Charlie, I'm with you almost the whole way, what with me being an anti-gun European leftist commie nutjob and whatever, but err...You're replying too fast and thinking too slow; they're getting to you and you're saying things that are either tangential, or impossible to proof. Or, in this case, nonsensical. Drugs are illegal in pretty much every other country in the world, too. Some local variations apply, but it's fairly limited.
Ban every gun
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
No, I said there are uses other than killing people. Though you personally don't like it, I consider hunting or defending oneself from animals to be perfectly valid uses. Also, there are plenty of sport uses for guns, such as skeet shooting and target shooting. But you already dismissed all of those as murder practice, right?
I don't see those as worthwhile enough to offset all the people hurt or killed by gun violence, I guess.
GasBandit
Staff member
Banning guns won't uninvent them or get them out of the hands of dedicated criminals. A complete and total ban of firearms would be impractical and ineffective.
Also, I want to trot out my tired old mantra every time a gun argument comes up and somebody talks about hunting - in America, our right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home defense, it's about making the American populace that much more difficult to oppress.
Also, I want to trot out my tired old mantra every time a gun argument comes up and somebody talks about hunting - in America, our right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home defense, it's about making the American populace that much more difficult to oppress.
and this is a really baseless argument in the year 2012, so repeal it immediately
GasBandit
Staff member
Not at all. It's more important than it has ever been, with a federal government that with each passing year grows and grabs exponentially more power from state and local governments while curtailing individual liberty. The first thing any tyrant does is eliminate private firearm ownership, as shown multiple times in human history. It is the ultimate failsafe, the last line of defense trump card to keep our republic from regressing into an empire.
To signal the start of a race.
GasBandit
Staff member
... I like dancing. AND I JUST GOT HERE SO MAKE THE BAND GET BACK ON STAGE DAMMIT
holy shit[DOUBLEPOST=1342818935][/DOUBLEPOST]I'm not going to argue the point that private firearm ownership in 2012 will overthrow any first world military government. That ship sailed. It's just an absurd argument.To signal the start of a race.
Soldiers get tired of dying too.
Let people buy bazookas and tanks and that ship suddenly comes back into port.
YOU ARE WELCOME GAS.
Yeah, we totally nailed Vietnam and completely annihilated al qaeda. The guns vs first world military argument is completely resolved.
Vietnam was us getting defeated by another army. The Al Qaeda comparison doesn't really make sense. Your entire post doesn't really make sense. I really don't know what to say to you if you think an armed population of the United States could in any way give the United States Military pause.
Necronic
Staff member
Does anyone know of any situations where a civilian who was armed stopped a dangerous criminal from killing people? Other than thigns that happen at home. I'm talking about in public.
I mean...this has to have happened right? That's the whole argument from the right on this. That if only someone had a gun they could have stopped it. There HAS to be an example of that somewhere. Or an example of a place that is safer because everyone has a gun.
I mean...this has to have happened right? That's the whole argument from the right on this. That if only someone had a gun they could have stopped it. There HAS to be an example of that somewhere. Or an example of a place that is safer because everyone has a gun.
I saw a couple examples posted in the SomethingAwful thread where that did legitimately happen. There's a meme on facebook circulating of some old florida dude stopping a bank robbery with his concealed gun.
Not to put words into the mouth of stienman, but I believe he is referring to the numbers of times a lightly armed but determined force composed of fairly regular people have managed to significantly upset the forces of a modern army in an insurgency. Vietnam (Vietkong guerillas) and the operations in Iraq and Afganistan are some examples of these. Afghans did well against the Soviets too, and Hamas in Lebanon did very well against a full-scale israeli attack a few years ago.
It is naturally quite a stretch to claim that guerilla forces such as these would stand much of a chance against regular military forces in pitched battles, but that is not their modus operandi. They succeed through different strategies, and those successes have been witnessed and documented throughout history. I guess it is therefore plausible that an armed citizenry could even nowadays frustrate tyranny, or at least make the benefits of attempting to establish such not worth the increased costs.
Necronic
Staff member
Yeah, I mean...before the US was involved supplying things like Harlequins, they were getting their proverbial brownies returned through the rear entry.
But there are some really good examples of that during WW2, like with the Polish Resistance. Don't get me wrong, they were, for the most part, slaughtered. But they did make a difference.
Edit: I only know the Harlequin name because they used it in that Charlie Wilson's War movie. I will admit to getting some of my history from Tom Hanks. Most of it really.
But there are some really good examples of that during WW2, like with the Polish Resistance. Don't get me wrong, they were, for the most part, slaughtered. But they did make a difference.
Edit: I only know the Harlequin name because they used it in that Charlie Wilson's War movie. I will admit to getting some of my history from Tom Hanks. Most of it really.
North_Ranger
Staff member
I'll just be over here with a firehose and a bucket of popcorn, and watch this thread burn.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Yes. Yes you are.
Just checking. Pass the popcorn please
North_Ranger
Staff member
Help yourself, man. I've got back-up if we run out.
Cement kilns use large bore shotguns to break up clumps of raw concrete dust that form with the rolling of the kiln. The intense heat of the kiln essentially vaporizes the pellets of the shell after it impacts the dust ball.
So now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Violence is the other half.
GasBandit
Staff member
The shooter had an AR-15, the civilian name for an M-16. And soldiers can't live in their tanks 24/7. Just ask Major Nidal Hasan. He killed 13 and wounded 28 with a civilian pistol.
Certainly, but such equipment that does get through, while naturally helping the cause of the insurgents and making life a bit more miserable for the occupying forces, does in most cases little to change the overall balance of power in a country, or causes a significant change in overall strategies. It was not their losses in men and materiel that caused the soviets to pull out of Afghanistan, nor the reason for the US draw-down in Iraq where the most effective weapon in the insurgents' arsenal is not some high-tech anti-aircraft missile supplied by an unfriendly government, but rather an old artillery shell on the roadside detonated by a cell phone. Few regular militaries have lost to insurgents because they were defeated in the field. I believe the old adage in these things is that while the military needs to win in order to prevail, the only thing the insurgent has to do is to not lose. In most cases, if the insurgent can just keep at it long enough, the military will pack their bags and go home eventually.
Vietnam may be a slightly different proposition, though, as for most of the time there was the regular PAVN forces to deal with, the VC being something of a fifth column.
I might offer the Yugoslav example from WWII, where Tito's partisans actually did kick the germans out through military action. Though of course at that point in time Germany was almost down for the count everywhere, and such reinforcements as would have been needed were simply not available for deployment to Yugoslavia.
You may be aware of pneumatically (air) powered nail "guns", these are relatively new and are derived from their larger more powerful cousins, the powder-actuated tool gun. Essentially they are modified belt fed fire arms that instead of launching bullets, launch fasteners into dense materials. Interestingly their original function was as rapid response riveters for repairing hull breaches in ships. The powders for these are classified as ammunition and in many countries the tool itself is a controlled item.
Here is a video of one of the many smaller versions, note that there is no battery or air power for the machine.
Necronic
Staff member
Some men just want to watch the threads burn
The workers who use those guns are just engaging in murder practice. Obviously.
- Status