Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Ban every gun

Jul 20, 2012#1

Charlie Don't Surf

Guns have literally never done anything productive in human history. All they do is kill people or destroy things. Ban them all, put any gunowner in prison longer than every drug offender.

This thread can be the lightning rod for the political mess coming out of the Massacre in Aurora this morning.

Jul 20, 2012#2

sixpackshaker

Every thief, burglar, rapist, and murderer killed with a gun, is a good thing.

Jul 20, 2012#3

Dave

I understand why you'd feel this way and I actually agree to some measure, but I disagree to the overall premise.

Putting gun owners in jail is just stupid unless they've broken a law. Of course, if guns were illegal and they still had them then I suppose, but I don't see this as happening.

I just want everyone to know that this thread will be watched and personal attacks from anyone about anyone will be DELETED without delay. Posts quoting those will either also be deleted or edited, depending on the amount of time I have.

Jul 20, 2012#4

Charlie Don't Surf

I of course mean gunowners that exist AFTER some reasonable time to turn in your gun / destroy it / whatever. Not current gun owners.[DOUBLEPOST=1342800142][/DOUBLEPOST]

sixpackshaker said:
Every thief, burglar, rapist, and murderer killed with a gun, is a good thing.

Wow, I cannot fathom a viewpoint where you believe theft is a killable offense. I guess the nicest way to put it is that I disagree with this statement absolutely.

Jul 20, 2012#5

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Guns have literally never done anything productive in human history.

Jul 20, 2012#6

Covar

I intend to respond to Charlie with the amount of attention a thread like this deserves.

Jul 20, 2012#7

Dave

He's entitled to his opinion just like everyone else.

Jul 20, 2012#8

Charlie Don't Surf

The human history thing is kind of a stretch, I'll even admit. But I just don't see killing people or animals as productive.

Jul 20, 2012#9

Espy

I'm all for it. I think we should ban anything that can be used to kill another person.

Jul 20, 2012#10

Dave

Water? What if I drown you?

Jul 20, 2012#11

Charlie Don't Surf

Espy said:
I'm all for it. I think we should ban anything that can be used to kill another person.

I support banning guns because their sole purpose is killing other people. Machetes cut through brush and can cut lots of stuff that isn't a human body. If there's a practical use for a shotgun other than killing, I'd love to hear it, I honestly don't know of one.

Jul 20, 2012#12

Ravenpoe

I don't think outlawing guns in the way to go. Contrary to the thread title, guns do have productive use. From hunting for food, to defending against wild animals, to recreational target shooting, there are many uses for guns that don't involve shooting people.

I'm a gun owner. I've got a few if them, and I enjoy sport shooting. I like guns in general, but even saying that, I would support stricter gun control. Not a ban, but licensing required to purchase a gun I could get behind, similar to the licensing required to operate a vehicle.

Jul 20, 2012#13

Frank

Any farmer will disagree. My grandpa was loathe to shoot anything, but when a grizzly came lumbering right up to the farmhouse when I was 11 and my brothers were 7 and 5 and we were camping on his front yard, what choice does he have? My grandfather may very well have saved my life.

Jul 20, 2012#14

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
sole purpose is killing other people.

And there we go. Remember people if you aren't thinking in black and white terms then you aren't doing it right.

Jul 20, 2012#15

Dave

Stop prosecuting drug offenses and start greater enforcement of EXISTING gun laws. You'd go a long way to stopping this sort of thing.

Jul 20, 2012#16

strawman

I wonder. As a species would we really have progressed as far as we have without projectile weapons? Would we still be, essentially, bush people if the only method of defense against predators was hand to hand combat? We'd probably be putting a lot more effort into defense than industrialization if we didn't make it so easy - trivial, almost - to take another life from a safe distance. I'm not even talking about other humans, I'm thinking bears, lions, tigers, dingos, hyenas, bobcats, and even the smaller animals in larger numbers, not to mention herbivores that are dangerous such as buffalo.

Jul 20, 2012#17

Dave

We'd probably be speaking Cherokee. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Jul 20, 2012#18

Frank

It wasn't guns that conquered North America, it was sweet, sweet plague.

Jul 20, 2012#19

Dave

Frank said:
It wasn't guns that conquered North America, it was sweet, sweet plague.

Our boomsticks helped.

Jul 20, 2012#20

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Wow, I cannot fathom a viewpoint where you believe theft is a killable offense. I guess the nicest way to put it is that I disagree with this statement absolutely.

So Charlie, when you are in someone's home rifling through their jewelry, and the owner comes in and has you cornered and he's unarmed. Do you kill him and make your escape scott free or turn yourself in and go to prison for 5 years?

They are desperate enough to take from you, they are desperate enough to get rid of witnesses.

Jul 20, 2012#21

Charlie Don't Surf

In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

Jul 20, 2012#22

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

I play with a flight simulator. I'm never going to pilot a plane.

Jul 20, 2012#23

Covar

Dave said:
We'd probably be speaking Cherokee. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Speak for yourself. My great-grandparents were the first in my families to come here to America, being from different countries, without immigrating to NY it's unlikely I would exist. I'm perfectly happy with how things turned out.

Jul 20, 2012#24

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

The farm my grandfather owned for decades. Likely long before that bear was alive.

And the bear was male. So, if it's children were nearby, it probably would eaten them too.

Fuck off.

Jul 20, 2012#25

sixpackshaker

I masturbate furiously, but will never "sleep" with another woman.

Jul 20, 2012#26

Covar

Charlie Don't Surf said:
In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

So it would have been okay had the bear killed them? Props Charlie, props.

Jul 20, 2012#27

strawman

Hunter/gatherer/nomads don't develop electronics. They spend most of their time in finding food and defense. I doubt they would have ever figured out that most of their infant deaths had to do with conflicting blood type of the parents.

Remember the time when your whole village took up pitchforks to try and kill the animal that killed the child the other day, just to get rid of the menace, knowing that if they didn't it would procreate and you'd have an even bigger problem next year? I think there's a lot of thinks we take for granted from the comfort of our homes that we would be seriously worried about if we didn't go through that period in our history and have the weapons available today.

Jul 20, 2012#28

Frank

Covar said:
So it would have been okay had the bear killed them? Props Charlie, props.

Yeah, the PETA method of everything is more important than humans.

Jul 20, 2012#29

Covar

Frank said:
Yeah, the PETA method of everything is more important than humans.

I'm sure there will just be claims of putting words in his mouth.

Jul 20, 2012#30

strawman

Covar said:
So it would have been okay had the bear killed them? Props Charlie, props.

Charlie's comments suggest that he is of the opinion that it would be ok for the bear to kill to protect its cubs, but humans aren't allowed to kill to protect their children. Because we don't have claws or teeth sufficient to defend ourselves without tools, then we must put ourselves in our proper biological place on the food chain and submit ourselves to the whims of the animals around us.[DOUBLEPOST=1342803111][/DOUBLEPOST]

Espy said:
And there we go. Remember people if you aren't thinking in black and white terms then you aren't doing it right.

Moderation is for the weak!

Besides, this place woulds be pretty boring if we were all reasonable and didn't immediately jump to and discuss extremes.

Your mouth is a weapon that should be banned. :dumb:

Jul 20, 2012#31

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

It's to get better at shooting, in my case, for more targets. I've never fired a gun at a living thing, despite firing my first gun at 11. I don't have any moral quandaries about shooting animals, I just don't want to. And I do have moral problems against shooting another person (I hope everyone would).

The closest I've ever come would be firing into the ground to scare off some wild dogs that had come onto my property.

Jul 20, 2012#32

drifter

stienman said:
I wonder. As a species would we really have progressed as far as we have without projectile weapons? Would we still be, essentially, bush people if the only method of defense against predators was hand to hand combat? We'd probably be putting a lot more effort into defense than industrialization if we didn't make it so easy - trivial, almost - to take another life from a safe distance. I'm not even talking about other humans, I'm thinking bears, lions, tigers, dingos, hyenas, bobcats, and even the smaller animals in larger numbers, not to mention herbivores that are dangerous such as buffalo.

It's not like bush people didn't develop projectile weapons. Pretty much every culture on Earth has some form of throwing spear, sling, bow and arrow, etc. As far as I am aware the rise of humanity has largely been attributed to agriculture; having a known food base allowed for stable communities to develop, which lead to everything else. In terms of defense, a big fence is probably more useful than projectile weapons.

Jul 20, 2012#33

LordRendar

I am all for regulating guns.I think only 9% of houldholds carry guns in Germany and unless you belong to an Armed Service you arent allowed to carry it outside of your home unless you have a special permit,which is almost impossible to get (people living under higher threat like private security,politicians,etc).Even to carry a signal flare you have to get a permit.

And to be honest,im pretty glad that we have those laws.Ofcourse there are criminals that have guns,but they almost never have access to large caliber guns.Those that do usualy belong to organized crime rings.
But I never have to worry that if I attend a concert or other public event that I will be in danger of getting shot.

Jul 20, 2012#34

Charlie Don't Surf

Fuck the bear analogy, I don't care.

People can still shoot for sport if they want, but it's still murder practice to me. Maybe there can be firing ranges where the guns stay, but even then, that makes them fairly attractive to steal.

Jul 20, 2012#35

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Fuck the bear analogy, I don't care.

It wasn't an analogy, it was my real life experience of being a scared shitless 11 year old in a tent watching a large brown bear pawing around not 10 meters away.

Jul 20, 2012#36

Bowielee

Didn't we just have this exact same thread a little while ago?

Jul 20, 2012#37

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Fuck the bear analogy, I don't care.

People can still shoot for sport if they want, but it's still murder practice to me. Maybe there can be firing ranges where the guns stay, but even then, that makes them fairly attractive to steal.

Pretty much all of the Olympics are murder practice. We should ban those.

Jul 20, 2012#38

Charlie Don't Surf

Example, then.

For every legitimate bear killed there are still hundreds of young people in cities shot dead by handguns held by gang members or the police.

Jul 20, 2012#39

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Fuck the bear analogy, I don't care.

People can still shoot for sport if they want, but it's still murder practice to me. Maybe there can be firing ranges where the guns stay, but even then, that makes them fairly attractive to steal.

Just ban stealing.

Jul 20, 2012#40

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Example, then.

For every legitimate bear killed there are still hundreds of young people in cities shot dead by handguns held by gang members or the police.

So, what you're advocating is stricter gun control on small arms? That I can agree with you on. Maybe you should start there.

Jul 20, 2012#41

Covar

My favorite part of Charlie's argument is how he somehow expect unarmed officers to be able to bring in people who refuse to turn in their weapons and aren't afraid to use them.

Jul 20, 2012#42

Bowielee

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Example, then.

For every legitimate bear killed there are still hundreds of young people in cities shot dead by handguns held by gang members or the police.

It's almost like you grab a book on logical fallacies and go chapter by chapter.

I'm all for repealing of the second amendment and crazy strict gun control, but jesus man, leaving out any semblance of logic or perspective on real life makes a poor argument.

Jul 20, 2012#43

Dave

In 2005 there were 30,694 deaths by guns - including suicides. Same year, 43,443 people died in cars.

Teh numbers from 2010 show auto accidents at 37,661 and guns at 30,323 - and 19,308 of those were suicides. Cars are more dangerous than guns. So while I understand your ire at guns, I feel that it's a tad overstated.

Jul 20, 2012#44

sixpackshaker

How many of those automobile deaths are staged suicides?

Jul 20, 2012#45

Bowielee

Dave said:
In 2005 there were 30,694 deaths by guns - including suicides. Same year, 43,443 people died in cars.

the numbers from 2010 show auto accidents at 37,661 and guns at 30,323 - and 19,308 of those were suicides. Cars are more dangerous than guns. So while I understand your ire at guns, I feel that it's a tad overstated.

I'll have to totally disagree with this comparison. Car deaths are accidental. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those deaths by gun were intentional.

Apples to oranges.

Jul 20, 2012#46

Necronic

I'll be honest I have a problem with gun ownership these days as well. There are too many morons out there with guns and it is wayyyyy to easy to bypass background checks (through private sales/"parking lot" deals). Close those loopholes and you go a long way towards fixing things. But, you know, if we can't fix these, incredibly simple and obvious loopholes, what makes people think anything else is possible?

Also, since I just read this article and it's somewhat appropo and interesting as all get out:

http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything

Jul 20, 2012#47

sixpackshaker

Same results, what does intention have to do with killing. Anyone that is proven to be texting while murdering should be treated as though it was an intentional act.[DOUBLEPOST=1342809620][/DOUBLEPOST]

Necronic said:
I'll be honest I have a problem with gun ownership these days as well. There are too many morons out there with guns and it is wayyyyy to easy to bypass background checks (through private sales/"parking lot" deals). Close those loopholes and you go a long way towards fixing things. But, you know, if we can't fix these, incredibly simple and obvious loopholes, what makes people think anything else is possible?

Also, since I just read this article and it's somewhat appropo and interesting as all get out:

http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything

That article does me little good, there is no contact information.

Jul 20, 2012#48

Frank

I can say this, in my opinion, the US does need a stricter hand in small arms (pistols and semi-auto guns like the, I believe banned, Tec-9). Crime in the US isn't any worse than most countries, it's just your bloody lethal crime that is higher.

Jul 20, 2012#49

Necronic

Dunno the contact info, but I bet they deliver to Drassen

Jul 20, 2012#50

Bowielee

sixpackshaker said:
Same results, what does intention have to do with killing. Anyone that is proven to be texting while murdering should be treated as though it was an intentional act.

It is not the same at all. When it comes to firearms, intention means everything. Without access to guns, these people would not be able to exercise that intention.

Using automobile accidents as a comparison is a strawman argument.

Jul 20, 2012#51

sixpackshaker

If you are texting and driving, you do intend to harm people. Casual disregard for safety is not an accident.

Half of gun deaths are suicide, don't tell me they can't find any other way that is just as simple.

Jul 20, 2012#52

Bowielee

My point is, it has no place in the discussion.

Jul 20, 2012#53

sixpackshaker

Bowielee said:
My point is, it has no place in the discussion.

Are you going to take all the accidental gun deaths out of the equation? That is a large part of the death by guns rate.

Jul 20, 2012#54

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
If you are texting and driving, you do intend to harm people. Casual disregard for safety is not an accident.

So a casual (ie not thought out) disregard for safety is the same thing as cold-blooded murder.

Yes. I would like to know more about this fascinating thesis.

Jul 20, 2012#55

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
So a casual (ie not thought out) disregard for safety is the same thing as cold-blooded murder.

Yes. I would like to know more about this fascinating thesis.

It is not casual, you know texting and driving is a dangerous thing to do. So a person with that knowledge will get in 2+ tons of steel and careen around wildly until they kill. Might as well stand on a street corner and fire a gun indiscriminately. Then tell cops that it was an accident that you struck someone.

Jul 20, 2012#56

Necronic

M8, I was using your own word there.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that safety is incredibly important and people should understand what they are getting into and what their responsibility is. The sad thing, however, is that most people don't treat safety as that serious of an issue, be it when it comes to driving distracted (or, in ye olden days, drunk), or wearing flip flops and shorts when mowing (really dumb). It's dumb and it's dangerous, but it's not it done through malice, only through stupidity. Also, unless there is a law against it, it's not illegal to drive distracted.

Murdering someone, on the other hand, is illegal, and is never casual. It is intentional.

Jul 20, 2012#57

Covar

Necronic said:
M8, I was using your own word there.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that safety is incredibly important and people should understand what they are getting into and what their responsibility is. The sad thing, however, is that most people don't treat safety as that serious of an issue, be it when it comes to driving distracted (or, in ye olden days, drunk), or wearing flip flops and shorts when mowing (really dumb). It's dumb and it's dangerous, but it's not it done through malice, only through stupidity. Also, unless there is a law against it, it's not illegal to drive distracted.

Murdering someone, on the other hand, is illegal, and is never casual. It is intentional.

Duh, and not all gun deaths are murder.

Also Driving while texting is illegal in North Carolina and several other states (I don't know how many, but I know we weren't the first).

Jul 20, 2012#58

Necronic

I know not all gun deahts are murder, I'm just talking about the ones that are.

Jul 20, 2012#59

Dave

I know, but with these stats you have car deaths that are suicide, car deaths that are murder (drunk driving, texting, intentionally running someone down, hit & run, etc) and everything. Which is why I didn't bother differentiating.

Jul 20, 2012#60

Necronic

I'm just saying that there is something VERY different between being irresponsible and accidentally getting someone killed (drunk driving/texting while driving), and pointing a gun at someone with the intention of killing them and then killing them.

I mean, people get accidentally killed all the time with guns due to irresponsible actions. We don't consider them the same things as murder.

Because it's not murder. Murder is murder.

Murder is a funny word. Murder. Sounds strange.

Jul 20, 2012#61

strawman

Bowielee said:
My point is, it has no place in the discussion.

You are exactly right.

Heart disease kills more than both combined, so maybe if we compare them we'll find some insight into the gun problem.

Wrongity wrong wrong wrong.

If guns are bad or good the reasons why should stand on their own merit. Using knives or cars as a comparison is merely a crutch for those who have no good reason to back up their argument regarding gun legislation.

One of the things practically sewn into the DNA of most Americans is the concept that they have the right to defend their lives, their families, and their property with lethal force.

Until you convince the majority that they should not have that right, then you will simply not get very far.

Convince them, however, that the life of the attacker is more important than their own safety and you will get somewhere.

Jul 20, 2012#62

Necronic

Thing is, I get the logic, I get the constitution, I get why people want guns (hell I want one).

But I don't get why a ghetto isn't a safe place since so many people are armed.

Jul 20, 2012#63

Tress

Let's also get rid of any and all blades. If I use an ax to cut down to cut down a tree, it is just practice for cutting the legs off of a person. If I use a knife to cut vegetables, I'm just practicing to cut someone's fingers off. It's totally the same.

Jul 20, 2012#64

Charlie Don't Surf

Frank said:
I can say this, in my opinion, the US does need a stricter hand in small arms (pistols and semi-auto guns like the, I believe banned, Tec-9). Crime in the US isn't any worse than most countries, it's just your bloody lethal crime that is higher.

More people are incarcerated per capita in the United States than any other nation by a big margin, if I remember correctly.[DOUBLEPOST=1342814544][/DOUBLEPOST]

Tress said:
Let's also get rid of any and all blades. If I use an ax to cut down to cut down a tree, it is just practice for cutting the legs off of a person. If I use a knife to cut vegetables, I'm just practicing to cut someone's fingers off. It's totally the same.

This is a really fucking stupid post. You literally cannot do anything with a gun except fire something very small, very fast, into something with the intention of harming it. Blades are intensely useful for a huge number of non-lethal purposes.

Jul 20, 2012#65

Tress

Go fuck yourself, you amazingly lovely man. There are uses for guns that don't involve killing people, but you choose to ignore them because they don't support your dimwitted premise. I'm just applying the same dipshit logic you use to blades to display how pathetic your "logic" is.

Jul 20, 2012#66

Charlie Don't Surf

Okay, what are the uses of guns other than killing things? I'm not being a jerk, I honestly don't know.

Jul 20, 2012#67

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
More people are incarcerated per capita in the United States than any other nation by a big margin, if I remember correctly.

That has more to do with your countries for profit prison system which is truly awful (Canada adopting it right now, yay!).

Jul 20, 2012#68

Charlie Don't Surf

Frank said:
That has more to do with your countries for profit prison system which is truly awful (Canada adopting it right now, yay!).

yeah, and the whole drugs being illegal thing

Jul 20, 2012#69

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yeah, and the whole drugs being illegal thing

War on drugs keep the prisons full.

Jul 20, 2012#70

sixpackshaker

Outlaw spoons, mine made me fat.

Jul 20, 2012#71

Bubble181

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yeah, and the whole drugs being illegal thing

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.

Jul 20, 2012#72

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Okay, what are the uses of guns other than killing things? I'm not being a jerk, I honestly don't know.

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?

Jul 20, 2012#73

Charlie Don't Surf

Tress said:
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.

Jul 20, 2012#74

Covar

As I get ready to leave work, I really have to thank Charlie for providing a great source of entertainment today, seeing updates to this thread brought a little smile to my face.

Jul 20, 2012#75

GasBandit

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.

Jul 20, 2012#76

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
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

Jul 20, 2012#77

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
and this is a really baseless argument in the year 2012, so repeal it immediately

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.

Jul 20, 2012#78

Espy

How long can this dance go on? I mean, the discussion was dead from the first post. It's pointless.

Jul 20, 2012#79

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Okay, what are the uses of guns other than killing things? I'm not being a jerk, I honestly don't know.

To signal the start of a race.

Jul 20, 2012#80

GasBandit

Espy said:
How long can this dance go on? I mean, the discussion was dead from the first post. It's pointless.

... I like dancing. AND I JUST GOT HERE SO MAKE THE BAND GET BACK ON STAGE DAMMIT

Jul 20, 2012#81

Charlie Don't Surf

Ravenpoe said:
To signal the start of a race.

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.

Jul 20, 2012#82

sixpackshaker

Soldiers get tired of dying too.

Jul 20, 2012#83

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
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.

Let people buy bazookas and tanks and that ship suddenly comes back into port.

YOU ARE WELCOME GAS.

Jul 20, 2012#84

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
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.

Yeah, we totally nailed Vietnam and completely annihilated al qaeda. The guns vs first world military argument is completely resolved.

Jul 20, 2012#85

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
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.

Jul 20, 2012#86

Necronic

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.

Jul 20, 2012#87

Charlie Don't Surf

Necronic said:
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 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.

Jul 20, 2012#88

Frank

Ugh, people should never get involved in bank robberies. The banks are insured against any losses and by getting involved you're only upping the chances of someone getting hurt or killed.

Jul 20, 2012#89

TommiR

Charlie Don't Surf said:
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.

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.

Jul 20, 2012#90

Frank

Vietnam was supplied by the Chinese, Afghans by the US and Hamas (this is me shooting in the dark, as I don't actually know) probably by any of the anti-Israel countries surrounding Israel.

Jul 20, 2012#91

Necronic

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.

Jul 20, 2012#92

North_Ranger

I'll just be over here with a firehose and a bucket of popcorn, and watch this thread burn.

Jul 20, 2012#93

Bubble181

Just wondering, am I the only one who reads the thread title to the tune of "climb every mountain"?

Jul 20, 2012#94

North_Ranger

Bubble181 said:
Just wondering, am I the only one who reads the thread title to the tune of "climb every mountain"?

Yes. Yes you are.

Jul 20, 2012#95

Bubble181

North_Ranger said:
Yes. Yes you are.

