not? And as several people have pointed out, multiple times, the US vs Taliban is a different monster than military dictatorship vs US civilians. I would love to have a logistics discussion with someone who believes a US resistance would win (as in overthrow that dictatorship and reestablish a non-dictatorship). If you're tired of people saying "US citizens lose to army", I'm tired of people saying "yes they could" and running off. People aren't saying "yes they could" and then running off it's literally been explained reasonably thoroughly a dozen+ times. It's almost always the "lol bro your guns are useless vs the military" a few people +1 it and they all ignore the refutation and move on. So basically that's a no to a logistics discussion. I mean I'm not personally very interested in rehashing it. But if you want to make your case I'll consider it. Presumably you'll be bringing something novel to it as opposed to the multiple times this has been hashed. I mean, I've already brought up why guerrilla warfare doesn't win when the opposing army isn't losing money and isn't fighting purely for socio-political reasons. I'm sure that probably has been brought up before, but if "the Taliban" is going to keep being brought up in this context it's going to keep being refuted. Also I don't see how: Show nested quote +You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Is an argument against, rather than just a reality of military dictatorships. All the money and resources gets funnelled into maintaining the army, and the rest of the population is destitute or dead. That's post civil-war Russia, North Korea, several African nations...
Yeah, no I'm not interested in trying to explain why I think that's grossly misinformed/wrong.
EDIT: Because that came across a bit harsh I want to say that I'm just not in the mood to fight that particular fight right now. I'm hopeful someone else is (plenty of people did fine jobs, others not so much), and you might catch me another time more willing to go at it on this. Just know Imperialism plays large roles even in those domestically focused points you're making
|
Well, okay, let's try to establish some kind of context for a supposed "civilian vs military" scenario. I think everyone would agree that "army marches on cities, citizens grab guns and march back" is not even close to realistic.
I think we could agree that the vast majority of people in the US would be neither military (any connected part of the military complex) nor resistance.
The military opposing its own civilian population isn't exactly a thing that just happens, so there would need to be some kind of preceding circumstances. A leader turned dictator with control of the military, a military coup overthrowing a leader, a civil war where the winning side uses military force to stabilize the transition periods, etc.
I don't think there are any realistic scenarios where a portion of the current citizen population doesn't side with the military. (But I'd be all for counter opinions on that)
So given that there would be a reason for civilians to take up arms against their own military, what kind of numbers are people believing would be "the military" side and "the civilian" side?
|
@ GH: On the list of things i want to happen, helping America form a better society is not my top priority. Plus, Europeans buying American guns would not help convince Americans it's in their interest to do so. We will let you die on that hill. We don't like it because we don't understand why that hill is so special for you but if you, or your society as a whole, wants to.
|
On July 31 2018 04:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
On the list of things i want to happen, helping America form a better society is not my top priority. Plus, Europeans buying American guns would not help convince Americans it's in their interest to do so. We will let you die on that hill. We don't like it because we don't understand why that hill is so special for you but if you, or your society as a whole, wants to.
No it's not me (opposed to reducing gun-related deaths), but yeah there's way too much money in the status quo for our political system to address it. I figured it would be a UN humanitarian thing, though I guess Germany would end up paying a good chunk of it so I don't blame you for your resistance.
|
On July 31 2018 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 04:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
On the list of things i want to happen, helping America form a better society is not my top priority. Plus, Europeans buying American guns would not help convince Americans it's in their interest to do so. We will let you die on that hill. We don't like it because we don't understand why that hill is so special for you but if you, or your society as a whole, wants to. No it's not me (opposed to reducing gun-related deaths), but yeah there's way too much money in the status quo for our political system to address it. I figured it would be a UN humanitarian thing, though I guess Germany would end up paying a good chunk of it so I don't blame you for your resistance.
