|
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. |
The issue with these fantasy scenarios is that the military are people, not aliens insusceptible to the same arguments that people are to. It would make more sense to me if the gun rights folks would argue that an armed population makes it harder for a foreign invader to take over, as improbable as that is given your location and status. The tyranny angle has to make the straight up wrong assumption that whatever convinces the military (i.e. people) to fight a civil war on behalf of a tyrant doesn't also convince at least a large minority of gun owners (i.e. people) to do the same thing..
|
On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that.
I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe.
I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given.
I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm.
ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so.
handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal.
|
On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal.
Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ?
Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do.
Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need.
Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it.
Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that.
Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons.+ Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities)
And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos.
|
|
|
I think the main difference is how it is assumed in the US that good guys having guns is such an awesome thing. Preventing bad guys of having them is not enough to justify taking the guns from anybody, even when those bad guys do horrible massacres and terrorist attacks, 200k guns are stolen every year and murders, accidents and suicides are fare more common than they would with less guns in the population.
You don't want a civil uprising no matter what, and once again, it is assumed that the "good" guys will use their guns against the "bad guys." There will only be bad guys eventually in an anarchy, and remember the US has the strongest millitary in the world, which noone should have any interrest in fighting against.
|
On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos.
Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting.
Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something.
You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible.
If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad".
|
By hunting "Birds" you mean actual singing Birds? I ask because that sounds really strange and fucked up to me.
Here we basically only Hunt various kinds of deer and wild boars (bears and wolves were made extinct a looong time ago and are only now slowly returning).
|
I assume by "Birds" he means ducks, pheasant, quails and the like. They are hunted in various countries.
|
Yeah Turkey as well. You use shotguns to hunt them so your bullets don't blow the thing apart. Another use for a shotgun is to get a "slug" where you get a massive bullet to fire but it'll knock the deer down for sure so they won't run away if they're mortally wounded.
|
Ok, then it makes sense. I just had this picture forming in my head of a father prowdly teaching his son to shoot at Sparrows and the like while reading serms post  .
I think we don't often call ducks/phaesants and so on just "birds" in german. At lest i never heard someone tell about bird hunting.
|
United States42689 Posts
The word for the birds you’d hunt is probably gamefowl in English.
Edit: apparently gamefowl is for cock fighting, game birds is the one
Edit2: although game birds could also be posh women who are down to fuck
|
On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad".
I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same.
I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool".
And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do.
|
Could be. More likely we just erradicated them too, so there are basically no wild game birds left (aside from ducks, but i don't think anyone hunts these here). Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
|
This conversation reminds me of Danny the Champion of the World.
|
United States42689 Posts
On March 27 2019 01:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
This conversation reminds me of Danny the Champion of the World.
A+ Dahl book
|
Hunting community gun people are some of the nicest people around. I don’t know how they breed good humor, but it’s there. The stories of who hunted what with what gun where go back four generations sometimes.
I’ve only gone target shooting and gun ranges with them so far. Maybe in a summer or two I can head out to their neck of the woods and go hunting.
|
On March 27 2019 00:57 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad". I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same. I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool". And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do.
You said that I needed mass murder weapons and that my only argument was "fuck off I like guns" Thats not asking for clarification thats making someones argument for them so they look like shit.
It doesn't matter if rich and poor people use the same guns I was describing the differences in who hunts to describe the reason for the gun culture in america.
You trying to make a thing about needing to pull the trigger on a bolt action to remove the bolt baffles me. Do you have knowledge on guns or do you not have any technical knowledge on guns? To remove the bolt on a mosin you open the bolt pull it back and then pull the trigger to pull it the rest of the way. In order to remove the bolt you have to make it impossible for the gun to fire. Thats a 1891 thing.
You saying that you're okay with "scary weapons are bad" being your argument is bad. Ignorance is not a strength in any argument.
|
Yeah, but we already know the technique of tricking you into getting too much into detail, at which point something that should be a general discussion gets bogged down by very minute talk about small details in definition, and once there is anything in there that can be construed as incorrect, the gun nut goes "Lol, you know nothing about guns, why do you want to regulate them".
That is the reason why people don't want to go down that rabbit whole. They know the basic details, but they don't want to give a lawyerishly exact definition because then the whole thing becomes a lawyerdebate, instead of a principles debate.
|
On March 27 2019 04:49 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but we already know the technique of tricking you into getting too much into detail, at which point something that should be a general discussion gets bogged down by very minute talk about small details in definition, and once there is anything in there that can be construed as incorrect, the gun nut goes "Lol, you know nothing about guns, why do you want to regulate them".
That is the reason why people don't want to go down that rabbit whole. They know the basic details, but they don't want to give a lawyerishly exact definition because then the whole thing becomes a lawyerdebate, instead of a principles debate.
Bullshit you're trying to make ignorance a strength. He doesn't know the basic details and tried to present an idea that had no basis in reality. Me calling him out on that makes me the bad guy?
If you want to have a technical argument then you can make technical arguments. If you want a principles argument then present principles. He tried to make a technical argument and I disagreed with it.
|
Ok, basic principle: Guns which can quickly fire a lot of bullets should be not be legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