Just checking. Pass the popcorn please

Jul 20, 2012#96

North_Ranger

Help yourself, man. I've got back-up if we run out.

Jul 20, 2012#97

HCGLNS

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Okay, what are the uses of guns other than killing things? I'm not being a jerk, I honestly don't know.

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.

Jul 20, 2012#98

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Your entire post doesn't really make sense.

Jul 20, 2012#99

GasBandit

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.

Jul 20, 2012#100

TommiR

Frank said:
Vietnam was supplied by the Chinese, Afghans by the US and Hamas (this is me shooting in the dark, as I don't actually know) probably by any of the anti-Israel countries surrounding Israel.

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.

Necronic said:
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.

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.

Jul 20, 2012#101

HCGLNS

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Okay, what are the uses of guns other than killing things? I'm not being a jerk, I honestly don't know.

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.

Jul 20, 2012#102

Covar

Espy said:
How long can this dance go on? I mean, the discussion was dead from the first post. It's pointless.

Just like Uncle Ben. WHO WAS SHOT!! :aaah:

Jul 20, 2012#103

Necronic

North_Ranger said:
I'll just be over here with a firehose and a bucket of popcorn, and watch this thread burn.

Some men just want to watch the threads burn

Jul 20, 2012#104

Tress

HCGLNS said:
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.

The workers who use those guns are just engaging in murder practice. Obviously. :rolleyes:

Jul 20, 2012#105

HCGLNS

I try to inform and enlighten.
I try to educate and awaken.
And what do I get?

The Purple Smiley!!!!!

Jul 20, 2012#106

Covar

HCGLNS said:
I try to inform and enlighten.
I try to educate and awaken.
And what do I get?

The Purple Smiley!!!!!

Jul 20, 2012#107

Necronic

They also use shotguns to do sonar mapping.

Unless Jurassic Park lied to me.

Jul 20, 2012#108

Bubble181

Tress said:
The workers who use those guns are just engaging in murder practice. Obviously.

That's what Porn without Porn taught me.

Jul 20, 2012#109

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Guns have literally never done anything productive in human history. All they do is kill people or destroy things. Ban them all, put any gunowner in prison longer than every drug offender.

This thread can be the lightning rod for the political mess coming out of the Massacre in Aurora this morning.

I agree with you in spirit, but the reality is that they do exist, and banning them is not going to happen. Ever.

Jul 20, 2012#110

strawman

mr_thehun said:
We use cannons to shoot chickens at windows. For science!

Just remember to defrost the chickens first.

Jul 21, 2012#111

PatrThom

Today we learned that Charlie does not think that a person can be Evil. No, instead he believes that Evil can only be contained within inanimate objects...objects that, if left untouched by human hands, will do nothing but rust and sit inert, harming no-one.

For the moment, let's imagine one of the following two scenarios:
1) Someone succeeds in proving that being in the vicinity of a gun* coincidentally will give you AIDS, super-cancer, and MRSA simultaneously. As a result, all guns in the world are collected and destroyed. Teams of people with metal detectors and deep radar comb every inch of the world uprooting all hidden caches also. While they're at it, they also defuse every mine (they're digging up the world anyway, so why not?). Now there are no more guns. The world is saved!

...oh wait, it isn't. All firearms have been eliminated (including vehicle/ship-mounted), but we have also eliminated all lasers, particle accelerators, catapults, pitching machines, slingshots, atlatls, RADAR, and countless other legitimate/useful/critical devices used in daily life.

2) You somehow manage to invent a time machine and prevent guns from being invented (or reinvented) at any and all points in history ever. Nobody has ever seen a gun, nobody ever gets the idea for a gun, lasers/RADAR/etc all get invented without a problem, and any time someone ever stumbles onto the idea of a "slug-thrower," their notes get stolen, or they receive a mysterious blow to the head, or they are "accidentally" killed by a "malfunction" of the weapon (thereby furthering the notion that these things are too dangerous to exist). You have stuffed that genie back into the bottle. The world is saved!

...oh wait, that won't work, either. People have been killing each other with bows and arrows, swords, sticks, poisons, cars, even their bare hands for millennia, and their creativity in this regard is legendary. 13 people die in a bus station suicide blast during rush hour, some nut refilled the stuffing in his down parka with C4, blasting cord, and carpet tacks and now terminal A2 is done up in mostly type-O positive. During the Cannes showing of Silent But Deadly, some crazy fool gets the clever-but-misguided idea to bring in a couple of rechargeable aerosol cans each filled with 8oz of Sarin nerve agent and lets loose with it after sitting himself down close to the center. 20 people die immediately due to exposure, another 12 die after being trampled. Hundreds are injured, many permanently. A few months later, another three dozen or so of the survivors die and it is discovered that the handles of the exit doors had been painted with dimethylmercury, dooming those who fled the swiftest to a slow, lingering death. At a 40yr-old nightclub, someone casually lights the ancient polyester curtains on fire next to the only exit door. A hundred people die of smoke inhalation and trample-related injuries. And overshadowing everything, the atom remains split.

See, it's not the guns. You eliminate the guns, people just go for what's next. You could jump in your Oubliette2k time machine and eliminate swords, sticks/clubs, fire, mutate the human race to only have a single finger on each hand and gills (no more choking/drowning!) and when you were done THEY WOULD FUCKING KILL EACH OTHER WITH TIME MACHINES.

I realize you're set in your mind, Charlie Don't Surf . Guns have no redeeming qualities. Well, I feel the same way about mosquitoes, and significantly more people have invested significantly more time and energy trying to prevent significantly more deaths due to mosquitoes, but there are still significantly more mosquitoes than guns, and this is unlikely to change.

--Patrick
*For the sake of argument, "gun" will mean any sort of weapon which imparts massive kinetic energy to a particle/projectile which is then ejected from the apparatus.

Jul 21, 2012#112

Timmus

HCGLNS said:
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.

I want one.

Jul 21, 2012#113

Covar

I would also like to add building houses to the legit use of guns. Nailguns are incredibly time saving.

Jul 21, 2012#114

HCGLNS

See now the thing I don't like about nails, is the eventual loosening and popping. I prefer screws, and oh look here's a video of an auto-feed screw gun!

Jul 21, 2012#115

GasBandit

AP:Authorities in central Florida say two men were trying to rob an Internet cafe when a 71-year-old patron began shooting his own gun, wounding the suspects.

Jul 21, 2012#116

Frank

Everyone in that cafe is lucky that's it how went down and it didn't end up with bystanders getting hurt, which happens a lot more often when someone plays hero.

Jul 21, 2012#117

strawman

Frank said:
Everyone in that cafe is lucky that's it how went down and it didn't end up with bystanders getting hurt, which happens a lot more often when someone plays hero.

If it happens more often, then surely we'd see more stories of that. Perhaps you have an example?

Jul 21, 2012#118

Frank

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.htm

According to the above article:

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

Jul 21, 2012#119

HCGLNS

Frank, do you recall a study that showed that studied the reaction time for people carrying guns in encounters with shooters? It was popular around the time of the Virginia Tech shootings, it basically showed that unless you made it your profession to carry and discharge a gun, you get killed trying to draw the weapon in a shooting situation.

Jul 21, 2012#120

Frank

That goes right along with what I posted above.

Jul 21, 2012#121

PatrThom

Yep. Having a gun is not the same as knowing how to use it. Unless you are trained (self- or otherwise) and prepared to defend yourself with it, the biggest thing going for the defender who pulls in response is the surprise of having one, and that wears off pretty quickly.

It's one thing to have an ace in the hole. It's quite another to play with the full deck.

--Patrick

Jul 21, 2012#122

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
AP:Authorities in central Florida say two men were trying to rob an Internet cafe when a 71-year-old patron began shooting his own gun, wounding the suspects.

That man is not a hero , he is an idiot.

Jul 21, 2012#123

Charlie Don't Surf

Bowielee said:
That man is not a hero , he is an idiot.

Yeah

Jul 21, 2012#124

SpecialKO

PatrThom said:
Today we learned that Charlie does not think that a person can be Evil. No, instead he believes that Evil can only be contained within inanimate objects...objects that, if left untouched by human hands, will do nothing but rust and sit inert, harming no-one.

Is it wrong that I now want to read a fanfic where the world's guns are all horcruxes of Voldemort?

And Charlie, if we banned guns...we would end up with Bunraku.

I don't know if I can deal with that in greater than two hour chunks and at least slightly drunk, man!

Jul 21, 2012#125

Officer_Charon

Molon labe.

That is all.

Jul 21, 2012#126

Bowielee

I totally agree that the issue isn't the guns themselves, it's the culture that surrounds guns that is the problem. We as a country glorify violence in an extremely unhealthy way. Most likely because of our history as a country built on a bloody revolution.

Jul 21, 2012#127

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Bowielee said:
I totally agree that the issue isn't the guns themselves, it's the culture that surrounds guns that is the problem. We as a country glorify violence in an extremely unhealthy way. Most likely because of our history as a country built on a bloody genocide.

FTFY.

Jul 21, 2012#128

Bowielee

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
FTFY.

that too.

Jul 22, 2012#129

Dave

Let's see what funnyman Jason Alexander has to say about it. This should be HILARIOUS!!

What? Holy shit. What a great argument against.

Jul 22, 2012#130

Frank

Dave said:
Let's see what funnyman Jason Alexander has to say about it. This should be HILARIOUS!!

What? Holy shit. What a great argument against.

God damn!

Jul 22, 2012#131

Charlie Don't Surf

Jason Alexander is a pretty good dude.

Jul 22, 2012#132

TommiR

Dave said:
Let's see what funnyman Jason Alexander has to say about it. This should be HILARIOUS!!

What? Holy shit. What a great argument against.

I must say I find myself in some disagreement with Jason Alexander about his conclusions. Taking a look at the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, it reads:

Second Amendment said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

the right of the people

It thus might seem that the 2nd Amendment is talking about a right of the people to bear arms. And the expression 'right of the people' does appear in several of the other amendments where it refers to the rights of all people, and not the rights of some smaller subset of the populace (such as those who might belong to a selective militia, as Jason seems to suggest is the case here). This interpretation is also consistent with english laws which served the americans a basis, and the british colonial defence system where every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms was subject to militia duty whenever the circumstances demanded.

Jul 22, 2012#133

sixpackshaker

I just hate that Jason Alexander stated the 100,000 Americans die to fire arms every year. He's only 91,000 off that number.

Jul 22, 2012#134

drifter

He corrected himself in a later tweet

Jul 22, 2012#135

Bowielee

TommiR said:
I must say I find myself in some disagreement with Jason Alexander about his conclusions. Taking a look at the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, it reads:

It thus might seem that the 2nd Amendment is talking about a right of the people to bear arms. And the expression 'right of the people' does appear in several of the other amendments where it refers to the rights of all people, and not the rights of some smaller subset of the populace (such as those who might belong to a selective militia, as Jason seems to suggest is the case here). This interpretation is also consistent with english laws which served the americans a basis, and the british colonial defence system where every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms was subject to militia duty whenever the circumstances demanded.

That kind of ignores his main point. He is in no way advocating banning firearms of all kinds. He's arguing against the right of availability of semi-automatic firearms and assault rifles. It's an interesting question. How do we even define "arms" by the second amendment. Does that include missles and bombs? They're armaments.

Jul 23, 2012#136

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
That kind of ignores his main point. He is in no way advocating banning firearms of all kinds. He's arguing against the right of availability of semi-automatic firearms and assault rifles. It's an interesting question. How do we even define "arms" by the second amendment. Does that include missles and bombs? They're armaments.

You have to look at what the founders were trying to accomplish. First of all, as we've been over in every single other gun control thread, Alexander is using contemporary definitions for "regulated" and "militia" that do not match what they meant in the late 18th century. The meanings of words change over time and context. They considered "militia" to be something closer to his second definition - anybody and everybody who could be considered able to fight. The term "regulated" had nothing to do with government controlling something, it had to do with being regular - IE, there is a minimum level of equipment needed to be an effective soldier, and if you had at least that minimum level, you were considered to be regular. Well regulated.

The founding fathers were attempting to arm the general populace to be just as well armed as professional soldiers.

Once you've reached that logical conclusion, it's easy to see what we should and should not be allowing - whatever is issued to and can be carried by an individual soldier. That defuses the whole "well why don't we just let everybody have tanks and nukes and submarines then" bit of hyperbole - because those are not things that are in the possession of a soldier.

There's a common thread in every national debate these days. People seem to think that bad things only happen because the government allows people to be too free... excuse me, don't "take good enough care of people." Whether we're talking gun control or socialist health care, people seem to think that it is possible for bad things to not happen, ever. And that what's stopping the prevention of bad things happening is that we don't give government permission to stop them.

Bad things happen. Madmen gun down theaters. Bombers blow up federal buildings. Cancer claims millions from every country on the globe. These are all very bad, very sad things. But statistics show that governments have comparatively negligible ability to stop these things even when tyrannical. The reason the second amendment exists is because power corrupts, and Washington DC is the most powerful city on Earth. The reason the second amendment exists is because it has a very real impact in preventing another very bad thing from happening. That thing that happens in Syria, and in Iran. Those things that happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Soviet Union. In Germany, in Italy. That thing that almost succeeded in America, in 1775. It is the final and most definitive line of defense against tyranny and oppression. It makes us those who watch the watchers, who keep the power players in the most powerful city in the world honest.

Many are in denial about how easy it is for tyranny to take root. You tell the people they are under attack. There's a state of emergency. Your least favorite president (of either flavor) suddenly suspends elections until "after the crisis has passed." His cohorts in the legislature go along with the power grab because they stand to gain as well - and really, watching how American politicians and elections have been handled, do you really doubt that the first and foremost priority of almost every politician is to stay in power for as long as possible, all else be damned?

Banning guns won't stop things like the Aurora tragedy from happening. Last year, a man walked into Fort Hood with a pistol and killed 13 people, wounding 29. A man who was known to be unstable and dangerous and yet nothing was done to even begin stopping the tragedy from unfolding because of concerns about political correctness. He didn't need the oh-so-feared AR-15. But America does need the AR-15. And whatever comes after it. It needs these weapons available to every son and daughter of Liberty who wants the future to be at least as free as his past. Because the world is a daily, constant tug of war between those in power, in their mind, a balancing act between how much they want to dictate your life to you regardless of your wishes, and how much they think you will let them. They want control over your wallet, they want control over what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. They want to control who you can marry. They want to control what you worship and if you can do so publicly and if so to what degree. They want you to not care and to leave the big decisions to them while you watch Modern Family and eat your pizza and drink your beer. And when they no longer fear the gun that could be in your hands, that is the day America dies.

Jul 23, 2012#137

Bowielee

So, honestly, Gas, what do you consider the disproportionate amount of gun deaths in the United States compared to other 1st world countries. A necessary evil?

Jul 23, 2012#138

Ravenpoe

Ok, now I'm going to switch positions in this to respond to Gas. This might sound odd, since I'm usually pro 2nd ammendment, but my support only really applies to handguns, rifles, and shotguns (all tools that are common to find in rural areas) and with careful regulation.

GasBandit said:
The founding fathers were attempting to arm the general populace to be just as well armed as professional soldiers.

Think about your average tea party rally. Here, I'll help you.

Now imagine everyone at one of those is armed with an M-16.

Would anyone really feel like liberty was being done there? Or would you get the hell out of dodge before the crazy explodes?

Jul 23, 2012#139

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
A necessary evil?

I don't know about that, but I'll tell you what I think...there would be a lot fewer gun deaths (and homicides in general) if the general American populace felt they had a much more legitimate influence over their daily lives. If a person believes that the ability to control his own life rests firmly in that person's own hands, then he is probably significantly less likely to do something so spectacular.

--Patrick

Jul 23, 2012#140

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
So, honestly, Gas, what do you consider the disproportionate amount of gun deaths in the United States compared to other 1st world countries. A necessary evil?

Remember that there's a disproportionate number of not-gun violent crime to make up for it the other direction. For example, compare the US to the UK, probably it's closest european analogue, and that which can be used as a test case for the banning of firearms. If we look at the tables supporting Chapter 5, on Violent Crime, (this is an Excel Workbook) we are told that there was a total of 2,420,000 violent crimes in the time-frame covered by the report. If we take the word of the CIA Factbook the UK had a population of 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.) This gives a rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants as 3992.8. However in Chapter 7, (Table 7a) of the BCS, the total violent crime rate per 1000 inhabitants is listed as 23, which is equivalent to 2300 per 100,000 inhabitants. Even this lower number is an astonishing figure when compared to the US data. According to the FBI, in 2005 there were 469 violent crimes committed per 100,000 in the US. Ironically, one of the highest violent crime rates in the country is DC itself, approximately 1500 per 100k. Texas is around 500. Now, it's true that there are about 4 less murders per 100,000 in the UK as the US, but it's not for lack of trying. And the criminals still have guns. Bad things continue to happen. Even though England has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 guns per 100 people compared to the US's 88.8 per 100.

Given that it is by definition impossible to use laws to remove these already-existant guns from the hands of criminals and psychopaths who would use them to perpetrate tragedies like the one that spawned this thread, I assert that to outlaw the implements essential to the preservation of our liberty for a risk in not actually reducing violent crime at all (possibly even making it worse), the rational choice is obvious. Is it a necessary evil? That's a loaded question. Probably, it is the lesser of two evils. Is that cold comfort for those who have lost loved ones to the violence of a sick mind? Definitely. [DOUBLEPOST=1343024485][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ravenpoe said:
Ok, now I'm going to switch positions in this to respond to Gas. This might sound odd, since I'm usually pro 2nd ammendment, but my support only really applies to handguns, rifles, and shotguns (all tools that are common to find in rural areas) and with careful regulation.

Think about your average tea party rally. Here, I'll help you.

Now imagine everyone at one of those is armed with an M-16.

Would anyone really feel like liberty was being done there? Or would you get the hell out of dodge before the crazy explodes?

I can only hope washington was as scared, or more, of those signs as you were. If they weren't, maybe it's too late.

Jul 23, 2012#141

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
Remember that there's a disproportionate number of not-gun violent crime to make up for it the other direction. For example, compare the US to the UK, probably it's closest european analogue, and that which can be used as a test case for the banning of firearms. If we look at the tables supporting Chapter 5, on Violent Crime, (this is an Excel Workbook) we are told that there was a total of 2,420,000 violent crimes in the time-frame covered by the report. If we take the word of the CIA Factbook the UK had a population of 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.) This gives a rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants as 3992.8. However in Chapter 7, (Table 7a) of the BCS, the total violent crime rate per 1000 inhabitants is listed as 23, which is equivalent to 2300 per 100,000 inhabitants. Even this lower number is an astonishing figure when compared to the US data. According to the FBI, in 2005 there were 469 violent crimes committed per 100,000 in the US. Ironically, one of the highest violent crime rates in the country is DC itself, approximately 1500 per 100k. Texas is around 500. Now, it's true that there are about 4 less murders per 100,000 in the UK as the US, but it's not for lack of trying. And the criminals still have guns. Bad things continue to happen. Even though England has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 guns per 100 people compared to the US's 88.8 per 100.

Given that it is by definition impossible to use laws to remove these already-existant guns from the hands of criminals and psychopaths who would use them to perpetrate tragedies like the one that spawned this thread, I assert that to outlaw the implements essential to the preservation of our liberty for a risk in not actually reducing violent crime at all (possibly even making it worse), the rational choice is obvious. Is it a necessary evil? That's a loaded question. Probably, it is the lesser of two evils. Is that cold comfort for those who have lost loved ones to the violence of a sick mind? Definitely. [DOUBLEPOST=1343024485][/DOUBLEPOST]

I can only hope washington was as scared, or more, of those signs as you were. If they weren't, maybe it's too late.

Your figures are excluding firearms completely, just incidences of violent crimes.

Jul 23, 2012#142

TommiR

Bowielee said:
So, honestly, Gas, what do you consider the disproportionate amount of gun deaths in the United States compared to other 1st world countries. A necessary evil?

My take is that, in a word, yes it is a necessary evil.

As cold and callous as that may initially strike you, please remember that there are costs associated with upholding any of the rights and provisions of the Constitution, or indeed any law. Sometimes guilty men walk free on a technicality because some part of due process was violated. Sometimes people or groups are forced to have hateful vitriol spewed at them because such is protected under Free Speech. Even if we were to accept that the prevalence of guns in the US is socially imprudent, and that the detrimental effects outweigh the current positives of the 2nd Amendment, we are still left with the fact that the accidents and tragedies, as unfortunate and horrific as they may be, are still a part of the cost of upholding the Bill of Rights. And while it may seem advantageous for the whole to begin revising the Constitution, keeping the parts you deem are appropriate while repealing, redefining, or ignoring the rest, keep in mind that there are others whose views on what is appropriate may not agree with yours. Start monkeying around with the basic rights afforded to all, and you may end up with a tyranny of the majority, or just a tyranny.

Of course, it is something of a leap of faith to believe that any ink on paper will ultimately serve as a guarantee of anything, as americans of japanese descent found out during WWII. But is it not a basic idea of a constitution or indeed of any law to set a limit on what is acceptable, and to have these rights and limitations respected even when actors that are strong or influential deem them to be inconvenient? In my mind, the 2nd Amendment is subject to the same considerations as the rest of the Amendments.

Jul 23, 2012#143

Bowielee

Interestingly, Finland is right behind the US in gun violence per 100,000 in 1st world countries.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does an individual constitute a well regulated militia. As with most of the constitution, "the people" refers to the populace as a whole, but does not necessarily mean the individual. The entire point of the act is so that a "well regulated Militia" can be maintained. Billy bob in his bunker with 20 guns is not a well regulated Militia.

OC, for example is part of a public service field that requires him to carry a firearm. In a way the police, themselves are a somewhat military organization.

The entire ammendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country. When it is no longer guarding the people of the country, and is, in fact, harming them, the ammendment is no longer serving its purpose and should be repealed.

The argument that banning guns outright won't get rid of the ones already in circulation is a circular argument. "because there are guns, we should allow more guns" is a terrible argument.

The ammendments to the constitution are NOT absolute, or set in stone. I don't see any prohibition going on anymore.

Jul 23, 2012#144

Sparhawk

The second amendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country, against the government itself. The were fighting to get out from under a repressive government, and didn't want the government they were setting up to become just as oppressive. They wanted to assure that the people had the ability to stand up to that oppression if it was needed.

I didn't see any prohibition in the original Constitution either, over-zealous activists got it amended and the people became criminals to keep booze around.