UN humanitarian thing is great :D I am for expanding German development help, i would simply not put the US into the receiving end of it. After all, your problem is a higher rate of gun violence, other nations starve or cannot improve their economy to the point that they are not all in poverty. What the US has is a first world problem. I am of course not blaming anyone here for the situation, even political majorities cannot simply change existing societies. Maybe you should outbreed white southerners. Every blue state married couple has to have 4 kids in order to have gunccontrol in the next generation.
inserted here from edit of my last post, to not confuse everybody:
And on American population vs American government. If you look at the history of the 20th century, how many cases of a dictatorship vs their own people can you name, that were won by the people? Not a foreign invasion, not a civil war between equal political parties. Not a peaceful revolution. A government turning into a dictatorship willing to suppress the population by force of the military, which will comply with that order. Those systems work because they have support in the population and the rebels are seen as traitors that have to be stopped. See the difference between France and Germany in the Third Reich. There was zero civil disobedience in Germany, not because they all loved their Führer, but because the society had turned against those that opposed the dictatorship.
I am still wondering why anybody thinks that an American Dictatorship would form without that. Look at Trump today, there are probably already more people in the States that would kill for him then there are people that would die against him. And he isn't even a dictator. If America would be taken over by a dictatorship worth dying against, it would have done so in a way that nowhere on the way the opposition could say, if i just stand up now and shoot the executive in the face, this will end.
|
On July 31 2018 05:10 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 04:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
On the list of things i want to happen, helping America form a better society is not my top priority. Plus, Europeans buying American guns would not help convince Americans it's in their interest to do so. We will let you die on that hill. We don't like it because we don't understand why that hill is so special for you but if you, or your society as a whole, wants to. No it's not me (opposed to reducing gun-related deaths), but yeah there's way too much money in the status quo for our political system to address it. I figured it would be a UN humanitarian thing, though I guess Germany would end up paying a good chunk of it so I don't blame you for your resistance. UN humanitarian thing is great :D I am for expanding German development help, i would simply not put the US into the receiving end of it. After all, your problem is a higher rate of gun violence, other nations starve or cannot improve their economy to the point that they are not all in poverty. What the US has is a first world problem. I am of course not blaming anyone here for the situation, even political majorities cannot simply change existing societies. Maybe you should outbreed white southerners. Every blue state married couple has to have 4 kids in order to have gunccontrol in the next generation. inserted here from edit of my last post, to not confuse everybody: And on American population vs American government. If you look at the history of the 20th century, how many cases of a dictatorship vs their own people can you name, that were won by the people? Not a foreign invasion, not a civil war between equal political parties. Not a peaceful revolution. A government turning into a dictatorship willing to suppress the population by force of the military, which will comply with that order. Those systems work because they have support in the population and the rebels are seen as traitors that have to be stopped. See the difference between France and Germany in the Third Reich. There was zero civil disobedience in Germany, not because they all loved their Führer, but because the society had turned against those that opposed the dictatorship. I am still wondering why anybody thinks that an American Dictatorship would form without that. Look at Trump today, there are probably already more people in the States that would kill for him then there are people that would die against him. And he isn't even a dictator. If America would be taken over by a dictatorship worth dying against, it would have done so in a way that nowhere on the way the opposition could say, if i just stand up now and shoot the executive in the face, this will end.
Well...
Maybe you should outbreed white southerners.
*Reported for advocating white genocide*+ Show Spoiler + (this joke is hard enough to get but if what I've read on this site about German humor is true I apologize)
No, but in all seriousness you make reasonable points about why it's a ridiculous proposition it's mostly just my way of saying we're already captive to a political class that couldn't care much less about reducing gun deaths by changing the status quo in a way that would functionally reduce gun deaths. It's also demonstrative of how calls for civility and normative behavior essentially facilitate the more German like transition as opposed to France.