Jul 23, 2012#145

Bowielee

Sparhawk said:
The second amendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country, against the government itself. The were fighting to get out from under a repressive government, and didn't want the government they were setting up to become just as oppressive. They wanted to assure that the people had the ability to stand up to that oppression if it was needed.

I didn't see any prohibition in the original Constitution either, over-zealous activists got it amended and the people became criminals to keep booze around.

Yes, because it was repealed. I'd like to know exactly where the interpretation of the second amendment being about overthrowing the government comes from. I'm serious. Show me specifically where it is stated in the constitution or the amendment itself.

As for the right to keep and bear arms, I'm all for it. People should be allowed to have hunting rifles, and hell, even handguns if they so choose. but military grade hardware does not belong in the hands of someone with no military training.

Jul 23, 2012#146

TommiR

Bowielee said:
Interestingly, Finland is right behind the US in gun violence per 100,000 in 1st world countries.

In fact, Finland has relatively strict gun control laws, with a strict ban on automatic fire weapons (of course with the exception of some law enforcement agencies and the military). If we accept your assertion that Finland has comparable levels of gun-related violence, then the straightforward implication would be that tightening gun control in the United States would not work to reduce violent crime.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does an individual constitute a well regulated militia. As with most of the constitution, "the people" refers to the populace as a whole, but does not necessarily mean the individual. The entire point of the act is so that a "well regulated Militia" can be maintained. Billy bob in his bunker with 20 guns is not a well regulated Militia.

I believe this is also what Jason Alexander was saying, but I must say I disagree with that interpretation as I previously stated. I state that the 2nd Amendment refers to the right of individuals to possess arms, and base this position on two things.

Firstly, I contest your interpretation that most of the constitution uses the 'right of the people' to refer to the populace as a whole, and posit that the phrase refers to individuals in the Bill of Rights. In the First Amendment, the phrase is used to set the right to peaceably assemble. If this did not refer to the rights of individuals, you could say that Congress is an assembly of the people through their elected representatives, and that therefore individuals do not possess a right to assemble. In the Fourth Amendment, the phrase is used to protect against unlawful search and seizure. If it did not refer to rights of individuals, the amendment is meaningless as a form of protection. The use in the Ninth Amendment serves to protect the rights that have not been specifically included in the Constitution, again almost meaningless if it did not afford protection to the individual. The Tenth Amendment limits the powers of the federal government, and perhaps more importantly makes a specific distinction between the state level and the people, in case one is wondering if the Second Amendment refers to the rights of people belonging to some state level organisation.

In light of this use of the phrase 'right of the people', I think it might be inaccurate to claim that the phrase did not apply to individuals, or that the very same phrase in the Second Amendment is somehow an exception to the rule.

Secondly, as GasBandit mentioned earlier, the Militia does refer to 'the whole body of the People'. I do think this point is rather well conveyed from the writings and statements of the Founders, at least as far as I've been able to dig them up (can provide links if you wish), and that the vast majority of them viewed a selective service militia almost as detrimental to liberty as a standing army. The text and the historical context of the Second Amendment does seem to give Billy Bob and all his friends the right to bear arms, so that they may rise as a well-regulated militia unit if and when the need comes to defend the liberties of the people against all foes, whether foreign invaders or an oppressive government.

OC, for example is part of a public service field that requires him to carry a firearm. In a way the police, themselves are a somewhat military organization.(1)

The entire ammendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country. When it is no longer guarding the people of the country, and is, in fact, harming them, the ammendment is no longer serving its purpose and should be repealed.(2)

The argument that banning guns outright won't get rid of the ones already in circulation is a circular argument. "because there are guns, we should allow more guns" is a terrible argument.

The ammendments to the constitution are NOT absolute, or set in stone. I don't see any prohibition going on anymore.(3)

(1) There are military, paramilitary, and civilian organisations. Sometimes these lines can be blurred, such as with the french gendarmerie and the italian carabienieri, or with the border guards of many nations. But, in the main, I believe regular law enforcement agencies seem to be considered as distinct from military organisations.

(2) Setting aside the benefit mentioned by the Founders of an armed citizenry being the best protection against governmental tyranny, it seems to me that the same could be said of a number of rights that circumstances have made inconvenient or even harmful from the viewpoint of common interest. Freedom of speech and of the press can be harmful in cases where wide-scale national unity is desireable and necessary, such as in the case of war where national survival is at stake, and where it is in the interest of the whole to prevent 'enemy misinformation' from getting out amongst the populace and 'undermining the war effort'. The effectiveness of law enforcement and the judiciary is impeded by the myriad protections offered to the accused ("That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -Benjamin Franklin). Yet there is little enthusiasm to curb these rights, even temporarily when there may be actual need, and the potential costs of sticking to the law may be great. Is this a matter of inconsistency, or should it just be taken as a starting point that the US Constitution is a fair-weather document, and the Bill of Rights and the protections that it affords be subject to cherry-picking by the political process?

(3) What Sparhawk said. Prohibition was not a part of the Bill of Rights which was added to the US Constitution immediately after it's ratification.

Jul 23, 2012#147

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Your figures are excluding firearms completely, just incidences of violent crimes.

Technically, all violent crimes includes, not excludes, those committed with firearms. The point of the exercise there was to demonstrate that banning guns does not necessarily lower violent crime.

Bowielee said:
Interestingly, Finland is right behind the US in gun violence per 100,000 in 1st world countries.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does an individual constitute a well regulated militia. As with most of the constitution, "the people" refers to the populace as a whole, but does not necessarily mean the individual. The entire point of the act is so that a "well regulated Militia" can be maintained. Billy bob in his bunker with 20 guns is not a well regulated Militia.

The well regulated militia part of it is the motivation part, not the end product part. Again I return to the 18th century definition of militia - that is, "militia" meaning everyone who could conceivably bear arms in conflict. For all intents and purposes, the militia is everybody - everybody who can hold and shoot a gun.

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers no 29.

At the onset of our nation, the founders were so bent out of shape about oppression there was a serious debate about whether the federal government should be allowed a military at all. The 2nd amendment was crafted to keep that army, and the federal government who commands it, in check with the ever-present specter of constitutionally-guaranteed insurrection.

The entire ammendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country. When it is no longer guarding the people of the country, and is, in fact, harming them, the ammendment is no longer serving its purpose and should be repealed.

The entire amendment is intended to safeguard the people from government oppression. Is the federal government less powerful than before, or more?

The argument that banning guns outright won't get rid of the ones already in circulation is a circular argument. "because there are guns, we should allow more guns" is a terrible argument.

That's a terrible paraphrase of that argument. A better one would be, "if you criminalize gun ownership, criminals will still have guns and will be the only ones who do."

The amendments to the constitution are NOT absolute, or set in stone. I don't see any prohibition going on anymore.

Here, you are correct. If the national will of the people is such that the 2nd amendment must go, there is already a mechanism by which this is done. But to contravene or disregard the amendment, as say, the city of Chicago does (and check out THEIR gun crime statistics), is by very definition unconstitutional.

Jul 23, 2012#148

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
The well regulated militia part of it is the motivation part, not the end product part. Again I return to the 18th century definition of militia - that is, "militia" meaning everyone who could conceivably bear arms in conflict. For all intents and purposes, the militia is everybody - everybody who can hold and shoot a gun.

Except for blacks, women and a whole bunch of others. They weren't intended at the time either. heck, they weren't considered citizens! Interpreting historical documents in their time is all well and good. Saying they're somehow magically infallible and the writers/creators could foresee all of human history is nonsense. Just like religious extremists who insist the Bible/Torah/Koran/Spiderman #1 is to be taken literally and cannot be changed or updated to reflect modern society. We shouldn't meddle willy-nilly; saying there's no room for change "because it was written" is short-sighted and quite frankly, stupid.

The entire amendment is intended to safeguard the people from government oppression. Is the federal government less powerful than before, or more?

In other words, it isn't working right now, anyway. As Lybia, Syria, Egypt and others have recently shown, weapons aren't exactly the end-all be-all. Communications, free from interference, are far more important. Considering your own interpretation of what the amendment is about, it would be better to update it to allow some smaller arms, and to allow unrestricted and uncontrolled communication between people. Too bad we do'nt have that anymore, these days. Pirate Bay or 4Chan would be just as much in their right to claim they're protecting the population from government oppression as people with AK-47s in their basement.

Jul 23, 2012#149

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
Except for blacks, women and a whole bunch of others. They weren't intended at the time either. heck, they weren't considered citizens! Interpreting historical documents in their time is all well and good. Saying they're somehow magically infallible and the writers/creators could foresee all of human history is nonsense. Just like religious extremists who insist the Bible/Torah/Koran/Spiderman #1 is to be taken literally and cannot be changed or updated to reflect modern society. We shouldn't meddle willy-nilly; saying there's no room for change "because it was written" is short-sighted and quite frankly, stupid.

The constitution is frequently vague and general - not specific. It wasn't about predicting all of humanity's future, it was about a simple concept. In no future is oppression palatable, and in the entirety of humanity's past there has been oppression of the innocent by the armed. That is why the intent is so important, rather than taking the literal words as rote, which has been the subject of half this argument. And, if the nation decides that the time has come to change the constitution, there is a process for doing that. It's just that pro gun control collectivists know they don't have the votes or political will behind them to do that, so they try to do an end-run around the constitution. Slavery was abolished with a constitutional amendment. Discrimination in enfranchisement was abolished with a constitutional amendment. But just because someone doesn't like the 2nd amendment (and the first 10 amendments are a de facto part of the constitution at time of writing), doesn't mean they get to just ignore it and pretend it has no bearing. But many places (controlled by democrats, of course) do just that. They act in violation of the constitution but aren't held to account because, while there aren't enough people on their side to amend the constitution, there is enough to make federal law enforcement look the other way.

In other words, it isn't working right now, anyway. As Lybia, Syria, Egypt and others have recently shown, weapons aren't exactly the end-all be-all. Communications, free from interference, are far more important. Considering your own interpretation of what the amendment is about, it would be better to update it to allow some smaller arms, and to allow unrestricted and uncontrolled communication between people. Too bad we do'nt have that anymore, these days. Pirate Bay or 4Chan would be just as much in their right to claim they're protecting the population from government oppression as people with AK-47s in their basement.

I'm not sure where you got your ideas about Lybia, Syria and Egypt... but I know in Libya gun ownership was categorically banned. Egypt is called "restrictive" and the guns per capita in Syria was 3.9 out of 100, compared to our 88.8. These are not good examples for you to use.

The communication you speak of is a mishmash of what we call the right to assembly, the freedom of association, freedom of speech and possibly even freedom of the press. It's kind of a snazzy document, you see. And, as I said, when parts of it are found to be egregiously outdated or bad, there is a process for amending it - it's just people who don't like being told "no" don't like being told "no."

Jul 23, 2012#150

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
I'm not sure where you got your ideas about Lybia, Syria and Egypt... but I know in Libya gun ownership was categorically banned. Egypt is called "restrictive" and the guns per capita in Syria was 3.9 out of 100, compared to our 88.8. These are not good examples for you to use.

That's my point. perhaps you weren't paying attention, but in al lthree, oppressive governments have been, or are in the process of being, overthrown - with limited access to weapons. The success of ther evolutions in Egypt and Lybia (Syria isn't quite there yet) has been that the people can unite and communicate faster and better than the government. Quite literally, the weapons of these revolutions were Twitter and Facebook. Communication through uncontrolled means is also how the Taliban are able to outmanoeuver our imperialist pigdog oppressive heathen soldiers from hell (ahem).
You don't need M16s or tanks to fight the US army - to be precise, you'll never succeed that way. You can fight back against an oppressive government, but it is no longer possible to do this simply by having more men capable of carrying a gun than the army/navy/marine all rolled into one. Give every civbilian in the US an automatic rifle and pit them against your armed forces, and your armed forces will come out on top - because of training, technology, etc etc. The second amendment is no longer useful at protecting the people the way it was meant to. If it's ever necessary to rise against your government, you, too, will be fighting mainly with IEDs and such. Not with tanks. What I meant was: your main weapons against an oppressive government aren't heavier/bigger guns. They're communication and subterfuge. That's what I mean. The founding fathers may have meant that the people should be able to protect themselves from an oppressive government, all well and good. I like that. They couldn't exactly have predicted that gureilla warfare would be the only option 200+ years later.

Jul 23, 2012#151

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
That's my point. perhaps you weren't paying attention, but in al lthree, oppressive governments have been, or are in the process of being, overthrown - with limited access to weapons. The success of ther evolutions in Egypt and Lybia (Syria isn't quite there yet) has been that the people can unite and communicate faster and better than the government. Quite literally, the weapons of these revolutions were Twitter and Facebook. Communication through uncontrolled means is also how the Taliban are able to outmanoeuver our imperialist pigdog oppressive heathen soldiers from hell (ahem).
You don't need M16s or tanks to fight the US army - to be precise, you'll never succeed that way. You can fight back against an oppressive government, but it is no longer possible to do this simply by having more men capable of carrying a gun than the army/navy/marine all rolled into one. Give every civbilian in the US an automatic rifle and pit them against your armed forces, and your armed forces will come out on top - because of training, technology, etc etc. The second amendment is no longer useful at protecting the people the way it was meant to. If it's ever necessary to rise against your government, you, too, will be fighting mainly with IEDs and such. Not with tanks. What I meant was: your main weapons against an oppressive government aren't heavier/bigger guns. They're communication and subterfuge. That's what I mean. The founding fathers may have meant that the people should be able to protect themselves from an oppressive government, all well and good. I like that. They couldn't exactly have predicted that gureilla warfare would be the only option 200+ years later.

Let me get this straight... you say that a revolution, in opposition of armed forces, is more likely to succeed with twitter and no guns than twitter AND guns? Is that really what you're trying to put forward here?

Jul 23, 2012#152

Dave

Iran: All Twitter & no guns
Egypt: Twitter and guns
Libya: Mostly guns, little Twitter

Sorry, Bubble. I gotta go with Gas on this one. I see what you are saying, but without guns, the armed forces of the country revolting just has a field day.

Jul 23, 2012#153

Bubble181

Dave said:
Iran: All Twitter & no guns
Egypt: Twitter and guns
Libya: Mostly guns, little Twitter

Sorry, Bubble. I gotta go with Gas on this one. I see what you are saying, but without guns, the armed forces of the country revolting just has a field day.

Iran: no twitter, some guns
Egypt: twitter, hardly any guns (the army switched sides; but before that, nope. Gusn are fairly rare in Egypt)
Lybia: both.

Besides, I'm not saying "no guns". It's only that to every non-american in the world, the idea that you need anti-tank artillery in private hands to assure your safety is ludicrous. It definitely is to me. Guns have their uses (I'm no Charlie

); I'm no big fan of hunting for sport (for eating, fine; for conservation, sure) and whatever, but sure they're useful for non-aggressive uses. It's sensible to have them.
My point is simply that the FF did not intent for just anyone to own just anything, up to and including an atomic b omb capable of blowing up New York. That's what GB is advocating. The danger of the US government becoming 1984-like Big Brother controlling your every thought and input isfar, far bigger than the odds of the US government suddenly deciding they want to abolish voting and form a dictatorship. Information (the free movement of) will be be far more important to any revolution or counter-insurgence or whatever than a bigger gun. Give every man in 1984 a machine gun, and they're all suddenly "free"? No. The idea of rebelling against your government, fine (strictly speaking I believein changing the system from within, but I admit that can be hard-to-impossible in some cases), but the idea that the option of rebellion is depended solely (or even mostly) on "having the bigger gun" is archaic. Guns, yes. Assault rifles? Nope.

Jul 23, 2012#154

GasBandit

Again, libya banned private ownership of guns. The rebels got guns but they did it illegally. The gun ownership rate in Iran is 7.9 per 100. I guess that's technically "some" but not very many.[DOUBLEPOST=1343079482][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bubble181 said:
My point is simply that the FF did not intent for just anyone to own just anything, up to and including an atomic b omb capable of blowing up New York. That's what GB is advocating.

You didn't even read my posts you belgian bastard bubble. Don't tell me what I'm advocating when you can't even be bothered to read what I'm advocating. I specifically excluded that sort of thing AND posted how it meshes with the founders wishes.

GasBandit said:
Once you've reached that logical conclusion, it's easy to see what we should and should not be allowing - whatever is issued to and can be carried by an individual soldier. That defuses the whole "well why don't we just let everybody have tanks and nukes and submarines then" bit of hyperbole - because those are not things that are in the possession of a soldier.

Jul 23, 2012#155

Sparhawk

Maybe it's something with differing cultures, or language (and I'm not busting you, but trying to find out) but why do you think that most Americans want "military grade" hardware? What do you consider an "assault rifle?"

Yes, there are people that say they want these things, they can't buy them at their local gun dealer because it's not legal. No, automatic weapons are NOT legally able to be sold unless the seller AND the buyer are specially licensed to own AUTOmatic weapons. Stores that sell guns, only sell semi-automatic guns that require a trigger pull for each shot, you cannot just hold down the trigger and send off all 12-20 shots in the typical magazine. Semi-automatic is very common in hunting rifles and pistols, my competition class 30-06 rifle is a bolt action (target competition, 100 to 500 meters) with a magazine though.

I will state that some semi-auto guns can be modified to fire automatic, but you lose so much accuracy and run out of ammo so quick that it is useless. Sounds cool to say, but useless to hit much of anything smaller than the broad side of a barn.

Jul 23, 2012#156

GasBandit

Sparhawk said:
Maybe it's something with differing cultures, or language (and I'm not busting you, but trying to find out) but why do you think that most Americans want "military grade" hardware? What do you consider an "assault rifle?"

Are you asking me, or Bubble? I'm going to guess me. Nowhere did I state that I believe most americans "want" military grade firearms - I specified that their being legally available is prerequisite of keeping a potential militiaman well-regulated (as in equipped to acceptable military standards). By no means would I want to force someone who doesn't want a gun to own one.

As for "assault weapons," I consider the term to be a ludicrous farce. Every weapon is an assault weapon if used against humans. Do you know how Senator Feinstein defined assault weapons for the (thankfully now expired) assault weapons ban? She and a few other legislators went through a catalog and picked out the scariest looking weapons and labeled them "assault." That's it. They looked scary. The resulting chaos of what constituted an "assault weapon" and what did not was ridiculous. The AR-15, for example, generally uses a .233 remington cartridge, which is smaller and less powerful than a great many other common hunting rifle calibers such as the 30-06, which was common for military sniper rifles before they went 308. the .233 is a "plinking" or "varmint" caliber by most enthusiast's ratings. Sure, they can still kill you dead in a movie theater, but a 30-06, which is completely legal and not "assault" could potentially penetrate multiple humans for maximum carnage. The term "assault," as far as legality/bans goes, is completely arbitrary.

I will state that some semi-auto guns can be modified to fire automatic, but you lose so much accuracy and run out of ammo so quick that it is useless. Sounds cool to say, but useless to hit much of anything smaller than the broad side of a barn.

That's something a lot of people don't realize, though it has been brought up in previous gun control threads. Good on ya. Semi Auto is arguably more deadly than full auto in these circumstances (unless we're giving criminals time to change out 50+ round ammo drums). An uzi on full auto goes out of ammunition in 2 seconds, and many of those rounds will hit either the same person or the ceiling. But hollywood paints guns as never needing reloads, so well intentioned nannystate collectivists imagine rambo with his never-ending M-60 and ban full auto anything.

Jul 23, 2012#157

Sparhawk

It was meant at Bubble, didn't notice that you had posted in between.

Jul 23, 2012#158

GasBandit

DOJ study fails to show 1994 assault weapons ban worked

Jul 23, 2012#159

Sparhawk

Crap, you posted twice and was merged... I was thinking out that message while dealing with a couple of other things. Slow me.

Jul 23, 2012#160

Bubble181

It's a habit to exagerate.My point does not, at all, stand or fall with them being either automatic weapons, or labelled as such, or as assault rifles. And Gas, I sure did read it - but I don't agree and your opiinion on some things remains just that - an opinion. You may spray lavender scent all over it, it's still like an asshole etc etc

1. Allowing things "carried by a single person" means it's perfectly A-OK to own a bottle of the pox? How 'bout those tactical nukes they've been researching for years - AFAIK they don't exist yet, but that doesn't mean they never will. How about it? Besides, you're saying that you need firepower to defend yourself from the army - good luck doing that with only hand- and shoulder guns.
2. Claiming "all Americans want fully automatic versions of Abraham tanks" is obvious hyperbole. It's allowed. I, personally, feel that even handguns should be far more restricted than they are now, but that's not the argument I'm making here. Some, like, for example, Gassy here, think it is perfectly right and good that anyone (who is not mentally ill or has been convicted of a serious felony - I think we can agree here?) can buy a semi-automatic, which, as you've just pointed out yourself, is practically more dangerous than the automatic ones.
3. I'm arguing that the average citizen does not need, nor has any legitimate use for, a semi-automatic, a heavy shotgun, and the like. Hunting rifles, fine. It's one of the typical things of a lot of "gun defenders" that they always fall back to a lot of exaples for when/where/why weapons were useful. Great - but hardly anyone can give a good reason why you'd ever need anything bigger than a small handgun. GasBandit at does have an argument (protection against an oppressive state). It may not be an argument I personally find very convincing (you're better off with good communications and a couple of knives or home-made plastiques than with an AK-47 but all communications monitored at all times), but it's a heck of a lot better than "I need my guns" "Why?" "for protection in case someone tries to rob me" "So you're going to fire an M16 in your own living room / you're carrying it along with you all the time?" "No, for those things a smalelr gun will be more useful" "So why do you need the right to carry an M16?" "....".
4. Summary: it's all because you 'mericans are silly when it comes to guns, you nutty gun lovers

And to answer your question fully: I know not every American wants his very semi-automatic heavy weapon. I do think a lot of Americans think they should be able to have one/buy one. I think in practically all cases, for almost any legal and sensible use, normal people only need access to smaller handguns and, in some cases and in some regions, hunting rifles. Anything over a 9mm is too big for personal use. Anything that can go through a door is probably too heavy. I'm for a tightening of even Belgian gun laws, mind, so I'm pretty far out there as far as Americans are concerned. I think it'd be perfectly acceptable for hunters to have to turn their guns in at the end of hunting season, and to bel able to go pick them back up at the beginning of the hunting season - with proof of having had at least X training in between. I'm all in favour of a complete registry of every gun in the country, with taxes per gun, and with minimum amounts of yearly training at the range for everyone who wants to own one. But anyway, that's not what I was trying to say in this thread - I was staying out of it deliberately because I know Charlie was taking the extreme position and I didn't want to find myself lumped in with him on this issue - removing all guns might sound nice but I know it can't and won't work.

Jul 23, 2012#161

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
It's a habit to exagerate.My point does not, at all, stand or fall with them being either automatic weapons, or labelled as such, or as assault rifles. And Gas, I sure did read it - but I don't agree and your opiinion on some things remains just that - an opinion. You may spray lavender scent all over it, it's still like an asshole etc etc

You can disagree with me all you want. Just don't say I assert something I explicitly asserted the opposite of.

1. Allowing things "carried by a single person" means it's perfectly A-OK to own a bottle of the pox? How 'bout those tactical nukes they've been researching for years - AFAIK they don't exist yet, but that doesn't mean they never will. How about it? Besides, you're saying that you need firepower to defend yourself from the army - good luck doing that with only hand- and shoulder guns.

Those are not weapons issued to soldiers. Soldiers are issued rifles, carbines, sniper rifles, machine guns, SMGs, etc etc. There is never a point where the sergeant says "Line up grunts and collect your jars of anthrax!"

2. Claiming "all Americans want fully automatic versions of Abraham tanks" is obvious hyperbole. It's allowed. I, personally, feel that even handguns should be far more restricted than they are now, but that's not the argument I'm making here. Some, like, for example, Gassy here, think it is perfectly right and good that anyone (who is not mentally ill or has been convicted of a serious felony - I think we can agree here?) can buy a semi-automatic, which, as you've just pointed out yourself, is practically more dangerous than the automatic ones.

Now, yes, but that was not the case from 1994-2004. Many semi-auto weapons, including the "varmint caliber" AR-15 were banned during that period. Some simply by exact make and model (which is where the catalog of scary gun pictures came in), and any semi auto that had 2 or more accessories (such as folding stock, scope, or in the case of shotguns, pistol grip). Completely arbitrary and absolutely ineffective.

3. I'm arguing that the average citizen does not need, nor has any legitimate use for, a semi-automatic, a heavy shotgun, and the like. Hunting rifles, fine. It's one of the typical things of a lot of "gun defenders" that they always fall back to a lot of exaples for when/where/why weapons were useful. Great - but hardly anyone can give a good reason why you'd ever need anything bigger than a small handgun. GasBandit at does have an argument (protection against an oppressive state). It may not be an argument I personally find very convincing (you're better off with good communications and a couple of knives or home-made plastiques than with an AK-47 but all communications monitored at all times), but it's a heck of a lot better than "I need my guns" "Why?" "for protection in case someone tries to rob me" "So you're going to fire an M16 in your own living room / you're carrying it along with you all the time?" "No, for those things a smalelr gun will be more useful" "So why do you need the right to carry an M16?" "....".

If you really think that twitter and knives beats twitter and guns, I don't think we can have a conversation on this topic that I take seriously.

Jul 23, 2012#162

Frank

Oh jeez, stop referring to the AR-15 as varmint caliber. It's ridiculous. .223 isn't ideal for hunting game but it'll put a hole straight through your head and/or chest quite easily.

Jul 23, 2012#163

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
The founding fathers were attempting to arm the general populace to be just as well armed as professional soldiers.

1. A regular citizen with an M16 is not armed as well as a soldier with an M16. You know this as well as I do. Would you allow mandatory regular training programs to stay up-to-date about the proper use adn care of your weapon, at the same level as hose the soldier receives?
2. I'd say the point of the FF was to arm the general populace in such a way that they could effectively defend themselves from said professional army. I hope you can agree that just giving everyone a gun isn't going to accomplish that. Actually, probably your best bet would be a general draft (which, oddly, I am in favour of

).
3. Whether you think they wanted people to be armed equally to soldiers, or to defend themselves from soldiers; in either case, allowing people to own a semi-automatic doesn't help. Heck, since you think everyone should be allowed to own automatics, fine, include those too. Now go ask the average Libyan how useful those were vs bombing strikes from 6.000 feet. Either you allow citizens everything, or you allow them enough for a false sense of security. That was what I was trying to say earlier - you are actually somewhat wishy washy yourself. Either you say The People have to be able to defend themselves from the army (though I maintain you shouldn't worry about the army half as much as about some other branches of government - Homeland Security and the likes are far more of a danger to your freedom than the army, and no matter what kind of gun you own won't help you much against being taken off to Gitmo or similar), in which case, they need everything. Or you say they won't be able to defend themselves against the army (and as stated before - there's plenty of people out there who can attest that armed citizenry really are no match for the US armed forces - they're good at what they do.), in which case, what's the point? Either you think citizens need access to everything so they can form a militia and have any hope of success (they'd still have none unless at least some of the armed forces stood against the tyrannical regime), or you accept that the citizens won't win by brute force. Once you go to the idea of the people defending themselves by other means, again, as stated previously - you don't need big guns. A hunting rifle will kill a general just as well, and an IED is a heck of a lot more effective against armed patrol cars than anything short of anti-tank guns (and even rtthose - feel free to check out the statistics on death counts of both in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunesia,....)

Again, I'm not against guns per se. I'm against guns that won't help in any case, have no daily application, and can cause unheard of grief and suffering when in the wrong hands.

Jul 23, 2012#164

sixpackshaker

Frank said:
Oh jeez, stop referring to the AR-15 as varmint caliber. It's ridiculous. .223 isn't ideal for hunting game but it'll put a hole straight through your head and/or chest quite easily.

.223 is a human killing round. But I did scoff at the news during the D.C. Sniper, that they kept calling .223 a High Powered Round.

Jul 23, 2012#165

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
Now go ask the average Libyan how useful those were vs bombing strikes from 6.000 feet. Either you allow citizens everything, or you allow them enough for a false sense of security.

Go ask anyone fighting over in Iraq/Afganistan how effective those bomb strikes were against the insurgents they were fighting. When push comes to shove, you don't NEED the highest grade tactical hardware to make an occupying force regret ever setting foot into your home. Turns out, all you need is your imagination and the where withal to win at any cost.

Because those insurgents? They are going to win. The US Military is going to leave eventually, if only because we can't keep paying for it. Once that happens, things will slowly go back to how they used to be: roving gangs of armed militants controlling everything because no one can/will stop them. Because they don't have the weapons to stop them themselves. But then again, arming them would be just as bad, considering it's what lead to the roving gangs in the first place.

Really, Iraq and Afghanistan are textbook examples of what can happen if you don't have a standing military/police force to stop an armed populace. You need both to balance each other out: The civilians need to be able to fight off an oppressive government, but a legitimate government needs to be able to keep it's citizens from running a muck with their toys, lest some misuse their weapons to the detriment of others. If both sides aren't in check, you get one side destroying society... kind of like it is in parts of the Middle East and Africa, where entire villages getting massacred by armed groups is kind of an every day thing.

Jul 23, 2012#166

checkeredhat

I wanted to keep out of this discussion (Is it still a discussion, or has this thread turned into a flame war yet?) , but I stumbled upon this news article and thought it was far too relevant to not pass on to you guys.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2012/07/23/wdr-guns-windsor-border.html

Jul 23, 2012#167

Silent Bob

GasBandit said:
You have to look at what the founders were trying to accomplish. First of all, as we've been over in every single other gun control thread, Alexander is using contemporary definitions for "regulated" and "militia" that do not match what they meant in the late 18th century. The meanings of words change over time and context. They considered "militia" to be something closer to his second definition - anybody and everybody who could be considered able to fight. The term "regulated" had nothing to do with government controlling something, it had to do with being regular - IE, there is a minimum level of equipment needed to be an effective soldier, and if you had at least that minimum level, you were considered to be regular. Well regulated.

The founding fathers were attempting to arm the general populace to be just as well armed as professional soldiers.

Once you've reached that logical conclusion, it's easy to see what we should and should not be allowing - whatever is issued to and can be carried by an individual soldier. That defuses the whole "well why don't we just let everybody have tanks and nukes and submarines then" bit of hyperbole - because those are not things that are in the possession of a soldier.

There's a common thread in every national debate these days. People seem to think that bad things only happen because the government allows people to be too free... excuse me, don't "take good enough care of people." Whether we're talking gun control or socialist health care, people seem to think that it is possible for bad things to not happen, ever. And that what's stopping the prevention of bad things happening is that we don't give government permission to stop them.

Bad things happen. Madmen gun down theaters. Bombers blow up federal buildings. Cancer claims millions from every country on the globe. These are all very bad, very sad things. But statistics show that governments have comparatively negligible ability to stop these things even when tyrannical. The reason the second amendment exists is because power corrupts, and Washington DC is the most powerful city on Earth. The reason the second amendment exists is because it has a very real impact in preventing another very bad thing from happening. That thing that happens in Syria, and in Iran. Those things that happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Soviet Union. In Germany, in Italy. That thing that almost succeeded in America, in 1775. It is the final and most definitive line of defense against tyranny and oppression. It makes us those who watch the watchers, who keep the power players in the most powerful city in the world honest.

Many are in denial about how easy it is for tyranny to take root. You tell the people they are under attack. There's a state of emergency. Your least favorite president (of either flavor) suddenly suspends elections until "after the crisis has passed." His cohorts in the legislature go along with the power grab because they stand to gain as well - and really, watching how American politicians and elections have been handled, do you really doubt that the first and foremost priority of almost every politician is to stay in power for as long as possible, all else be damned?

Banning guns won't stop things like the Aurora tragedy from happening. Last year, a man walked into Fort Hood with a pistol and killed 13 people, wounding 29. A man who was known to be unstable and dangerous and yet nothing was done to even begin stopping the tragedy from unfolding because of concerns about political correctness. He didn't need the oh-so-feared AR-15. But America does need the AR-15. And whatever comes after it. It needs these weapons available to every son and daughter of Liberty who wants the future to be at least as free as his past. Because the world is a daily, constant tug of war between those in power, in their mind, a balancing act between how much they want to dictate your life to you regardless of your wishes, and how much they think you will let them. They want control over your wallet, they want control over what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. They want to control who you can marry. They want to control what you worship and if you can do so publicly and if so to what degree. They want you to not care and to leave the big decisions to them while you watch Modern Family and eat your pizza and drink your beer. And when they no longer fear the gun that could be in your hands, that is the day America dies.

As someone who has to help rehabilitate people from things like gunshot injuries, I'll tell you that I'd rather see people not shot than worry about government control conspiracies. It's funny how people are armed to the teeth in places like Syria, Ethiopia, and Burma and yet coups and oppression still happen overnight. I mean really, these places are a Libertarian's dreamland right? Why aren't they all flocking there?

No, banning guns won't stop every single mass attack like in Colorado, but it'll sure help. No one needs an assault rifle, and trust me, if the US fell into a tyrant's hands you'd have plenty of access to them regardless of how legal they are pre-occupation.

Jul 23, 2012#168

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
Go ask anyone fighting over in Iraq/Afganistan how effective those bomb strikes were against the insurgents they were fighting. When push comes to shove, you don't NEED the highest grade tactical hardware to make an occupying force regret ever setting foot into your home. Turns out, all you need is your imagination and the where withal to win at any cost.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Free minds and the right mentality will win from superior weaponry; advanced weapons in every hand but subservient minds will not. (in modern day city warfare. In a set battle it's quite something else)

At the risk of derailing even further, your choice of words is very interesting. Things will "go back to how they were", roving bands of militants etc. This was the case neither in Lybia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Iraq and Lybia had fairly stable regimes (dictatorial, repressive, horrible as far as human rights go, discriminatory and a lot of other bad things, mind you); as long as you were a poor farmer/worker just plowing/toiling away at your daily drudge of a job, it wasn't any worse than many other regimes (if you had such weird ideas as demanding freedom, the right to your own religion, perhaps being allowed to speak your mind or read foreign news or whatever you might get in big trouble of course). Afghanistan....Well, I'd say it's wrong to say they werer ovig bands. Warlords, clan leaders, yes - but despite what you might think, most people in those clans didn't have that bad a life either. Again, when compared tothat of, say, a serf in 13th century Europe. In all three cases, the average person will probably hava a better life in, say, 20 or 30 years - but in the short term, for a lot of the poor people, the situation has worsened. (Of course, not for the Kurds, or members of other suppressed minorities/majorities. I'm not saying they were great, far from it)
Of course, if we/they are really unlucky, all of them will be like Eastern Congo or Somalia is now, in 20 years. That is, completely lawless and with an entire generation going to waste as child soldiers and/or prostitutes; with no prospect or in some cases even concept of anything else in life.

Jul 23, 2012#169

Bowielee

I'm backing out of the conversation as we're hitting differing ideologies and arguing ideologies is pointless as it just becomes a big old circle jerk.

Jul 23, 2012#170

Bubble181

Bowielee said:
I'm backing out of the conversation as we're hitting differing ideologies and arguing ideologies is pointless as it just becomes a big old circle jerk.

There's something wrong with a big circle jerk?

Jul 23, 2012#171

Shakey

How do you define an assault rifle? Is it by the number of rounds it can shoot per minute? The caliber? The name? I only ask because a definition is needed for those that like to hunt. What's the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle other than the looks? It's hard to define, and that's why many hunters fight for loose gun laws even though they may not like assault rifles. They're worried if they give an inch, they'll lose a foot. If people didn't come screaming "Ban every gun!" Gun owners might be a little more responsive. I know everyone I hunt with hates the people that use assault rifles for hunting. It honestly scares us when jack asses feel the need to rail off 15 rounds. How do you stop that without hurting those that want to use them for legitimate uses though?

Jul 23, 2012#172

AshburnerX

What kind of idiot uses a 15 round burst while hunting? That's a great way to ruin the hide, not to mention it makes cleaning the kill a shitload harder.

Jul 23, 2012#173

Silent Bob

AshburnerX said:
What kind of idiot uses a 15 round burst while hunting? That's a great way to ruin the hide, not to mention it makes cleaning the kill a shitload harder.

Jul 23, 2012#174

Shakey

So, 15 round mags are illegal? Fine. That still doesn't make assault rifles illegal. It also doesn't make the barrel mags that hold more than that go away.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people that do that though. I've honestly ducked down next to brush piles from idiots next to us unloading 15 rounds and then reloading. If I could ban stupid I would, but I can't.

Jul 23, 2012#175

PatrThom

Sparhawk said:
I will state that some semi-auto guns can be modified to fire automatic, but you lose so much accuracy and run out of ammo so quick that it is useless.

^This.

Also, regarding the Canada article, I can't believe people would just 'forget' about a gun on their person. I agree that eventually a concealed carry becomes as old-school as wearing socks, but if I was to see a sign at the border which read NO SOCKS and I didn't want to lose my socks, you bet I'd turn around and leave my socks behind.

--Patrick

Jul 23, 2012#176

Bubble181

Probably hunting:

Probably not so much for hunting:

But I'll very gladly admit I'm not technically knowledgeable enough about rifles to set down a specific line. And yes, there'll always be some gray areas... Also, I got those images off of the first page of Google search for "rifle", for all I care they're fictional

But if you're honest about it, you can probably sort of think of a line yourself. Y'know, is it meant to cause as much damage as possible, or to be accurate/fast?

Jul 23, 2012#177

Shakey

But you're just going off of what you think is good for hunting. Where is the concrete example I can go off of to know my hunting rifle won't be included in it? I would honestly love to see all of those guns you listed banned, but what guarantees that I will still be able to hunt when they are? Composite stocks? A good chunk of normal hunting guns are now composite as they wear a lot better. Semi-auto? We all know hunting guns can be semi-auto. I just want to know a good definition other than, "that looks dangerous."[DOUBLEPOST=1343101950][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, I could probably do more damage with your first example than all the ones you think are for non-hunting. :rolleyes:

Jul 23, 2012#178

GasBandit

Frank said:
Oh jeez, stop referring to the AR-15 as varmint caliber. It's ridiculous. .223 isn't ideal for hunting game but it'll put a hole straight through your head and/or chest quite easily.

But it's still a low power round, as compared to a 30-06 or a number of pistol rounds such as the 357 that will put not only a hole into your chest but holes through 4 people standing in the crowd behind you as you all push to get out of the movie theater. The point was that the AR-15 was arbitrarily banned because it looked scary to clueless senators, not because it was more dangerous than a hunting rifle.

Bubble181 said:
1. A regular citizen with an M16 is not armed as well as a soldier with an M16. You know this as well as I do. Would you allow mandatory regular training programs to stay up-to-date about the proper use adn care of your weapon, at the same level as hose the soldier receives?

Mister there's a whole lot of stuff I'd do if I had my druthers but it's beside the point. Of course he's not as good as a soldier, but a civilian with an AR-15 or a Kalashnikov is still better equipped than a civilian only armed with a bowie knife and an uncompromising desire for liberty. You seem to be of the opinion that purity of spirit and willful purpose will see a revolution through and that guns will only sully and ruin it. I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond further, regardless how much I like to argue.

2. I'd say the point of the FF was to arm the general populace in such a way that they could effectively defend themselves from said professional army. I hope you can agree that just giving everyone a gun isn't going to accomplish that. Actually, probably your best bet would be a general draft (which, oddly, I am in favour of ).

Funnily enough, the original version of the 2nd amendment included a clause prohibiting conscription, but it didn't make the final cut. But I am not saying that armaments in and of themselves stave off tyranny, I'm saying they're prerequisite.

Again, I'm not against guns per se. I'm against guns that won't help in any case, have no daily application, and can cause unheard of grief and suffering when in the wrong hands.

Different weapons for different situations. Yes, the airstrikes do lots of damage, but infantry can avoid airstrikes and frankly when you're trying to oppress your own populace you generally avoid scorched earth tactics because if you win a Pyrrhic victory you've really lost anyway because there will be nobody left to rebuild your empire when you're done. Plus, as I've illustrated in previous posts in this thread, the attempted prohibition of these weapons does nothing to decrease violent crime (and in some cases violent crime even increases). Even our own recent 10 year experiment with banning big scary "assault" weapons had no statistical effect, which is why the ban was dropped.

Silent Bob said:
As someone who has to help rehabilitate people from things like gunshot injuries, I'll tell you that I'd rather see people not shot than worry about government control conspiracies. It's funny how people are armed to the teeth in places like Syria, Ethiopia, and Burma and yet coups and oppression still happen overnight. I mean really, these places are a Libertarian's dreamland right? Why aren't they all flocking there?

No, banning guns won't stop every single mass attack like in Colorado, but it'll sure help. No one needs an assault rifle, and trust me, if the US fell into a tyrant's hands you'd have plenty of access to them regardless of how legal they are pre-occupation.

Ah, my good old friends, ad hominem and appeal to emotion. Like two comrades coming in to chat by the fire. Frankly, you've got your figures wrong - Syrians are armed to the teeth NOW that there's a civil war on, but before that, as I posted earlier, their guns per 100 was less than 5. And think about that figure. Guns per 100 in the US is 88.8, but that doesn't mean 88% of americans own guns - it means that there are 88 guns for every 100 americans. Gun owners tend to own multiple guns, and tend to be vastly outnumbered by abstainers. So in syria, that's even less people who owned guns. And no, they are not Libertarian's dreamlands, that's another fallacious statement. Libertarians are not anarchists. Look, I know you're the new guy, but you're making some very rookie argument mistakes. It's to be expected, I suppose, on so emotional a topic especially one that apparently hits close to home.

Banning guns won't stop any of this. Criminals will still have guns. There will still be violence, it's in human nature. And even if they don't use guns, this joker-wannabe had complex homemade explosives in his apartment as well, set up as booby traps for the cops. What if instead of guns he brought a backpack full of homemade plastique to the theater, armed the timer and left just as the opening credits rolled? What if he filled a supersoaker with a gasoline-styrofoam slurry and strapped a road flare to the end?

I know everybody wants there to be a reason, some rationale they can understand if only to hate and oppose for this tragedy. You wanna blame this on guns, or on "gun culture," or on bullying or the tea party or a bad breakup or scholastic failure... some reason that makes it understandable if still unpalatable. But there probably isn't one. Evil exists in the world, believe me, I know, and sometimes it doesn't need a reason. Maybe he wanted to see his name in lights, maybe he just wanted to hear the symphony of dying screams. He's deranged, there is no rational reason, and that has to be understood. You cannot understand a mind that has ceased to be human.

Huh. I guess maybe Alfred was right - some men do just want to watch the world burn.

Shakey said:
Also, I could probably do more damage with your first example than all the ones you think are for non-hunting.

An argument I've been making all along but he doesn't want to hear it. Look at that post... no better than Diane Feinstein with the "ooh look scary scary assault weapons! BAN!"

Jul 23, 2012#179

PatrThom

I remember the debate on magazine sizes. It's one thing to carry a 50rd drum magazine for your .45 Thompson v. the standard 20rd. bigger magazines mean less reloading (because reloading is a lot more complicated than just aiming your gun off the bottom of the screen and pulling the trigger). So really, it's a matter of convenience. It also tends to make people sloppy if they know they have 150rd to go through rather than just 40. Most people don't have the discipline to ration themselves when supplies are plentiful.

I own guns. You may have been able to determine this. Good for you. All of them (except one with a tubular magazine) have non-interchangeable magazines which hold at the most somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 rounds. Historically, this has probably been sufficient for home defense, hunting, and the like. If you haven't brought down your quarry after 5-6 rounds in a home/hunting situation, reloading probably isn't going to make much of a difference at that point. This also assumes a 2, possibly 3 target limit.

To date, I have yet to discharge a weapon in the name of defense. I'll be honest...I'd like to keep it that way. But if I hear intruders in my home, I'm grabbing 3 things: My family, my phone, and the home defense gun(s*), and we'll be holing up as best we can until the danger has passed.

--Patrick
(*depending on whether Kati learns to handle one or Cary matures enough to join)

Jul 23, 2012#180

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
The point was that the AR-15 was arbitrarily banned because it looked scary to clueless senators, not because it was more dangerous than a hunting rifle.

Jul 23, 2012#181

AshburnerX

PatrThom said:
All of them (except one with a tubular magazine) have non-interchangeable magazines which hold at the most somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 rounds.

You got a Calico? Nice. Aren't those supposed to rare as hell?