|
On July 31 2018 05:10 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 04:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
On the list of things i want to happen, helping America form a better society is not my top priority. Plus, Europeans buying American guns would not help convince Americans it's in their interest to do so. We will let you die on that hill. We don't like it because we don't understand why that hill is so special for you but if you, or your society as a whole, wants to. No it's not me (opposed to reducing gun-related deaths), but yeah there's way too much money in the status quo for our political system to address it. I figured it would be a UN humanitarian thing, though I guess Germany would end up paying a good chunk of it so I don't blame you for your resistance. UN humanitarian thing is great :D I am for expanding German development help, i would simply not put the US into the receiving end of it. After all, your problem is a higher rate of gun violence, other nations starve or cannot improve their economy to the point that they are not all in poverty. What the US has is a first world problem. I am of course not blaming anyone here for the situation, even political majorities cannot simply change existing societies. Maybe you should outbreed white southerners. Every blue state married couple has to have 4 kids in order to have gunccontrol in the next generation. inserted here from edit of my last post, to not confuse everybody: And on American population vs American government. If you look at the history of the 20th century, how many cases of a dictatorship vs their own people can you name, that were won by the people? Not a foreign invasion, not a civil war between equal political parties. Not a peaceful revolution. A government turning into a dictatorship willing to suppress the population by force of the military, which will comply with that order. Those systems work because they have support in the population and the rebels are seen as traitors that have to be stopped. See the difference between France and Germany in the Third Reich. There was zero civil disobedience in Germany, not because they all loved their Führer, but because the society had turned against those that opposed the dictatorship. I am still wondering why anybody thinks that an American Dictatorship would form without that. Look at Trump today, there are probably already more people in the States that would kill for him then there are people that would die against him. And he isn't even a dictator. If America would be taken over by a dictatorship worth dying against, it would have done so in a way that nowhere on the way the opposition could say, if i just stand up now and shoot the executive in the face, this will end.
That's a pretty interesting point, and I think it's important to recognize that if we include partisanship as a variable, the liberal/ Democratic half of the American population is less likely to be the civilian resistance (they're not the overzealous pro-gun party who has most of the guns) yet their party leaders are also less likely to be the ones turning dictatorial (they're not nearly as pro-military/ pro- arm-of-the-Lord). This whole hypothetical armed civilian resistance vs. government dictatorship would almost certainly be mostly Republicans vs. mostly Republicans, which I think makes the possibility of this hypothetical even more far-fetched. There would need to be a progressive dictator in power for the "South to rise again", which would be extremely rare, although I suppose it's much more likely that enough conservatives get duped into believing that the next time liberals are in power in at least 2/3 of our branches of government it could well be a dictatorial conspiracy (just get them to believe that the president is a Muslim foreigner who wants to steal your guns again and then plant the additional seed that he wants to kill American Republicans before they can stop government tyranny).
|
On July 31 2018 22:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2018 05:10 Broetchenholer wrote:On July 31 2018 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2018 04:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
On the list of things i want to happen, helping America form a better society is not my top priority. Plus, Europeans buying American guns would not help convince Americans it's in their interest to do so. We will let you die on that hill. We don't like it because we don't understand why that hill is so special for you but if you, or your society as a whole, wants to. No it's not me (opposed to reducing gun-related deaths), but yeah there's way too much money in the status quo for our political system to address it. I figured it would be a UN humanitarian thing, though I guess Germany would end up paying a good chunk of it so I don't blame you for your resistance. UN humanitarian thing is great :D I am for expanding German development help, i would simply not put the US into the receiving end of it. After all, your problem is a higher rate of gun violence, other nations starve or cannot improve their economy to the point that they are not all in poverty. What the US has is a first world problem. I am of course not blaming anyone here for the situation, even political majorities cannot simply change existing societies. Maybe you should outbreed white southerners. Every blue state married couple has to have 4 kids in order to have gunccontrol in the next generation. inserted here from edit of my last post, to not confuse everybody: And on American population vs American government. If you look at the history of the 20th century, how many cases of a dictatorship