Jul 23, 2012#182

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:

That one's cute, that's OK

(I know it's an M16 - I remember posting it myself in some thread somewhere before

)

The difference between me and Feinstein? I know I'm not knowledgeable about them. I'd be perfectly fine letting people who know guns write the laws about guns, just like I'd like people who know about the 'net write the law about the net. But I'm all in favour of a meritocracy, so hey. Of course, that road has its own problems - look at bankers making laws for the banks and where that got us

Anyway, I'm not going to debate much further, because :
a) it's 6:40 am and I just got home from work, I've got other things to do now

b) I think that Charlie, me, Patrick and Gas show a nice continuum - from "no guns at all" over "some guns are ok but it should be seriously restricted" over "guns are generally ok but people need to be responsible about them/there are some things that aren't sensible in regular hands to "we should arm civilians on a level with professional soldiers, but we shouldn't try and force them to be intelligent/responsible enough to have one". (Yes, again a hyperbole of your argument Gas, I know you didn't say that

I'm also aware that there are people on the other side of you, who thinks tanks and bombers should be perfectly A-ok as well). The general sentiment in Europe leans more one way, the general consensus in the USA the other way, and hopefully we'll all stay in countries with legislation that's somewhere in the middle area there. Neither of us is going to convince anyone of anything at this point. FWIW, I have changed my stance on this in the past, I used to be almost as categorical as Charlie

Jul 24, 2012#183

Covar

Bubble181 said:
Probably hunting:

Probably not so much for hunting:

But I'll very gladly admit I'm not technically knowledgeable enough about rifles to set down a specific line. And yes, there'll always be some gray areas... Also, I got those images off of the first page of Google search for "rifle", for all I care they're fictional But if you're honest about it, you can probably sort of think of a line yourself. Y'know, is it meant to cause as much damage as possible, or to be accurate/fast?

2 of those are the same weapon, with different accessories. Just thought I would point that out.

Jul 24, 2012#184

GasBandit

Covar said:
2 of those are the same weapon, with different accessories. Just thought I would point that out.

Hey, according to the AWB, accessories make all the difference. You can buy that high powered rifle, but the minute you put a folding stock and a heat shroud on it, that thing suddenly becomes a mass murder waiting to happen!

Jul 24, 2012#185

PatrThom

AshburnerX said:
You got a Calico? Nice. Aren't those supposed to rare as hell?

No, a Calico has a helical magazine that holds about 100rds or so (I remember the splash they made when they came out). Mine is an older department store .22 that can feed your choice of .22s/.22l/.22lr or any mix thereof, and so its capacity varies depending on which size ammo you use.

--Patrick

Jul 24, 2012#186

Charlie Don't Surf

yup this thread turned into a gun circlejerk

Jul 24, 2012#187

sixpackshaker

One thing that bothers me about this thread being started by Charlie is, last year he basically danced on the graves of 3,000 dead because of a perceived loss of rights. Now 12 people die and Charlie wants to take away a fundamental right of our republic.

Jul 24, 2012#188

Magister Moonie

I'm sure he wanted to take away your guns long before 12 people died in a theater!

Jul 24, 2012#189

Charlie Don't Surf

sixpackshaker said:
One thing that bothers me about this thread being started by Charlie is, last year he basically danced on the graves of 3,000 dead because of a perceived loss of rights. Now 12 people die and Charlie wants to take away a fundamental right of our republic.

wait what was that grave dancing? I will cop to dancing on Paterno's loss of wins record since I think he's a shit, but I forgot to what you're referring now. Is this about me saying Osama Bin Laden won?

Jul 24, 2012#190

Espy

I assume he's talking about the time you hammer-danced through a graveyard.

Jul 24, 2012#191

sixpackshaker

I'm much more broken up about the Western world's response to 9/11 than the actual attacks. I'll put my flag at half staff for the 10 year anniversary of the Patriot Act passing, though.

And it went down hill from there...[DOUBLEPOST=1343147291][/DOUBLEPOST]

Basically the exact opposite of everything that happened. Don't restrict rights here in the states in the name of security. Just, as a people, don't be extremely racist towards Muslims based on the attacks. Don't throw billions of dollars into the hole that is Iraq. Stop wasting money/time in Afghanistan once it's obvious OBL is in Pakistan. And stop feeding into the culture of fear that led to W's re-election.

So you will take our right to bear arms in the name of security.

Jul 24, 2012#192

Bubble181

Charlie's an easy mark because he makes extreme statements, trolling him is a hobby like any other. News at eleven.

More seriously (and why do I even bother?), you may not like it, but "the right to bear arms" is not a universal right. Right to freedom of, amongst others, speech, is. The PATRIOT Act takes away/limits basic human rights (habeas corpus, right to representation, right to silence and right to free speech, quite some more).
His statement that he deplores the Western reaction to 9/11 makes sense, since far more innocent people (though this depends on your definition of "innocent") have died though Western intervention than by 9/11 itself. There have even been more American casualities from the war than from 9/11. As a means of "protecting the innocent and ensuring the lives of Americans", the War on Terror is one big huge failure.

That said, yes, the argument can be made that "taking away"/limiting the right to bear arms is jsut as much a matter of abandoning freedom for security in the manner of that famous apocryphical quote of Ben Franklin. Who said only one side can go too far this or that way? Not me.

Jul 24, 2012#193

Charlie Don't Surf

Yeah straight up I don't see the Right to Bear Arms as a right and just disagree with the Constitution / Bill of Rights, sorry bout it.

Jul 24, 2012#194

sixpackshaker

Too bad, your opinion does not override roughly 240 years of constitutional law.

Jul 24, 2012#195

Bubble181

sixpackshaker said:
Too bad, your opinion does not override roughly 240 years of constitutional law.

Last I checked he noted an opinion. His opinion is just that. Apparently some people like 50 Shades of Gray, that doesn't mean those people have taste either

Jul 24, 2012#196

Charlie Don't Surf

Once the rest of the country joins the civilized world, I hope we'll look back at these incidents and arguments with the same scorn as when the popular opinion was that there should be colored entrances to buildings.

Jul 24, 2012#197

sixpackshaker

But this is black and white. As citizens of this nation we have the right to keep and bear arms. It is not a fundamental right, a declared right of mankind or an inalienable right. But it is a granted right by our constitution, and the men that formed our government.

Chuckles here wants to round up everyday citizens and imprison them for defending their rights. That is Tyranny. Imagine the bloodshed and chaos his little pipe dream would cause. Syria would be a church picnic in comparison.[DOUBLEPOST=1343150104][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Once the rest of the country joins the civilized world, I hope we'll look back at these incidents and arguments with the same scorn as when the popular opinion was that there should be colored entrances to buildings.

Oh yeah, the civilized world that won two world wars, put man on the moon and is the leading cultural force in the world... wait do you know what civilized means?

Jul 24, 2012#198

Ravenpoe

sixpackshaker said:
But this is black and white. As citizens of this nation we have the right to keep and bear arms. It is not a fundamental right, a declared right of mankind or an inalienable right. But it is a granted right by our constitution, and the men that formed our government.

Chuckles here wants to round up everyday citizens and imprison them for defending their rights. That is Tyranny. Imagine the bloodshed and chaos his little pipe dream would cause. Syria would be a church picnic in comparison.

Charlie is really good at defeating his own cause with extremism and over zealousness. But we seriously could use a national discussion on gun regulation (not banning)

Jul 24, 2012#199

LordRendar

sixpackshaker said:
Oh yeah, the civilized world that won two world wars, put man on the moon and is the leading cultural force in the world... wait do you know what civilized means?

What has been right once,dosnt have to be right now. There were many leading cultural forces in history and they fell.

Jul 24, 2012#200

sixpackshaker

Or we could do like Fox News, and say that the gun debate is over, or that this is no time to debate the right to bear arms...

But this is the time to debate a ban on costumes in theaters.

Jul 24, 2012#201

Bubble181

LordRendar said:
What has been right once,dosnt have to be right now. There were many leading cultural forces in history and they fell.

Even thinking one could stay on top forever, that is no excuse or reason for stagnation. See: anything else about the constitiution that has been changed.

Jul 24, 2012#202

sixpackshaker

LordRendar said:
What has been right once,dosnt have to be right now. There were many leading cultural forces in history and they fell.

One day the US will be as irrelevant as the rest of the west, but I am not in a race to get there.

Jul 24, 2012#203

Frank

sixpackshaker said:
Oh yeah, the civilized world that won two world wars

There were a lot of civilized places involved in that.

Jul 24, 2012#204

Bubble181

sixpackshaker said:
One day the US will be as irrelevant as the rest of the west, but I am not in a race to get there.

Trying to be unchanging and remain the same is the best way to go from "eternal" to "has-been". The US from the civil war couldn't have handled WWII, the US from WWII wouldn't have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as you have, and so on. Not talking technologically, but politically and psychologically. The world changes, your country (all countries, obviously) have to change along with it. You can try to influence the change, but never stop it. You can try to slow down changes (change for no good reason is juvenile and ineffective). Charlie has his right to his opinion just as much as you have yours.

Jul 24, 2012#205

sixpackshaker

Frank said:
There were a lot of civilized places involved in that.

But then think about the bankroll and weapons that went into the victory. Russia was never very civilized, even with out armed citizens.

Jul 24, 2012#206

Covar

I say we ban all differentiated opinions. All they do is kill pleasant conversation or start arguments. Ban them all, put any opinion holder in prison longer than every drug offender.

All your so called legitimate opinions are just practice for debate.

Jul 24, 2012#207

SpecialKO

It's true, differentiated opinions kill consensuses.

Jul 24, 2012#208

Charlie Don't Surf

It used to be an unalienable right to own slaves not that long ago in just our nation's history.

Jul 24, 2012#209

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It used to be an unalienable right to own slaves not that long ago in just our nation's history.

Where's that clause?

Jul 24, 2012#210

Charlie Don't Surf

sixpackshaker said:
Where's that clause?

There had to be a constitutional amendment to abolish it.

Jul 24, 2012#211

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
There had to be a constitutional amendment to abolish it.

It only took a war to get that amendment in the constitution. To take out a "right" that was not in the constitution. So what will it take to make your pipe-dream come true?

Jul 24, 2012#212

Magister Moonie

sixpackshaker said:
But then think about the bankroll and weapons that went into the victory. Russia was never very civilized, even with out armed citizens.

haha, WOAH.

Jul 24, 2012#213

Charlie Don't Surf

this is such a dumb fucking argument. there are literally amendments to the constitution to change things that are in the constitution that the majority of the country deems necessary

Jul 24, 2012#214

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
this is such a dumb fucking argument. there are literally amendments to the constitution to change things that are in the constitution that the majority of the country deems necessary

Hate to break it to you, but you're not in the majority. Not even close.

Jul 24, 2012#215

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Hate to break it to you, but you're not in the majority. Not even close.

So? He didn't say he demanded it be changed now. SPS is trying to make the argument that this consitutional right can't be changed with anything short of a war. That's bullcrap. Obviously, for it to be changed in the constitution, a majority of the political caste would have to see profit in it....I mean, a majority of the population would have to believe this *cough*. CDS is still entitled to his opinion that guns should be banned anywhere everywhere forever (yet again hyperbole!), and he's perfectly within his rights to try and pus this agenda, just as gun nuts are perfectly within their rights to push their agenda. SPS seems to be trying to convince CDS that his opinion is not only wrong, but that he is somehow wrong for advocating his view on the matter. in fact, he's trying to get "the other side" to shut up - he's tring to kill off the vocal opposition - he's trying to rerstrict CDS's freedom of opinion and/or speech. You think everyone's entitled to being wrong and stupid; SPS seems to want to try to either convince people, or if this doesn't work, stop them from arguing against him.

Jul 24, 2012#216

Charlie Don't Surf

oh, I know there's no chance of any referendum of gun outlawing passing like. probably any district south of the mason dixon line. Maybe not even any districts in America.

In spite of all these mass murder shooting events, I highly doubt there will be one iota of gun control legislation passed nationally in the next 5-10 years.

Jul 24, 2012#217

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
oh, I know there's no chance of any referendum of gun outlawing passing like. probably any district south of the mason dixon line. Maybe not even any districts in America.

In spite of all these mass murder shooting events, I highly doubt there will be one iota of gun control legislation passed nationally in the next 5-10 years.

Not while gun lobbies exist.

Jul 24, 2012#218

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
Not while gun lobbies exist.

Is that you, Reducto?

Jul 24, 2012#219

Sparhawk

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I highly doubt there will be one iota of gun control legislation passed nationally in the next 5-10 years.

Why should there be any passed? There are already plenty of laws on the books that govern gun ownership and availability. Enforcement of those laws is the issue, and honestly if we can't get the AG of the country to own up to something that his department did what hope do we have for the rest of the system that takes their lead from him.

Jul 25, 2012#220

Charlie Don't Surf

Sparhawk said:
Why should there be any passed?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Jul 25, 2012#221

sixpackshaker

I wonder why they did not add even more time to that map. It only has 30 years of shootings on it. Why not go all the way back to the 20's. There were a shit-ton of mass killings then.

Jul 25, 2012#222

Charlie Don't Surf

They probably would have run out of space on the map

Jul 25, 2012#223

Espy

Sparhawk said:
Why should there be any passed? There are already plenty of laws on the books that govern gun ownership and availability. Enforcement of those laws is the issue, and honestly if we can't get the AG of the country to own up to something that his department did what hope do we have for the rest of the system that takes their lead from him.

There was a really good discussion on this on MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) and this was kind of the consensus, even among the more liberal folks, that there was a real issue with current laws not being enforced properly. Fun thing they brought up: Obama and the NRA have the EXACT same position on gun control not that you will ever hear the NRA say it.

Jul 25, 2012#224

sixpackshaker

Not only are you not going to hear the NRA say that they have the same policy, but the NRA will/does lie about Obama's position.

I just wish the NRA would quit being so partisan.

Jul 25, 2012#225

Shakey

sixpackshaker said:
I just wish the NRA would quit being so partisan.

The fear of losing your guns to the democrats brings in too much money.

Jul 25, 2012#226

mikerc

sixpackshaker said:
Oh yeah, the civilized world that won two world wars, put man on the moon and is the leading cultural force in the world... wait do you know what civilized means?

WW1 you got a good argument for USA being the most important factor in the Allies winning (not the only, just the most important). WW2 Russia's got a lock on that - 9 out of 10 Germans were killed on the Eastern Front.

Yeah you got a man on the moon, but is Neil Armstrong really more important than Yuri Gagarin?

Leading cultural force means what exactly? Do you mean in the sense of people from other countries consuming your media? Because I'm not sure that would count. Yeah in the Western world (particularly the part of it that speaks English) American produced movies & TV shows do sell more than Non-American. Although that's arguably more supply than demand. Outside that though, in Asia, or India is that still the case? How many people worldwide see the average Bollywood movie compared to the average Hollywood movie?

Or are you basing cultural force on McDonalds & Starbucks? In which case I'll ask if you know what civilized means.

Jul 25, 2012#227

sixpackshaker

You can't really give the Soviet Union's Red Army credit for it being fucking cold in Russia.

You need to check to see how many Germans died from our air raids.

Bollywood is not setting the world afire. Not many people watch those films outside the domestic market. So it is not a force of worldwide culture. They get a lot of eyeballs on their films but not over all the continents.

Everyone wants to eat American food, deal with it.

Jul 25, 2012#228

Bubble181

mroosc1979 said:
WW1 you got a good argument for USA being the most important factor in the Allies winning (not the only, just the most important).

As a Belgian, I'd argue both the Beglian and the French army played as much a role in WWI as the American army. By the time the US finally came in, Germany was already having more and more trouble keeping up with the Belgian-French-Canadian-Congolese-Italian (amonst others) armies against them. The US definitely helped the Allies to finish the war more quickly...but the Allies would've won without the US, too.
Comparatively, we'd probably have lost WWII without the US, or the USSR.

Jul 25, 2012#229

sixpackshaker

But if the war continued much longer after our entry, we probably could have fielded as many soldiers as the Allies had at that point.

Our entry was just the tipping point.

Jul 25, 2012#230

Necronic

US had almost zero affect on WW1. The largest contributing factor in WW2 was probably the Soviet Union, but the US was a close second (or possibly tied for 1st since we weren't defending our own land), but it's undeniable that when we're talking about the Cold War that dominated the next 50 years, USA was #1 100% of the time.

Jul 25, 2012#231

mikerc

sixpackshaker said:
You can't really give the Soviet Union's Red Army credit for it being fucking cold in Russia.

Maybe not but my point is that America was not the major factor in the defeat of the Nazi's. That was Germany invading Russia.

sixpackshaker said:
You need to check to see how many Germans died from our air raids.

Sooo, whoever kills the most civilians wins? That's your argument? You might have had a point if you'd argued that those air raids took out Germany's manufacturing capabilities. That didn't have the same effect as all those dead soldiers - doesn't matter how many guns, tanks & bullets you've got if there isn't anyone to use them, but at least you'd have had a semi valid argument.

Jul 25, 2012#232

Charlie Don't Surf

I can't breathe, the air is too thick with American Exceptionalism

Jul 25, 2012#233

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
As a Belgian, I'd argue both the Beglian and the French army played as much a role in WWI as the American army. By the time the US finally came in, Germany was already having more and more trouble keeping up with the Belgian-French-Canadian-Congolese-Italian (amonst others) armies against them. The US definitely helped the Allies to finish the war more quickly...but the Allies would've won without the US, too.

Bullshit. Germany had WON on the eastern front (The newly-in soviets gave them a ton of land to get peace), and there was a MASSIVE change in the lines (in Germany's favor) on the western front prior to the USA coming in to it. I don't remember a lot of WWI history, but I remember how the lines were basically static for 3 years, and then all the german soldiers from the eastern front transferred west... and were overrunning the everybody everywhere. And then the USA came in and it pushed back massively again, but in our favor this time.

Jul 25, 2012#234

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I can't breathe, the air is too thick with American Exceptionalism

STFU Charlie

Jul 25, 2012#235

Necronic

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I can't breathe, the air is too thick with American Exceptionalism

I take exception to your acception of exceptionalits

Jul 25, 2012#236

sixpackshaker

mroosc1979 said:
Maybe not but my point is that America was not the major factor in the defeat of the Nazi's. That was Germany invading Russia.

Sooo, whoever kills the most civilians wins? That's your argument? You might have had a point if you'd argued that those air raids took out Germany's manufacturing capabilities. That didn't have the same effect as all those dead soldiers - doesn't matter how many guns, tanks & bullets you've got if there isn't anyone to use them, but at least you'd have had a semi valid argument.

Killing their civilians took the tanks, bullets and guns away from the German Army. In the end it does not matter how many soldiers that you kill, what matters is that you make your enemy stop fighting.

Jul 25, 2012#237

TommiR

Eriol said:
Bullshit. Germany had WON on the eastern front (The newly-in soviets gave them a ton of land to get peace), and there was a MASSIVE change in the lines (in Germany's favor) on the western front prior to the USA coming in to it. I don't remember a lot of WWI history, but I remember how the lines were basically static for 3 years, and then all the german soldiers from the eastern front transferred west... and were overrunning the everybody everywhere. And then the USA came in and it pushed back massively again, but in our favor this time.

Not exactly. If I recall correctly, the german Spring Offensive did net them substantial gains by World War I standards, but they weren't exactly kicking butt and taking names. Their offensive was halted due to many factors, the least of which was not their own logistical difficulties. The american troops did play their part in the fighting, though the brunt of the effort was carried by european troops. Perhaps the more significant contribution of US forces came after the offensive, as american manpower and equipment meant the allies could replace their losses, whereas Germany couldn't.

sixpackshaker said:
Killing their civilians took the tanks, bullets and guns away from the German Army. In the end it does not matter how many soldiers that you kill, what matters is that you make your enemy stop fighting.

I guess the significance of that for WWII depends on your take of when the outcome of the war was decided, after which Germany no longer had a realistic chance of winning the war. According to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, german war production didn't seem to suffer seriously until around mid-1944. I would argue the war had already been decided by that point.

Although the Eighth Air Force began operations August 17, 1942, with the bombing of marshalling yards at Rouen and Sotteville in northern France, no operations during 1942 or the first half of 1943 had significant effect. The force was small and its range limited. Much time in this period was devoted to training and testing the force under combat conditions.

The city attacks of the RAF prior to the autumn of 1944, did not substantially affect the course of German war production. German war production as a whole continued to increase. This in itself is not conclusive, but the Survey has made detailed analysis of the course of production and trade in 10 German cities that were attacked during this period and has made more general analyses in others. These show that while production received a moderate setback after a raid, it recovered substantially within a relatively few weeks. As a rule the industrial plants were located around the perimeter of German cities and characteristically these were relatively undamaged.

Jul 25, 2012#238

AshburnerX

Russia definitely deserves a lot more credit for their contributions to the war effort in WW2 than they get. They sacrificed so much just to keep Germany out of Russia... by the end of the war, they were literally fielding women because they had nearly run out of eligible men. Yet many Americans don't even know they were on our side during that conflict.

Jul 25, 2012#239

North_Ranger

Indeed. Even though I'm from a country that prides itself on keeping the Soviets at bay during the war, I consider it laughable how much of the WWII is portrayed as an American war. It was that in the Pacific, for sure, but the Red Army was a fuckin' machine on the eastern front. To say you shouldn't give them credit because it's "fucking cold in Russia" sounds pretty much bollocks; name me one war, one battle where knowledge of terrain and weather was not an important, sometimes even decisive factor in who came out top. To say it doesn't count would be like saying that air superiority doesn't count, or supply lines don't count.

Granted, the western front does make better stories; eastern front was pretty much a combination of freezing asses off and zerg rushing.

Jul 25, 2012#240

Ravenpoe

I think the reason the USA focuses so much on WW2 is because it was the last war in which we were 100% certain we were the good guys.

Jul 25, 2012#241

Bubble181

North_Ranger said:
Granted, the western front does make better stories; eastern front was pretty much a combination of freezing asses off and zerg rushing.

To be fair, the zerg rushing (from both sides, by the way) makes for some really awesome stories in its own right. Sending 10 soldiers with 1 gun to share between them, soldiers attacking machine gun nests with steel because their guns are frozen solid, soldiers using each others bodies as cover to reach the enemy.... Not to mention that, oddly enough, the type of "low-profile" heroism (not meant as a slight, for clarity)that gets glorified a lot in American stories (Style Rodger Young), was in evidence throughout, but nobody ever sings songs about them. Even Russians don't like talking about the Eastern Front all that much. It's like everybody together has decided the Western front's more mediagenic.

Up to a point, same is true for the African front, and for the Russian-Japanese battle fields. There have been movies/books about them, but what's the last one you've seen? Guns of Navarone? Nothing since the '90s, pretty much.

Jul 25, 2012#242

North_Ranger

Ravenpoe said:
I think the reason the USA focuses so much on WW2 is because it was the last war in which we were 100% certain we were the good guys.

Jul 25, 2012#243

tegid

AshburnerX said:
Russia definitely deserves a lot more credit for their contributions to the war effort in WW2 than they get. They sacrificed so much just to keep Germany out of Russia... by the end of the war, they were literally fielding women because they had nearly run out of eligible men. Yet many Americans don't even know they were on our side during that conflict.

Well, everyone knows the commies are the bad guys...

YeahIdidn'taddmuchtothediscussionsueme.

Jul 25, 2012#244

PatrThom

AshburnerX said:
by the end of the war, they were literally fielding women because they had nearly run out of eligible men.

One might say that they had quite the militia, then.

--Patrick

Jul 26, 2012#245

SpecialKO

PatrThom said:
One might say that they had quite the militia, then.

--Patrick

If I remember my Call of Duty 2 properly, they also didn't have enough guns to go around(!).

Jul 26, 2012#246

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
If I remember my Call of Duty 2 properly, they also didn't have enough guns to go around(!).

Near the end of the Stalingrad campaign, it was fairly common to distribute bullets over a whole group of soldiers, and give them one gun. You were supposed to take it from your fallen omrade and be able to press on. No "this is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine" crap for the Russians

Jul 26, 2012#247

Ravenpoe

Bubble181 said:
Near the end of the Stalingrad campaign, it was fairly common to distribute bullets over a whole group of soldiers, and give them one gun. You were supposed to take it from your fallen omrade and be able to press on. No "this is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine" crap for the Russians

Commies!

Jul 26, 2012#248

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
Commies!

In Communist Russia, there are many soldiers like you, but you're the gun's.

Jul 26, 2012#249

Ravenpoe

Bubble181 said:
In Communist Russia, there are many soldiers like you, but you're the gun's.

Yakov fail.

It's like this:

In Soviet Russia, guns wield you!

Jul 26, 2012#250

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
Yakov fail.

It's like this:

In Soviet Russia, guns wield you!

In Socialist Belgium, jokes make you!

Jul 26, 2012#251

TommiR

Bubble181 said:
Near the end of the Stalingrad campaign, it was fairly common to distribute bullets over a whole group of soldiers, and give them one gun. You were supposed to take it from your fallen omrade and be able to press on. No "this is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine" crap for the Russians

That is the myth, and given the massive losses the Red Army suffered particularly in '41, there might well have been some local shortages of weapons. But can you cite a source that suggests the lack of weapons was a widespread problem for the soviets by the end of 1942?

Jul 26, 2012#252

Necronic

Bubble181 said:
Near the end of the Stalingrad campaign, it was fairly common to distribute bullets over a whole group of soldiers, and give them one gun. You were supposed to take it from your fallen omrade and be able to press on. No "this is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine" crap for the Russians

Getting our history from Call of Duty are we?

(Honestly I thought this was true was well)

Jul 26, 2012#253

Bubble181

TommiR said:
That is the myth, and given the massive losses the Red Army suffered particularly in '41, there might well have been some local shortages of weapons. But can you cite a source that suggests the lack of weapons was a widespread problem for the soviets by the end of 1942?

Yes. I wrote my master's paper on the ethics surrounding weapons of mass destruction; if you don't mind sources given in Dutch, Though it's not technically a scholarly source, I can suggest Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad". For the type of publication it is, it's very on the money about a lot of things and relatively well-researched.[DOUBLEPOST=1343322626][/DOUBLEPOST]For clarity's sake: I'm not saying the Russians really only supplied platoons with one gun per 10 soldiers. They did try to outfit their troops decently (and often they were better-equipped than their German counterparts). I'm only saying that this happened, because of supply issues and all that jazz. "Fairly common" may have been an exageration.

Jul 26, 2012#254

Charlie Don't Surf

"Guns are bad"

*8 pages later*

*Military jerkoff/hero worship*

lol

Jul 26, 2012#255

Necronic

*Charlie feels superior to other posters*

8 pages later

*Charlier feels superior to other posters*

10 years later

*Charlier feels superior to other posters*

Jul 26, 2012#256

TommiR

Bubble181 said:
Yes. I wrote my master's paper on the ethics surrounding weapons of mass destruction; if you don't mind sources given in Dutch, Though it's not technically a scholarly source, I can suggest Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad". For the type of publication it is, it's very on the money about a lot of things and relatively well-researched.[DOUBLEPOST=1343322626][/DOUBLEPOST]For clarity's sake: I'm not saying the Russians really only supplied platoons with one gun per 10 soldiers. They did try to outfit their troops decently (and often they were better-equipped than their German counterparts). I'm only saying that this happened, because of supply issues and all that jazz. "Fairly common" may have been an exageration.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. Sources in dutch could as well be written in swahili as far as I'm concerned

I haven't read Beevor's book on Stalingrad, though I did enjoy his work on the Spanish civil war. However, I have read John Erickson's book 'The Road to Stalingrad', and it lists figures that seem to indicate that, overall, the soviets did have sufficient amounts of weapons for their personnel.

Jul 26, 2012#257

PatrThom

Necronic said:
*Charlie feels superior to other posters*

8 pages later

*Charlier feels superior to other posters*

10 years later

*Charlier feels superior to other posters*

I like how Charlie gets Charlier as time goes on.

--Patrick

Jul 26, 2012#258

Covar

Someone should post some babes with guns pictures on here. You know for research.

Jul 26, 2012#259

Necronic

PatrThom said:
I like how Charlie gets Charlier as time goes on.

--Patrick

Well, seeing as Charlie exists in his own universe, and the universe is constantly expanding, it makes sense.

Jul 30, 2012#260

GasBandit

Oh no, can't let this thread die yet. Here's some fun gun control links.

Research done for the Clinton administration didn’t find that the federal assault-weapons ban reduced crime.

Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen.

With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

Jul 30, 2012#261

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
Oh no, can't let this thread die yet. Here's some fun gun control links.

Research done for the Clinton administration didn’t find that the federal assault-weapons ban reduced crime.

Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen.

With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

Correlation, causation, blah blah blah. You already know this rebuttal, I'll let you fill it in.

Jul 30, 2012#262

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Oh no, can't let this thread die yet. Here's some fun gun control links.

Research done for the Clinton administration didn’t find that the federal assault-weapons ban reduced crime.

That's not true. Basically their conclusion was that it was hard to tell for sure. There's a big difference. They put the upper bound of reduction at 5%, (which comes out to like 500 deaths a year) and also argued that it's impossible to know the full affects of such a sweeping change in such a small amount of time, and that a longer time frame is necessary to understand the full impact of the change.

I mean, you took a 100 page report and ignored the first sentence of the conclusion:

Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs,
.....
However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence

It definitely had an effect, but there were other actors at play. Same thing with any complex system.

Aug 2, 2012#263

PatrThom

Come on now. When Charlie says, "I will never own a gun ever I think they're evil and wouldn't be caught dead with one," he is really saying, "Everything Charlie owns is up for grabs, just come on by with a bunch of your friends and take whatever you want."

EDIT: I wish I were being facetious, here. I'm sure It would be relatively easy for a group of six average people to take over just about any undefended suburban household before the authorities could arrive to prevent it.

--Patrick

Aug 2, 2012#264

Necronic

I like to give my brother a hard time about not being prepared for hurricanes and whatnot (having canned food/bottled water etc.) He likes to remind me that he has a ton of guns and lives right above me.

Aug 2, 2012#265

strawman

Necronic said:
I like to give my brother a hard time about not being prepared for hurricanes and whatnot (having canned food/bottled water etc.) He likes to remind me that he has a ton of guns and lives right above me.

Better stock for him as well then, he brings the armory, you bring the food.

Aug 2, 2012#266

blotsfan

PatrThom said:
Come on now. When Charlie says, "I will never own a gun ever I think they're evil and wouldn't be caught dead with one," he is really saying, "Everything Charlie owns is up for grabs, just come on by with a bunch of your friends and take whatever you want."

EDIT: I wish I were being facetious, here. I'm sure It would be relatively easy for a group of six average people to take over just about any undefended suburban household before the authorities could arrive to prevent it.

--Patrick

Considering you aren't being sarcastic, my philosophy towards this is that its better to be robbed than to get yourself hurt or killed, which I think is more probable for people trying to defend themselves with a gun.

Aug 2, 2012#267

strawman

blotsfan said:
its better to be robbed than to get yourself hurt or killed, which I think is more probable for people trying to defend themselves with a gun.

Now if only there were studies or statistics that showed whether robberies of people with guns resulted in greater bodily harm than robberies of people without guns...

Aug 2, 2012#268

Jay

Why so much gun crime?

Aug 2, 2012#269

strawman

Because we have guns available as tools for killing. In countries where guns are banned the tools are necessarily different, but the murders still happen. The image suggests the fallacy that if handguns were not available, then the deaths would not have occurred.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate for a list of countries by murder rate per capita for a better picture. While our per capita murder rate may be 2-3 times higher than many countries, depending on how the data was gathered, it's not hundreds or thousands of times higher than other countries as your image suggests it might be.

Aug 3, 2012#270

AshburnerX

I'd also ask if those are simply gun DEATHS or MURDERS with guns involved. We have a lot more accidental gun deaths just because guns are more available, not to mention because there are a lot of idiots who treat them as toys or don't do enough to keep them out of the hands of their kids.

Aug 3, 2012#271

strawman

AshburnerX said:
I'd also ask if those are simply gun DEATHS or MURDERS with guns involved. We have a lot more accidental gun deaths just because guns are more available, not to mention because there are a lot of idiots who treat them as toys or don't do enough to keep them out of the hands of their kids.

Over half the suicides in the US are committed using a gun, and the suicide rate in the US is large enough that I suspect that a significant number of those deaths are the result of self inflicted gunshot wounds. http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html

But, you know, it is a pretty compelling piece of propaganda.

Aug 3, 2012#272

Espy

Oh Adam. Why you gotta bring facts in and make everyone feel bad?

Aug 3, 2012#273

sixpackshaker

Not to mention most gun deaths are suicides.

Also the USA has nearly halved their gun deaths per year since that poster came out over 20 years ago. And those European countries gun deaths have nearly doubled since then. See that makes it sound dangerous.

Aug 3, 2012#274

Necronic

All that aside the US still has a higher murder rate than any of those countries

Aug 3, 2012#275

sixpackshaker

How many of those nations had police states, higher standard of living, monoculture, fraction of our population, and low drug use...

but the only difference is guns.

Aug 3, 2012#276

strawman

How many of those other countries hold life more sacred than the US?

I'm sure that the murder/death rate would drop if the government destroyed all our guns, and jailed or killed those that refused to give them up.

But the murder/death rate would still be abnormally high compared to other similar nations, and it's due to our culture more than anything.

We hold the value of things very high, and the value of life very low. People will kill for the contents of a wallet.

Getting rid of guns won't change that fundamental difference in US culture.

Aug 3, 2012#277

Necronic

Police States? = 1, Israel

Higher Standard of Living? = I dunno, really depends on how you define it

Monoculture? = 3, Sweeden Switzerland and Japan

Fraction of our Population? = All of them, although China and India (not on the list I know) both have lower murder rates on paper iirc. I say on paper because they may fudge the numbers)

Low Drug Use? = Dunno, Japan and Israel definitely, the rest are probably similar to here.

Aug 3, 2012#278

sixpackshaker

Pot does not equal crack when it comes to risky behaviors.

Aug 3, 2012#279

GasBandit

Interestingly enough, the Israeli government provides uzis to its populace. If the sole impetus of violent crime is guns, shouldn't they have something approaching our level of shootings?

Aug 3, 2012#280

Charlie Don't Surf

I've said this before, but lol if you think the USA isn't a police state

Aug 3, 2012#281

sixpackshaker

If we are a police state, why is our murder rate so high?

Aug 3, 2012#282

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I've said this before, but lol if you think the USA isn't a police state

Compared to Israel (and many other places), it's really, really, really not.

Aug 3, 2012#283

Charlie Don't Surf

sixpackshaker said:
If we are a police state, why is our murder rate so high?

Because the police kill so many people.

Aug 3, 2012#284

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Because the police kill so many people.

Yo, Imma let you finish, but Le Quack had the best police rambling of all time. OF ALL TIME.

Aug 3, 2012#285

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Because the police kill so many people.

You're not even close.

Aug 3, 2012#286

GasBandit

Can we invoke "STFU Charlie" in a Charlie thread, or would that divide by zero?

Aug 3, 2012#287

Covar

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Because the police kill so many people.

Aug 3, 2012#288

tegid

I... I thought that was a joke. Like Charlie overCharlieing himself or something.

Aug 3, 2012#289

strawman

GasBandit said:
Interestingly enough, the Israeli government provides uzis to its populace. If the sole impetus of violent crime is guns, shouldn't they have something approaching our level of shootings?

Yeah, but most of them live in constant fear that their own neighborhood might become part of the warzone. I think it's fundamentally different.

Aug 3, 2012#290

GasBandit

[DOUBLEPOST=1344010470][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
Yeah, but most of them live in constant fear that their own neighborhood might become part of the warzone. I think it's fundamentally different.

You mean there are other variables in play in any given situation other than just whether or not there are guns? Shocking.

But actually, that shouldn't have any bearing at all, if the premise is that more guns = more murder. If things are almost a war zone, shouldn't there be more guns AND more murder?

Aug 3, 2012#291

strawman

No, no, no, I think what's being said is that if you take away all the guns in Israel, then gun related fatalities in the region would go down.

Aug 3, 2012#292

GasBandit

stienman said:
No, no, no, I think what's being said is that if you take away all the guns in Israel, then gun related fatalities in the region would go down.

Covar said:

Aug 3, 2012#293

ElJuski

and Halforums proves once again how far it can stick its head up its own ass in regards to the realities of US politics

Aug 3, 2012#294

sixpackshaker

So fuck the police, and then trust them to take all of our guns. Got it.

Aug 3, 2012#295

Charlie Don't Surf

at the end of this the police won't have guns either like in the UK.

also, I was joking about Murder-By-Cop being the spike in our gun deaths
but the police do kill a lot of people, and they don't need guns to do it! A Houston man died by tazer earlier this week whose crime was being sick and "scary" (read: a minority)

Aug 3, 2012#296

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Interestingly enough, the Israeli government provides uzis to its populace. If the sole impetus of violent crime is guns, shouldn't they have something approaching our level of shootings?

GasBandit said:
If the sole impetus of violent crime is guns

Nobody but Charlie and you (repeatedly) have made that claim. You constantly try to make the argument of your opponents into this, so that you can oppose it, but that's just cheap and easy (like UR MOM HARHAR). On the opposite side, Charlie thinks all guns are always bad and evil, giving you an easy opponent, too.

How about admitting, for once, that easy availability of guns (in all variations) has an impact on the number of accidental fatalities and fatalities during robberies/home invasions? I'm not asking you to say the government should control them, if you think the trade-off is worth it for your right to defend yourself I'll leave you to it - but can you, for once, say that, in a perfect world where there are no guns, less people would die? Perhaps there'd be more burglaries (not in Europe, but hey), perhaps all terrorism would be done with gas and microbes instead (not exactly the case right now in Europe either, but anyway), perhaps the government will come in and dominate all you poor Americans into slavery because, without guns, there's no possible way to fight back (lolwut) - whatever, I'm not arguing for or against.
I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to admit that, in general, an abundance of guns (in badly-trained hands, too) is dangerous.

Aug 3, 2012#297

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
Nobody but Charlie and you (repeatedly) have made that claim.

... I thought that was the issue at hand? Or did I misread the thread title?[DOUBLEPOST=1344017790][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bubble181 said:
How about admitting, for once, that easy availability of guns (in all variations) has an impact on the number of accidental fatalities and fatalities during robberies/home invasions?

It might. It probably does. It's hard to say to what degree, as was posted earlier removing the tool doesn't necessarily remove the murder.[DOUBLEPOST=1344017877][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bubble181 said:
I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to admit that, in general, an abundance of guns (in badly-trained hands, too) is dangerous.

Well, phrased THAT way (as in a loaded question) nobody would deny an "abundance of guns in badly trained hands" is dangerous. But couldn't that also be argued as a deficiency in training?

Aug 3, 2012#298

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
at the end of this the police won't have guns either like in the UK.

also, I was joking about Murder-By-Cop being the spike in our gun deaths
but the police do kill a lot of people, and they don't need guns to do it! A Houston man died by tazer earlier this week whose crime was being sick and "scary" (read: a minority)

1. Who is going to take the guns from the cops when the criminals still hold theirs? The Zetas and Gambinos are going to be harder to disarm than the gun-nuts.
2. The English cops are carrying guns more and more often.
3. I guess being sick did not have anything at all to do with the guy dying. Or his fighting the paramedics off...

Aug 3, 2012#299

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
But couldn't that also be argued as a deficiency in training?

Sure. I've argued that exact same thing in the past - I don't remember if it was this thread or one of the other ones - I said a draft/enforced civil service wuld allow everyone to have some basic training with a gun and would probably reduce gun accidents. Israel and Finland come to mind as coutries with a draft system, and more weapons, but much lower gun death rates. It's against the Consitution and whatever, so not the solution for the USA, but hey.

Aug 3, 2012#300

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Well, phrased THAT way (as in a loaded question) nobody would deny an "abundance of guns in badly trained hands" is dangerous. But couldn't that also be argued as a deficiency in training?

And a deficiency of responsibility as well. The Spider-Man rule ("With great power...") definitely comes into play.

--Patrick

Aug 3, 2012#301

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
It's against the Consitution and whatever, so not the solution for the USA, but hey.

Wait, what's against the constitution? Cause I know I for one had to register for the draft when I turned 18, and there are firearm training safety courses available all over the place.

Aug 3, 2012#302

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Wait, what's against the constitution? Cause I know I for one had to register for the draft when I turned 18, and there are firearm training safety courses available all over the place.

Then I'm misusing a word somewhere. Obligated 2 year military service between school and college?

Aug 3, 2012#303

sixpackshaker

Nobody born after 1952 has been drafted in the States.

Aug 3, 2012#304

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Nobody born after 1952 has been drafted in the States.

Yes, but not because doing so would be unconstitutional.

Aug 3, 2012#305

Tress

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding obligatory military service, one way or the other. We just haven't had a draft in 40 years since the Vietnam War made it a dirty word.

Aug 3, 2012#306

GasBandit

I had firearm training at summer camp of all things (little 22 cal rifles). I'm not sure that's still done today. But we could sure use some training regimen.

Aug 3, 2012#307

sixpackshaker

The best training that I've had was from my Dad.

Every gun is loaded, don't point a gun at something you don't want to destroy.

Then the next good piece came from reading an article about the Mt. Carmel Siege. It was a picture of an ATF officer standing around "WITH HIS FINGER ON THE TRIGGER!" Yeah, don't do that either. Only put your finger on the trigger when you have your target picked out. I saw a cop with 40+ years experience do that and he damn near killed himself when he fired the shotgun straight into the air.[DOUBLEPOST=1344020863][/DOUBLEPOST]and,

The best safety on a gun is the one between your ears.

Aug 3, 2012#308

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Wait, what's against the constitution? Cause I know I for one had to register for the draft when I turned 18, and there are firearm training safety courses available all over the place.

My apologies, I misremembered. You said it was in a draft for the Constitution, but didn't make the final cut. My bad.

In that case, giving everyone a few years of military practice with guns might go a long way in reducing your casualties due to guns being mishandled.

Aug 3, 2012#309

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
My apologies, I misremembered. You said it was in a draft for the Constitution, but didn't make the final cut. My bad.

In that case, giving everyone a few years of military practice with guns might go a long way in reducing your casualties due to guns being mishandled.

Ah, yes, the first draft of the 2nd amendment did have a no-conscription clause. I agree though that a national firearm training program would be beneficial and a much better use of federal dollars than quite a bit of what they're doing now.

Aug 3, 2012#310

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
a much better use of federal dollars than quite a bit of what they're doing now.

That list is pretty big.

--Patrick

Aug 3, 2012#311

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
I had firearm training at summer camp of all things (little 22 cal rifles). I'm not sure that's still done today. But we could sure use some training regimen.

I think this is why other countries with high gun ownership rates (Israel, I think Finland or Sweden, Russia) don't have it quite so bad: They have "mandatory" (you can get out of it) military service. So you get all the rules of gun ownership crammed into your head during basic training and not knowing it by heart isn't an option unless you feel like getting your ass kicked by the drill sergeant. This leads to a large percentage of gun owners not treating them like toys or unstoppable death machines.

Aug 3, 2012#312

GasBandit

So our general consensus is everyone should have a gun and be trained on its use?

Aug 3, 2012#313

Charlie Don't Surf

Nah!

Aug 3, 2012#314

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Nah!

So our general consensus sans the willfully ignorant is that everyone should have a gun and be trained on its use?

Aug 3, 2012#315

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
So our general consensus is everyone should have a gun and be trained on its use?

Hmm, no....I think the consensus would be more something along the lines of limited gun ownership/use is acceptable, if the owners are properly trained in its use. "Everyone should have one" is only you and 5 other people who think so. Hint: those are mr Smith, mr Wesson, mr Herstal, mr Winchester and mr Colt.*

*I'm aware Herstal is a small city, where the first factory was located. Winchester isn't the original owner's name either. I don't think either S&W or Colt are still owned by someoen by the name. And I'm aware there are lots of people who think everyone should own a gun. It's a joke. Lighten up.

Aug 3, 2012#316

tegid

The conclusion is (Guns/Amount of training) x (Cultural value of property/Cultural value of life) x Violence of culture should be kept at a low value.

Aug 3, 2012#317

GasBandit

tegid said:
The conclusion is (Guns/Amount of training) x (Cultural value of property/Cultural value of life) x Violence of culture should be kept at a low value.

I would kill every one of you sons of bitches for a donut.

Aug 3, 2012#318

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
I would kill every one of you sons of bitches for a donut.

How about those of us born from human parents?
*edit* and how 'bout the daughters of bitches, huh? SEXIST! Someone light the Charlie Symbol!

Aug 3, 2012#319

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
How about those of us born from human parents?
*edit* and how 'bout the daughters of bitches, huh? SEXIST! Someone light the Charlie Symbol!

I think it's been pages and days since a female partook in this thread - if at all, my memory's a bit fuzzy going that far back. As for born from humans, I'll believe that when I believe that.

Aug 3, 2012#320

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
I think it's been pages and days since a female partook in this thread

You're assuming most of us aren't female. Pictures can be faked. We're all jsut hiding our femininity because we're suppressed by the patriarchal society we live in. *cough* :aaah:

Aug 3, 2012#321

TommiR

GasBandit said:
I would kill every one of you sons of bitches for a donut.