vs their own people can you name, that were won by the people? Not a foreign invasion, not a civil war between equal political parties. Not a peaceful revolution. A government turning into a dictatorship willing to suppress the population by force of the military, which will comply with that order. Those systems work because they have support in the population and the rebels are seen as traitors that have to be stopped. See the difference between France and Germany in the Third Reich. There was zero civil disobedience in Germany, not because they all loved their Führer, but because the society had turned against those that opposed the dictatorship. I am still wondering why anybody thinks that an American Dictatorship would form without that. Look at Trump today, there are probably already more people in the States that would kill for him then there are people that would die against him. And he isn't even a dictator. If America would be taken over by a dictatorship worth dying against, it would have done so in a way that nowhere on the way the opposition could say, if i just stand up now and shoot the executive in the face, this will end. That's a pretty interesting point, and I think it's important to recognize that if we include partisanship as a variable, the liberal/ Democratic half of the American population is less likely to be the civilian resistance (they're not the overzealous pro-gun party who has most of the guns) yet their party leaders are also less likely to be the ones turning dictatorial (they're not nearly as pro-military/ pro- arm-of-the-Lord). This whole hypothetical armed civilian resistance vs. government dictatorship would almost certainly be mostly Republicans vs. mostly Republicans, which I think makes the possibility of this hypothetical even more far-fetched. There would need to be a progressive dictator in power for the "South to rise again", which would be extremely rare, although I suppose it's much more likely that enough conservatives get duped into believing that the next time liberals are in power in at least 2/3 of our branches of government it could well be a dictatorial conspiracy (just get them to believe that the president is a Muslim foreigner who wants to steal your guns again and then plant the additional seed that he wants to kill American Republicans before they can stop government tyranny).
Those types of folks are already paranoid about the non-existent tyrannical left and they ain't doing shit. Remember the Antifa Twitter hoax? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-antifa-planning-a-civil-war/
But I highly doubt that even these people are actually willing to die for their political beliefs or delusions, as everyone is way too immersed in consumerism in its many forms to want to sacrifice their material comforts for some kind of (stupid) lofty ideal. There's still a wide gap between trying to trigger people on the internet from the comfort of your own trailer park and actually pulling a trigger on those people real life. I thus can't quite see a civil war erupting in the U.S. unless there's a total economic collapse on an unprecedented scale.
|
In a nation where its legal to openly carry weapons concealed or no unconcealed its inevitable some people are gonna get shot.
|
On August 02 2018 01:07 funnybananaman wrote:
In a nation where its legal to openly carry weapons concealed or no unconcealed its inevitable some people are gonna get shot.
CC people are the ones which worries me the least tbh. At least they have gone through some kind of firearms training course. Statistics show that ccw holders are far less likely to be involved in violent crimes, because these are the people who are willing to go through extra hoops to carry their weapons, compared to just going down to your local Toys R' Us and having one within the hour (They are also far more likely to be turned down if there is any suspicion of potential wrongdoings). Just implement this for the rest of the population!
|
On August 02 2018 01:07 funnybananaman wrote:
In a nation where its legal to openly carry weapons concealed or no unconcealed its inevitable some people are gonna get shot.
I think the counterargument is that the idea that someone could be concealing a weapon- or the experience of seeing someone open carrying- acts as a deterrent and/or stops more people getting shot than it adds to the body count.
|
So the discussion is about the guy who shot 13 people in Toronto, correct? Said extremist used a hand gun with military training efficiency. And the main content of the discussion is surrounding "What if he had access to a fully automatic rifle?"
It seems more logical to discuss the facts. His family is saying he suffered from mental problems and the media is reporting the possibility that he was radicalized on his visits to ISIS held territory.
To me, yes, of course he has mental problems. It's never okay to shoot 13 people. The only justification is if you are in a time of war and you are defending your life, or your liberty.
I think it's related to his Muslim faith. He was brainwashed into thinking it's okay to kill "infidels". So he went back to Toronto, where he lives, and committed his act.
|
On August 02 2018 04:04 basedFinn wrote:
I think it's related to his Muslim faith. He was brainwashed into thinking it's okay to kill "infidels".
Let's stay clear of the generalisation shall we? I don't think you meant it this way, but the way you typed it makes it out that Muslim faith brainwashes you into thinking it's ok to kill infidels, which is just not the case, as the vast vast majority of Muslims does not think this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