The Libertarian Future - people killing each other for bite-sized morsels of something to eat

Aug 3, 2012#322

Charlie Don't Surf

Free market at work lol

Aug 3, 2012#323

Bubble181

TommiR said:
The Libertarian Future - people killing each other for bite-sized morsels of something to eat

I'll trade you 3 Howitzers, an Abrams and 5 ICBMs for a bowl of soup.

Aug 3, 2012#324

GasBandit

TommiR said:
The Libertarian Future - people killing each other for bite-sized morsels of something to eat

Actually, I'm fairly certain most of you would require more than one bite, and not leave room for the donut afterwards. :twisted:

Aug 3, 2012#325

SpecialKO

Switzerland has a ludicrous numbers of assault rifles because you get one for national service and are expected to keep it in your closet just in case the Belgians decide to resolve the Chocolate Wars in more direct fashion.

They avoid high numbers of gun deaths through almost every additional factor that's been mentioned in this thread so far (military service/training, sense of group identities, monocultural values, an extremely low rate of poverty aided by very well-funded social services, etc.). Suicide rate is relatively high, though.

Aug 3, 2012#326

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
, monocultural values, .

holy shit my dog-whistle just went off ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Aug 3, 2012#327

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
holy shit my dog-whistle just went off ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

*shrug*

Switzerland is really not especially ethnically diverse, it's relatively small, and the cities have extremely low poverty rates. There's very little in the way of cultural/socioeconomic dynamism that typifies large parts of the US, and when that monoculture is focused on being affluent and socially-liberal (in the support programs kind of way), the social circumstances that contribute to a violent crime culture are going to be much more rare.

Aug 3, 2012#328

Bubble181

First of all, it's the perfect example. Those guns, andf all that training, won't help them one bit when the Beglians come. Chocolate is ours, dammit.

Secondly, while you're pretty much entirely right about Switzerland, one small addendum: they do have several cultures (don't call a Retro-Roman a German

), heck, they have 4 different national languages, and the majority of some cantons is a different ethnicity and language than that of others. They all still get along, because, above all, they all feel Swiss. They're very proud of being from Tirol or whatever other canton they may hail from, but they're first and foremost Swiss. They feel united and whatever. While there are some cultural differences, they accept differences and work well together. No racial/ethnic/cultural tensions whatsoever. Feel free to compare and contrast to Belgium

Aug 3, 2012#329

tegid

Different cultures/ethnicities/whatever come into much more conflict when the differences in standard of living (some being rich and some poor) appear.

Aug 3, 2012#330

SpecialKO

Certainly not monoethnic, but the cultural differences are highly exaggerated (also, Romansch are a poor example - there's so few of them, being one is a matter of national pride; it's sort of like being Native American without the recent history of genocide). 4 different national languages is a lot less interesting when 65% of the country speaks one of them as a primary, and every Swiss high school student learns at least two of the others in school as a matter of course since elementary.

Which means that, unlike your country Bubble, the Swiss won't spend most of the war wondering what the fuck their own leaders are saying.

Aug 3, 2012#331

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
Certainly not monoethnic, but the cultural differences are highly exaggerated (also, Romansch are a poor example - there's so few of them, being one is a matter of national pride; it's sort of like being Native American without the recent history of genocide). 4 different national languages is a lot less interesting when 65% of the country speaks one of them as a primary, and every Swiss high school student learns at least two of the others in school as a matter of course since elementary.

Which means that, unlike your country Bubble, the Swiss won't spend most of the war wondering what the fuck their own leaders are saying.

You may mean that as a joke, but during WWI that was a real problem. All Belgian officers spoke French - they had to. Most of the actual soldiers, though, spoke Dutch. Since the French speaking people considered Dutch a peasant language, beneath them, and the Dutch speaking people often didn't have the possibility of learning French, that cost quite a lot of lives. There's a famous example where an officer gave a rousing speech for his men, to tell them how they were going to act, tio lead and inspire...And ended the speech with "et pour les Flamands la même chose" ("And the same goes for the Flemish!"). He'd basically given a speech no-one had understood. Lovely

But hey, all Flemish children still have to take 8 years of French class, so we understand them. The Wallonian children still have to choose between English and Dutch - can't blame them for taking English, really, but it does mean they don't understand us all that good. The German-speaking mostly speak French as their second language, too.

And that whole "65% speaks the same language" isn't that big a thing - over 65% of Belgians speaks Dutch as their primary language, after all.

Aug 3, 2012#332

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
So our general consensus is everyone should have a gun and be trained on its use?

I feel like this would also fulfill the "Well regulated militia" part too, so THAT argument can be put to rest once and for all. Make them undergo a week-long series of training classes (or something like that) to learn and get it drilled into their head. Then the certified instructor (who is licensed and bonded by the state/federal government) signs off on them if they don't act like fucking idiots. Give them a card/make note of it on their Driver's License. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but at least it help weed out the most idiotic, irresponsible, and mentally ill.

Aug 3, 2012#333

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
But hey, all Flemish children still have to take 8 years of French class, so we understand them. The Wallonian children still have to choose between English and Dutch - can't blame them for taking English, really, but it does mean they don't understand us all that good. The German-speaking mostly speak French as their second language, too.

So what you're saying is...the real problem is the French. :twisted:

Aug 3, 2012#334

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
So what you're saying is...the real problem is the French.

haven't we known that all along?

Aug 3, 2012#335

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
So our general consensus sans the willfully ignorant is that everyone should have a gun and be trained on its use?

Oh, I think everyone should be trained, but not everyone should have one. That way the unworthy will gain caution and respect, ~~and~~ but the responsible ones will be prepared.

--Patrick

Aug 3, 2012#336

Ermac

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Guns have literally never done anything productive in human history. All they do is kill people or destroy things. Ban them all, put any gunowner in prison longer than every drug offender.

This thread can be the lightning rod for the political mess coming out of the Massacre in Aurora this morning.

So you're saying we should throw people in prison for having a firearm they obtained legally? Banning firearms will mean only the criminals will have them then. When you get robbed by somebody with a firearm, you'll wish you had some effective means of defending yourself. "All they do is kill people"? That's like saying pencils give people bad grades and spoons make people fat.

Aug 4, 2012#337

tegid

Ermac said:
"All they do is kill people"? That's like saying pencils give people bad grades and spoons make people fat.

No, not really. Without getting into the discussion at hand, that's what guns are designed to do, not a sideffect, unintended consequence or secondary use people give to them.

Aug 4, 2012#338

Charlie Don't Surf

I thought we covered this already... I obviously don't support throwing every current gunowner in jail. That's the order. Ban them, allow some exchange program or something, some period of time for this whole deal to happen, THEN when its' clear they're illegal and people have had time and opportunity to get rid of their deadly weapons, then put them in jail if they persist.

Aug 4, 2012#339

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I thought we covered this already... I obviously don't support throwing every current gunowner in jail. That's the order. Ban them, allow some exchange program or something, some period of time for this whole deal to happen, THEN when its' clear they're illegal and people have had time and opportunity to get rid of their deadly weapons, then put them in jail if they persist.

Are you high?

Aug 4, 2012#340

SpecialKO

Charlie, didn't you just complain about how the US is a police state?

Aug 4, 2012#341

Frank

There are almost no countries on Earth (that I know of) where firearm ownership is outright banned.

Aug 4, 2012#342

strawman

Frank said:
There are almost no countries on Earth (that I know of) where firearm ownership is outright banned.

That seems to be the case. Japan turns out to be one of the most restrictive, here's an excerpt from a really interesting article comparing the US with Japan in terms of gun culture:

Even the most basic framework of Japan's approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America's. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that "No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords," later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.

Of course, Japan and the U.S. are separated by a number of cultural and historical difference much wider than their gun policies. Kopel explains that, for whatever reason, Japanese tend to be more tolerant of the broad search and seizure police powers necessary to enforce the ban. "Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police," he writes. But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.

Aug 4, 2012#343

Eriol

Frank said:
There are almost no countries on Earth (that I know of) where firearm ownership is outright banned.

Headline from June 1st, 2012 (yes, two months ago) from the BBC: Venezuela Bans Private Gun Ownership

And that's a dictatorship. I wonder why Chavez doesn't want the people to have guns?

I know we scoff at this in western democracies, and say "that's not what the 2nd amendment is for" and such, but really, when things are bad enough, IMO that's the real reason your 2nd amendment exists. Ultimately that's the ultimate "check" against government power IMO, that if things are bad enough, the people might actually rebel. Would it be effective? Probably not, but IMO that's what it's there for, but also why it's important to have on the books. I obviously don't have that right (Canadian), but I think as a philosophy it's not a bad one.

Aug 4, 2012#344

Ermac

Frank said:
There are almost no countries on Earth (that I know of) where firearm ownership is outright banned.

This true, but countries with strict gun control usually make it incredibly difficult and/or expensive for the average person, thus effectively banning firearms from the average person.

tegid said:
No, not really. Without getting into the discussion at hand, that's what guns are designed to do, not a sideffect, unintended consequence or secondary use people give to them.

I'm not disputing that they primarily made to kill people, you failed to understand my point. By saying "they kill people" is like saying they have a mind of their own, they just get up and kill people, which is not true. It's like saying "spoons make people fat."

Aug 4, 2012#345

Ermac

Why don't we ban cars all together or heavily restrict them? Make people wear helmets, etc. More people in the US die of car accidents than getting shot. Why don't we ban cigarettes? 53,800 people die of second hand smoke every year. Even if we banned firearms, it would not stop massacres. Timothy Mcveigh killed 76 people and he didn't fire a shot. The guy in aurora could have killed everybody with a bomb. And could have killed just as many people if not more. People say a gun makes it easier to kill people. In the middle east they kill just as many people if not more with IED's and other crude explosives. So that argument is invalid. Per capita 100,000 people, other countries that allow fairly easy ownership of firearms do not have the same number of firearms related deaths as the US. In other words, in the US, we kill each other on a much larger scale. It's not the firearms, it's the people. James Holmes is a product of twisted American society. We shoot up people overseas just like how we shoot up our own people in movie theatres.

Aug 4, 2012#346

SpecialKO

Ermac said:
People say a gun makes it easier to kill people. In the middle east they kill just as many people if not more with IED's and other crude explosives. So that argument is invalid.

wut?

Aug 4, 2012#347

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
wut?

A fork doesn't make it easier to eat ,because you can eat without a fork too. Yes, the circularity of the logic is stunning.

Aug 4, 2012#348

Ermac

Bubble181 said:
A fork doesn't make it easier to eat ,because you can eat without a fork too. Yes, the circularity of the logic is stunning.

Maybe I didn't elaborate enough. But this idea that a gun makes mass killings easier to do is not true, because in the middle east they kill more people with bombs in 1 attack than usually 1 person with a gun does.

Aug 4, 2012#349

Bubble181

Ermac said:
Maybe I didn't elaborate enough. But this idea that a gun makes mass killings easier to do is not true, because in the middle east they kill more people with bombs in 1 attack than usually 1 person with a gun does.

Yeah, look, if you don't see the logical flaw in that argument, I'm not even going to try, I'm in a bad mood and I'm just going to be either snarky, condescending, or insulting, which isn't my intention. But believe me, that's a fallacy if ever I saw one.

Aug 4, 2012#350

Tress

Bubble181 said:
Yeah, look, if you don't see the logical flaw in that argument, I'm not even going to try, I'm in a bad mood and I'm just going to be either snarky, condescending, or insulting, which isn't my intention. But believe me, that's a fallacy if ever I saw one.

I'll take a crack at it for you.

Bombs take a higher amount of knowledge to make and deploy in an effective manner. Guns make it easy for almost anyone to kill another person. Thus, Ermac's statement that "guns don't make it easier to kill people" is patently false.

I can see the flaw in your logic, and I'm against further gun control!

Aug 4, 2012#351

Charlie Don't Surf

Lol ermac, you mad? You went through and rated every old post of mine in this thread disagree, haha.

Here's some more cool police killing-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...s-carter-shot-jonesboro-police_n_1730997.html

Aug 4, 2012#352

Ermac

Tress said:
I'll take a crack at it for you.

Bombs take a higher amount of knowledge to make and deploy in an effective manner. Guns make it easy for almost anyone to kill another person. Thus, Ermac's statement that "guns don't make it easier to kill people" is patently false.

I can see the flaw in your logic, and I'm against further gun control!

If you're motivated enough to kill somebody, none of that matters. Nobody is going to give up just because they don't have a firearm. If they want to kill people in mass they'll find ways that are just as deadly if not more deadly, such as bomb making. Higher amount of knowledge? These people in the middle east don't have the education,materials, and money we have and yet they are so easily able to make bombs and blow up people. If you want to kill specific people accurately and precisely and without causing collateral damage and danger to yourself or those you care about, then a firearm makes it easier without a doubt. If you want to kill as many people as possible and not caring about those things, then a bomb is better in my eyes. If you're talking about person to person, then you're right that a firearm makes it easier.

Aug 4, 2012#353

Charlie Don't Surf

Ermac said:
If you're motivated enough to kill somebody, none of that matters. Nobody is going to give up just because they don't have a firearm. If they want to kill people in mass they'll find ways that are just as deadly if not more deadly, such as bomb making. Higher amount of knowledge? These people in the middle east don't have the education,materials, and money we have and yet they are so easily able to make bombs and blow up people. If you want to kill specific people accurately and precisely and without causing collateral damage and danger to yourself or those you care about, then a firearm makes it easier without a doubt. If you want to kill as many people as possible and not caring about those things, then a bomb is better in my eyes. If you're talking about person to person, then you're right that a firearm makes it easier.

how many bomb murders do you hear about that aren't acts of "terrorism" or political in nature in nations where guns are not readily available? has that ever happened in the world, once.

is your argument really that banning guns will make bomb murders go up?

Aug 4, 2012#354

sixpackshaker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Nope nobody ever killed another with an explosive just to kill a lot of people.

More terrorists are in it for the killing than you think too.

Aug 4, 2012#355

strawman

Guns make it easier to kill people. Otherwise we wouldn't have them - that's the whole purpose of a gun - make it easier to kill someone, or something if needed.

Aug 4, 2012#356

Tress

Wow.

This thread is reaching its saturation point of stupid, so I'm going to resume ignoring it.

Aug 4, 2012#357

AshburnerX

Charlie Don't Surf said:
how many bomb murders do you hear about that aren't acts of "terrorism" or political in nature in nations where guns are not readily available? has that ever happened in the world, once.

About the only time I can think of it happening was a Columbine, which was supposed to be primarily a bombing, but the explosives didn't detonate so they just started shooting.

Aug 4, 2012#358

Charlie Don't Surf

AshburnerX said:
About the only time I can think of it happening was a Columbine, which was supposed to be primarily a bombing, but the explosives didn't detonate so they just started shooting.

But I thought explosives were so fucking easy to make???? Even middle easterners can do it!!!!!

Aug 4, 2012#359

Ermac

Charlie Don't Surf said:
how many bomb murders do you hear about that aren't acts of "terrorism" or political in nature in nations where guns are not readily available? has that ever happened in the world, once.

is your argument really that banning guns will make bomb murders go up?

Political or terrorism is irrelevant to this argument. That's not my argument.[DOUBLEPOST=1344124476][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
But I thought explosives were so fucking easy to make???? Even middle easterners can do it!!!!!

But I thought guns made it to easy to kill people! Why did this guy miss at point blank range?
Why did the auroa shooter's drum magazine jam? Guns and bombs, both are man made devices and are subjectable to failure whether it's caused by the firearm or by the user. Nothing is perfect.

Aug 4, 2012#360

PatrThom

Ermac said:
Maybe I didn't elaborate enough. But this idea that a gun makes mass killings easier to do is not true, because in the middle east they kill more people with bombs in 1 attack than usually 1 person with a gun does.

I get what he's trying to say, which is that guns are not the only way to make killing people easier, Ermac is just not clearly stating this.

Charlie Don't Surf said:
But I thought explosives were so fucking easy to make???? Even middle easterners can do it!!!!!

They are incredibly easy to make, and your intimation that the average middle easterners [sic] are of below-average intelligence is just plain false. Procuring the ingredients (without giving away your intent) is usually the most difficult part. Also there is the part where if you mix them wrong you disappear in a puff of smoke. On top of that, no matter how easy something is to do, it will be very difficult for you to do if you have never done it before.

--Patrick

Aug 4, 2012#361

Ermac

sixpackshaker said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Nope nobody ever killed another with an explosive just to kill a lot of people.

More terrorists are in it for the killing than you think too.

Timothy McVeigh? What do you call that? And whether he did for the reason for killing a lot of people or for political reasons is totally irrelevant. He proved you can kill a lot of people without firing a shot.

Aug 4, 2012#362

PatrThom

I think he's stating that mass murder wasn't his actual intention, they were all just collateral damage. TMV was just trying to hurt The Government, and those people just happened to be inside of The Government's building at the time.

--Patrick

Aug 4, 2012#363

blotsfan

I don't think that explosives are a good comparison. Yeah you can kill a lot of people but you won't use an explosive in a heat of the moment scenario. If someone insults you and you want to kill them, you probably won't have a bomb you can just pull out and use. It is possible that you'd have a gun though.

Aug 4, 2012#364

Ermac

blotsfan said:
I don't think that explosives are a good comparison. Yeah you can kill a lot of people but you won't use an explosive in a heat of the moment scenario. If someone insults you and you want to kill them, you probably won't have a bomb you can just pull out and use. It is possible that you'd have a gun though.

We are talking about scenarios involving mass killing of people, not 1,2, or 3 people.

Aug 4, 2012#365

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Lol ermac, you mad? You went through and rated every old post of mine in this thread disagree, haha.

Here's some more cool police killing-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...s-carter-shot-jonesboro-police_n_1730997.html

That's some cool Gasbandit levels of misleading posting. You have no idea if those officers shot that man. No idea. You're jumping immediately to conclusions.

Aug 4, 2012#366

Ermac

PatrThom said:
I think he's stating that mass murder wasn't his actual intention, they were all just collateral damage. TMV was just trying to hurt The Government, and those people just happened to be inside of The Government's building at the time.

--Patrick

Like I said, the reason why he did it is totally irrelevant. I could flip the argument and say he could have killed even more people if his intention was just that, killing people.To my knowledge, no mass shooter in the US has managed to shoot 76 people all at once using only a firearm.

Aug 4, 2012#367

Charlie Don't Surf

Frank said:
That's some cool Gasbandit levels of misleading posting. You have no idea if those officers shot that man. No idea. You're jumping immediately to conclusions.

Because there's no way he had a gun, handcuffed behind his back, and magically shot himself in the wrong side temple

Aug 4, 2012#368

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Because there's no way he had a gun, handcuffed behind his back, and magically shot himself in the wrong side temple

You don't know any of that. You know what Huffington Post just put up.

Aug 5, 2012#369

Silent Bob

Ermac said:
Why don't we ban cars all together or heavily restrict them? Make people wear helmets, etc. More people in the US die of car accidents than getting shot. Why don't we ban cigarettes? 53,800 people die of second hand smoke every year. Even if we banned firearms, it would not stop massacres. Timothy Mcveigh killed 76 people and he didn't fire a shot. The guy in aurora could have killed everybody with a bomb. And could have killed just as many people if not more. People say a gun makes it easier to kill people. In the middle east they kill just as many people if not more with IED's and other crude explosives. So that argument is invalid. Per capita 100,000 people, other countries that allow fairly easy ownership of firearms do not have the same number of firearms related deaths as the US. In other words, in the US, we kill each other on a much larger scale. It's not the firearms, it's the people. James Holmes is a product of twisted American society. We shoot up people overseas just like how we shoot up our own people in movie theatres.

I don't agree with Charlie on full out banning guns, but don't do this.

Don't do the guns are the same a tools illogical argument. A knife is a tool first and foremost. So is a hammer. A gun has one primary purpose : kill things. Period. If you want to compare and make analogies for gun use, compare guns to other weapons; not tools.

Aug 5, 2012#370

Espy

Aug 5, 2012#371

Magister Moonie

I built my home by shooting bullets at nails to pound them into the wood How DARE you say they aren't tools.

Aug 5, 2012#372

Silent Bob

That reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer bought a gun and uses it to do everything from open beer cans to shooting the light out.[DOUBLEPOST=1344208937][/DOUBLEPOST]

Aug 5, 2012#373

strawman

Magister Moonie said:
I built my home by shooting bullets at nails to pound them into the wood How DARE you say they aren't tools.

I have the powder actuated nail gun for slamming nails into concrete. Loud, but boy it beats the heck out of drilling concrete.

Aug 5, 2012#374

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
I have the powder actuated nail gun for slamming nails into concrete. Loud, but boy it beats the heck out of drilling concrete.

who can forget the time a guy killed 7 people with a nail gun at a church?

Aug 5, 2012#375

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
who can forget the time a guy killed 7 people with a nail gun at a church?

Improperly secured building materials kill hundreds every year.

Aug 5, 2012#376

Bubble181

stienman said:
Improperly secured building materials kill hundreds every year.

Coconuts kill more than that.

BAN ALL COCONUTS

Aug 8, 2012#377

checkeredhat

Just another semi-related anecdote about the differences in Canadian and American gun culture:
http://gawker.com/5932846/
The gist of it:
American visiting Calgary during the Calgary stampede. He and his wife encounter two men who ask him "Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?", which terrifies he and his wife. When they don't respond, the two men ask again "Hey, you been to the stampede yet?". Naturally, according to this man, it's the type of confrontation we should be allowed to carry guns in order to protect ourselves against.
He then writes a letter to the editor to a Calgary newspaper decrying the gun laws that prohibit Americans from bringing their guns north of the border.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Nose Hill Park confrontation makes visitors feel unsafe/7050028/story.html

Aug 9, 2012#378

North_Ranger

checkeredhat said:
Just another semi-related anecdote about the differences in Canadian and American gun culture:
http://gawker.com/5932846/
The gist of it:
American visiting Calgary during the Calgary stampede. He and his wife encounter two men who ask him "Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?", which terrifies he and his wife. When they don't respond, the two men ask again "Hey, you been to the stampede yet?". Naturally, according to this man, it's the type of confrontation we should be allowed to carry guns in order to protect ourselves against.
He then writes a letter to the editor to a Calgary newspaper decrying the gun laws that prohibit Americans from bringing their guns north of the border.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Nose Hill Park confrontation makes visitors feel unsafe/7050028/story.html

I don't know whether I should laugh or face palm...

Aug 9, 2012#379

Bubble181

North_Ranger said:
I don't know whether I should laugh or face palm...

Facepalm, defintitely. Even if the two of them had been drunk and in-your-face and following them, beign a nuisance - would that have been cause to pull a gun on them? No, it wouldn't. The guy's an idiot beyond idiocy for thinking pulling a gun is a good idea at all in such a situation. Of course, in the US, those two guys might've been packing, too...

Aug 9, 2012#380

Silent Bob

Bubble181 said:
Facepalm, defintitely. Even if the two of them had been drunk and in-your-face and following them, beign a nuisance - would that have been cause to pull a gun on them? No, it wouldn't. The guy's an idiot beyond idiocy for thinking pulling a gun is a good idea at all in such a situation. Of course, in the US, those two guys might've been packing, too...

No they wouldn't be. Don't be stupid. I've lived in the Philadelphia area for a good 70% of my life. I've been mugged once - in one of the roughest parts of Philly. I still don't see a reason to carry. Why? Because I'm not afraid of everyone and everything, like most gun enthusiasts are. Funny enough, I find that the longer you've lived in a US metro area, the less afraid you are of people than in rural areas (where gun ownership is more common). It's a culture of fear, but it doesn't mean that everyone is packing.

Aug 9, 2012#381

AshburnerX

To be fair, if you do a google search on this guy's name, you find A LOT of stuff like this from him. He's a pretty vocal right wing christian.

Aug 9, 2012#382

Bubble181

Silent Bob said:
No they wouldn't be. Don't be stupid. I've lived in the Philadelphia area for a good 70% of my life. I've been mugged once - in one of the roughest parts of Philly. I still don't see a reason to carry. Why? Because I'm not afraid of everyone and everything, like most gun enthusiasts are. Funny enough, I find that the longer you've lived in a US metro area, the less afraid you are of people than in rural areas (where gun ownership is more common). It's a culture of fear, but it doesn't mean that everyone is packing.

I can see how you'd take that ouf my message, but that's not what I meant. I meant what I wrote: might have. In the USA, if you're accosted by a couple of (drunk/aggressive/...) guys in a park, there's a credible chance that they might be carrying a gun. Depending on where in the US, those odds might bze somewhat higher or lower....But they're definitely higher than anywhere in Canada or most of Europe (yes, yes, I'm sure there are regions somewhere between two Inuit where every guy has a gun, and there's Switzerland and Finland and whatever - but I'm, once again, exagerating for effect). Point was that, in the USA, carrying a gun to defend from all those evil bastards carrying guns makes some sort of sense. It wouldn't, at all, in Belgium, and even in Canada, it's rather peculiar and almost all Canadians will look at you funny for even thinking that way.

Aug 9, 2012#383

Ravenpoe

Hello anecdotal evidence. We meet again.

Aug 9, 2012#384

Covar

I remember the last time I ran into anecdotal evidence. It really brought down the atmosphere in the room.

Aug 9, 2012#385

North_Ranger

I can't speak for the States because 1.) I've never been there and 2.) that's a huge-ass territory on its own; making generalizations about certain things "State-side" is often as laughable as when our resident Ewok starts saying how everything is "in Europe" based on something that's gotten his ass-fur in a knot this time in the UK or in France. I have, however, travelled reasonably extensively in Europe and I have to say I've never been worried about getting robbed at gun-point. London, Milan, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Limerick, Dublin... not a single time. And with the exception of Copenhagen, I've been out and about in every one of those cities on foot after dark (Copenhagen being the exception because I believe I was six or seven at the time).

Heck, the only two times I have been unnerved I can pretty much name off the top of my head:

1.) Taking a bad turn in Rome on our first night there and accidentally walking into a bad neighbourhood, where we (my folks and I) feared being robbed. But other than lack of street lights, there was nothing.

2.) Coming home from a party in Limerick, where while waiting for the taxi I ended up mouthing back to some asshole who drove by and yelled to me and a friend that we were gay. I called him back an asshole, the car stopped and started backing up... I thought "Oh f***, nice going, now you're gonna get beaten up". But the taxi arrived just then and we got away. I was afraid of getting beaten, but never for a second did I consider the guy might be packing heat. Hell, even the bad part of the city was called "Stab City".

Just my tidbits of anecdotes. I will tell you how I found the States in comparison if I ever manage to get there.[DOUBLEPOST=1344519576][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, there was the time when me and some fellow international students were in Dublin and a guy came across us saying "Hey, wanna buy some weed?". But that was in broad daylight, and frankly speaking more hilarious than threatening.

One of the Americans in our group, a young man from DC, actually said that made him feel like home... :awesome:

Aug 9, 2012#386

checkeredhat

I certainly didn't mean to submit that story as "evidence", and even called it an anecdote myself. All it is, is a funny story that is quasi-related to the debate you guys are having. I'd have thought we could just all agree that it's a rather silly situation and have a laugh about it.

Aug 9, 2012#387

Silent Bob

Bubble181 said:
In the USA, if you're accosted by a couple of (drunk/aggressive/...) guys in a park, there's a credible chance that they might be carrying a gun. Depending on where in the US, those odds might bze somewhat higher or lower....But they're definitely higher than anywhere in Canada or most of Europe (yes, yes, I'm sure there are regions somewhere between two Inuit where every guy has a gun, and there's Switzerland and Finland and whatever - but I'm, once again, exagerating for effect). Point was that, in the USA, carrying a gun to defend from all those evil bastards carrying guns makes some sort of sense. It wouldn't, at all, in Belgium, and even in Canada, it's rather peculiar and almost all Canadians will look at you funny for even thinking that way.

I still don't agree at all. I'd say if you're accosted by a couple of drunk guys in a park, they'll ask you for directions back to the frat house or a pizza shop.

Don't make generalizations like everyone here packs heat. We really don't.

Aug 9, 2012#388

Magister Moonie

Bubble181 has a doctorate in Americology.[DOUBLEPOST=1344551397][/DOUBLEPOST]

checkeredhat said:
I certainly didn't mean to submit that story as "evidence", and even called it an anecdote myself. All it is, is a funny story that is quasi-related to the debate you guys are having. I'd have thought we could just all agree that it's a rather silly situation and have a laugh about it.

If you ever want to make your anecdotal evidence sound more reliable, just refer to it as a case study.

Aug 9, 2012#389

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
Point was that, in the USA, carrying a gun to defend from all those evil bastards carrying guns makes some sort of sense.

There really aren't a lot of people walking around carrying guns. :confused:

Aug 10, 2012#390

Bubble181

I'm not saying they are all carrying guns. I'm not saying most people in the US carry guns. I'm not even saying a large percentage of Americans are carrying guns. I'm not even saying a lot of Americans are carrying guns.
I'm most certainly not saying that, when you're approached by a couple of, let's be negative here, drunk, aggressive, intimidating, men who seem like they want to harm you*, they're likely to carry a gun, or that it would be a good move to pull your own gun.

I am saying that, from the point of view of a paranoid idiot, it "makes sense" to carry a gun because you might run into someone carrying a gun. In, say, Belgium, even for a paranoid crackpot, it doesn't make sense - even most bank robberies are done here without fire arms. Housejackings, carjackings, whatever are done mostly always without weaponry (seriously, I saw the statistics a few weeks ago, and the number of violent crimes with a fire-arm in the past year was somewhere in the low hundreds, for all of Belgium. About the same amount of people as New York, though we're obviously not one big city

).

Say that, upon being accosted by two men in a park, there's a 1% chance they're up to no good*. If they are, let's say there's a 1% chance of them having a gun if in a big US city. Let's say there's about a 0.01% chance in Belgium. See the difference? In the one, you might run into a gun-wielding criminal once every 10.000 times.*** In the other, once in every million.

I think that you're underestimating the complete culture of fear being brought down on us (especially the Americans) by the media all the time, and how many people really do believe whatever's in the paper. If you're told, every day, for years on end, how dangerous the city is, how dangerous the parks, how all criminals have guns, how everyone's out to steal/abuse/kill you...In the end, some people will believe it, and start carrying a gun for "protection".

*Not saying this was the case in Calgary. The guy's a nutjob and they were probably two upstanding gentlemen who just wanted to be polite. I'm talking from the perspective of a paranoid ~~android~~ idiot here.
**and started making trouble in the neighbourhood. You got in one little fight, and your mom got scared....
*** And yes, even that's probably still on the high side. I'm exagerating here.

Aug 10, 2012#391

Silent Bob

Ok, now I get what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

Aug 10, 2012#392

SpecialKO

It is one of the reasons why New Yorkers don't have particularly high opinions of tourists. I was once asked for directions from a family who literally went pale when I told them that the best way to get to the American Museum of Natural History was to take the subway in broad daylight.

Aug 10, 2012#393

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
It is one of the reasons why New Yorkers don't have particularly high opinions of tourists. I was once asked for directions from a family who literally went pale when I told them that the best way to get to the American Museum of Natural History was to take the subway in broad daylight.

When I was a tourist in NY, Itook the subway every day, in daytime and in the evening. It was cleaner, easier to understand, and generally more fun to be in, than the Brussels subway system. I'm sure there are hellhole lines among them, but in general I got the impression it wasn't al lthat bad. NY subway just gets a bad rep in tv shows and movies.

Aug 10, 2012#394

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
When I was a tourist in NY, Itook the subway every day, in daytime and in the evening. It was cleaner, easier to understand, and generally more fun to be in, than the Brussels subway system. I'm sure there are hellhole lines among them, but in general I got the impression it wasn't al lthat bad. NY subway just gets a bad rep in tv shows and movies.

Right? It's really kind of perplexing. I know NYC was a really bad place for a long while, but that was 20 years ago (25 if you're only counting substantially cleaning up the subways).

Aug 10, 2012#395

sixpackshaker

The hell hole rep came from the 70's and 80's when it was quite dangerous. It is a real disservice to the subway that the reputation continues.

Aug 10, 2012#396

ZenMonkey

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Guns have literally never done anything productive in human history. All they do is kill people or destroy things. Ban them all, put any gunowner in prison longer than every drug offender..

Before I became ill, I was a competitive fencer. Since becoming progressively more and more disabled, I can barely walk around the block, let alone engage in any kind of sport.

Then I took up target shooting, since I'm married to an ex-military gun expert (not a "gun nut"). I've been delighted to find that it's something I can do without ending up in total hell for the next week, and also a sport Mr. ZM and I can do together since we can no longer hike, play tennis, etc. Sighting down the barrel gives me the same mental release that fencing did: everything in the world goes away and my attention is completely focused on one tiny point. After an hour at the range, I'm physically exhausted but my worries and all the shit I have to deal with trying to exist solely from my bed allllll go away. For that hour I'm able-bodied again -- and as it turns out, not a bad shooter!

Just a little perspective on "never done anything productive."

Aug 10, 2012#397

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
The hell hole rep came from the 70's and 80's when it was quite dangerous. It is a real disservice to the subway that the reputation continues.

Exactly. The MTA are a bunch of corrupt, thieving assholes, but the subways have been reasonably safe for decades.

Aug 12, 2012#398

Frank

Hey, here's a pretty letter that just shows, quite plainly, the cultural divide Canadians and Americans have on this issue of guns.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinio...makes+visitors+feel+unsafe/7050028/story.html

Aug 12, 2012#399

SpecialKO

*cough*
Frankie, good buddy, we've been discussing (and mocking) that letter for a page now.

It really is kind of perverse how American gun culture seems to frequently make people more afraid of other people.

Aug 12, 2012#400

Frank

Sigh, I missed the last page I guess. OH WELP. Egg on my face.

Aug 12, 2012#401

Tress

Frank said:
Sigh, I missed the last page I guess. OH WELP. Egg on my face.

You have brought shame upon your house. There is only one way this can end honorably.

Aug 12, 2012#402

BananaHands

BAN EVERY FRANK

Aug 13, 2012#403

Necronic

Only thing I get from that letter is that some American's choose to live in a culture of fear.

Aug 13, 2012#404

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
Only thing I get from that letter is that some American's choose to live in a culture of fear.

Then if they live in a large town and watch the news daily... then that choice is taken away from them. Because it sounds like a daily occurrence that someone getting murdered in a town of any size.

Aug 13, 2012#405

Necronic

So what? People fall and die in the shower every day and you don't go into the shower thinking it's some kind of murder box do you?

People choose to be afraid. This isn't Africa ffs.

Aug 13, 2012#406

Covar

Necronic said:
So what? People fall and die in the shower every day and you don't go into the shower thinking it's some kind of murder box do you?

I didn't before now, THANKS!
:hide:

Aug 13, 2012#407

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
So what? People fall and die in the shower every day and you don't go into the shower thinking it's some kind of murder box do you?

People choose to be afraid. This isn't Africa ffs.

Right, most of Africa is safer ffs.

Aug 13, 2012#408

GasBandit

Aug 13, 2012#409

Bowielee

your're?

Aug 13, 2012#410

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
your're?

A demotivational with a spelling/grammar error? CALL GUINESS, it's UNPRECEDENTED!

Aug 13, 2012#411

blotsfan

You mean Guinness.

Aug 13, 2012#412

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
Right, most of Africa is safer ffs.

This is a joke right? You're saying that most of Africa is safer than America? This may take the cake for one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this forum.

Aug 13, 2012#413

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
You mean Guinness.

... you win this round. But I'll be back.

Aug 13, 2012#414

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
This is a joke right? You're saying that most of Africa is safer than America? This may take the cake for one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this forum.

Africa is a very large continent. And there are a few hot spots. If you are not in one of the nations that is in open warfare, or in a gang ran slum in South Africa, you will not face the chance of being shot.

Now you may not live long do to sanitary and environmental issues...

No, "ffs" is the dumbest thing I've read on this board.

Aug 13, 2012#415

Bowielee

south africa has the highest murder rate in the world. only a few tiny countries in north africa have lower homicide rates than the US.

Aug 13, 2012#416

Bubble181

Bowielee said:
south africa has the highest murder rate in the world. only a few tiny countries in north africa have lower homicide rates than the US.

I completely agree with you, except with the slight addendum that Morocco and such aren't exactly tiny. In 2010 numbers, Egypt, Tunesia and Libya all had lower homicide rates, too, but I guess their numbers have shot up since.
But generally, Africa has a much higher homicide and violent crime rate than the USA. You're not that backwards

Aug 13, 2012#417

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
Africa is a very large continent. And there are a few hot spots. If you are not in one of the nations that is in open warfare, or in a gang ran slum in South Africa, you will not face the chance of being shot.

Now you may not live long do to sanitary and environmental issues...

No, "ffs" is the dumbest thing I've read on this board.

Ok, so yeah, rural areas aren't that dangerous in Africa. As opposed to that corn field in Iowa where people are being murdered left and right.

But please, go on, I would like to hear more about all the people that are fleeing the dangerous land of America for the safety of Africa.

Aug 13, 2012#418

Ravenpoe

Necronic said:
Ok, so yeah, rural areas aren't that dangerous in Africa. As opposed to that corn field in Iowa where people are being murdered left and right.

But please, go on, I would like to hear more about all the people that are fleeing the dangerous land of America for the safety of Africa.

I'd happily live in Detroit than anywhere in Africa.

Well, maybe not happily

Aug 13, 2012#419

Necronic

Whelp

Aug 14, 2012#420

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Whelp

That article is rather misleading. It was not an "on campus." It was off campus. Constables had gone to serve him eviction papers, he opened fire killing a constable and a bystander, and wounding 4 other people. The gunman died of his wounds in the shootout with police.

Aug 14, 2012#421

PatrThom

More like suicide by cop than an actual homicide.

--Patrick

Aug 14, 2012#422

sixpackshaker

i disagree. He shot 5 people, he was trying to kill. Suicide by cop is normally done by threats and threatening actions alone.

Aug 14, 2012#423

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
i disagree. He shot 5 people, he was trying to kill. Suicide by cop is normally done by threats and threatening actions alone.

Perhaps murder-suicide by cop. I don't see how he expected to survive the ordeal.

In unrelated news, I just noticed by quoting you that your user number is 404. Are you missing?

Aug 14, 2012#424

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
Perhaps murder-suicide by cop. I don't see how he expected to survive the ordeal.

In unrelated news, I just noticed by quoting you that your user number is 404. Are you missing?

Darn, I'd rather be 403 Request Denied

Aug 14, 2012#425

Necronic

Yeah, I posted it right as the news came out. Didn't realize there was already a thread about it so I put it in here. Really wasn't an appropriate place for it either.

Aug 14, 2012#426

@Li3n

And here we have the best pro-gun control argument ever: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/tra...unarmed-us-tourists-fears-20120813-243nt.html

Aug 14, 2012#427

sixpackshaker

I'd love to see that article for the 4th time.

Aug 14, 2012#428

GasBandit

Aug 14, 2012#429

Magister Moonie

Oh thank god, it wasn't really a shooting on campus

Aug 14, 2012#430

GasBandit

Magister Moonie said:
Oh thank god, it wasn't really a shooting on campus

Hi, Mr. Passive Aggressive sarcasm. Yes, that's an important distinction. Calling something an on-campus shooting when it isn't falsely implies the endangerment of untold numbers of college students. IE - yellow journalism for clicks/viewers.

Aug 14, 2012#431

Frank

Well, on the topic of that Calgary Herald letter. I got yelled at last night by a friend of mine while we we're discussing it as a group for being so dismissive. Apparently the letter writer would have been better off in the situation had he pulled a gun. She's kind of become a complete fear monger lately to the point where she yelled at some teenagers flirting in a park over the weekend for helping to promote rape culture. The boy had picked up the girl and she shrieked while giggling.

So, thanks world for breaking someone who used to be rational.

Aug 15, 2012#432

@Li3n

sixpackshaker said:
I'd love to see that article for the 4th time.

Wait, it's only been posted 3 times?! Man, this forum really is dying....

Aug 15, 2012#433

Covar

Well if you guys want to see a pro-gun control argument...

On the plus side, I survived another day walking out into the street. There were a couple close calls, but thankfully I managed to avoid all the shooting and murder that was going on.

Aug 15, 2012#434

Charlie Don't Surf

Pro Gun Control argument: "I want to kill people"

Aug 15, 2012#435

@Li3n

Covar said:
On the plus side, I survived another day walking out into the street. There were a couple close calls, but thankfully I managed to avoid all the shooting and murder that was going on.

But did you manage to scare off anyone trying to give you free tickets?

Aug 15, 2012#436

Charlie Don't Surf

Gun violence is terrible, its numbers are staggering, and it doesn't only happen in movie theaters to white people, in Texas to constables doing their thankless job, or in Wisconsin Temples to the devoutly religious:

http://gawker.com/5934608/chicagos-...eater-but-its-still-the-worlds-deadliest-city

Two months before alleged killer James Holmes stormed a Colorado movie theater, murdering 12 and injuring dozens more, police and politicians in a different place were trying to squelch the tremors from their own mass killing. It was in Chicago, over Memorial Day weekend, when police responded to more than 40 shooting victims in about 72 hours. Ten of those victims were shot dead, including four teenage children. Alas, despite the fact that more people died that weekend than in both the August 5 Sikh killings and yesterday's College Station shootings combined, there will be no flags at half-staff for those 10 Chicagoans. It's likely you didn't even know those people were dead, just like most of your friends and family. In a summer of now three much-lamented shootings with multiple victims, Chicago's murdered are the forgotten ones.

Because people in the media like to compare and contrast things in order to add perspective, there are now dozens of ways to look at Chicago's murder rate: In May, it was up 49 percent from last year. The Windy City's murder rate is worse than the murder rate in Kabul, a literal war zone. It's worse than New York, a city three times its size. And trumping them all: It's the worst murder rate out of every so-called "Alpha" city in the entire world, a grouping that includes even historically rough locales like Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and New York.

This could deserve its own thread, but we already have this one. And I feel bad for my immediately previous flippant / mean post.

Aug 15, 2012#437

GasBandit

In 1982, Chicago instituted a ban on handguns (that was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 2010). By 2005, guns were used in 75% of chicago's murders and handguns were 96% of those murders that used guns (pages 25-27), up from 40% when the ban was instituted.

There's no such thing as a "gun free" zone, and criminalizing gun ownership merely ensures that only criminals (and of course, your friendly government) has guns.

Aug 15, 2012#438

Tress

GasBandit said:
There's no such thing as a "gun free" zone, and criminalizing gun ownership merely ensures that only criminals (and of course, your friendly government) has guns.

Not to mention the huge boost it would be to organized crime and other black market dealers. Virtually the only people who would be prevented from having guns would be responsible, law-abiding citizens who weren't a danger to society in the first place.

Aug 15, 2012#439

GasBandit

BAN EVERY FROWN

Aug 15, 2012#440

Magister Moonie

Gared said:
Let's face it. The only way to completely end all gun violence would be to confiscate and destroy every single gun in the world, including those in use by the police, the military, and any other governmental force; then throw away all of the design specs for guns, shut down every gun manufacturer in the world, and find some way to cause everyone in the world to forget about the existence of guns.

Then we'd be having a thread about banning all knives, or spears, or bricks.

okay done

Aug 15, 2012#441

tegid

GasBandit said:
In 1982, Chicago instituted a ban on handguns (that was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 2010). By 2005, guns were used in 75% of chicago's murders and handguns were 96% of those murders that used guns (pages 25-27), up from 40% when the ban was instituted.

There's no such thing as a "gun free" zone, and criminalizing gun ownership merely ensures that only criminals (and of course, your friendly government) has guns.

It seems awfully easy to smuggle guns into a city. I don't think it's comparable at all to bans or more control on a nationwide scale.

Aug 15, 2012#442

Tress

tegid said:
It seems awfully easy to smuggle guns into a city. I don't think it's comparable at all to bans or more control on a nationwide scale.

You're right. When they banned alcohol in 1919, that shit was gone. No one had a single drop of beer or whiskey for over a decade. Organized crime suffered dramatically because everyone got together and unanimously agreed that alcohol was bad and no one should have it, and it lead directly to a golden age for America.

Aug 15, 2012#443

blotsfan

Aug 15, 2012#444

PatrThom

Gared said:
Then we'd be having a thread about banning all knives, or spears, or bricks.

ROCKETS!
(or dogs with bees in their mouths)

--Patrick

Aug 16, 2012#445

tegid

Tress said:
You're right. When they banned alcohol in 1919, that shit was gone. No one had a single drop of beer or whiskey for over a decade. Organized crime suffered dramatically because everyone got together and unanimously agreed that alcohol was bad and no one should have it, and it lead directly to a golden age for America.

I'm not saying that banning all guns is a good idea. It's obviously a bad idea. I was just pointing out that the argument didn't really work. I should've said I wasn't trying to make a point.
(In general and for most dangerous things, like guns and drugs, I am in favour of strong regulation but against absolute ban. Another example is decreased drug consumption rates in the Netherlands).

Aug 18, 2012#446

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
In 1982, Chicago instituted a ban on handguns (that was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 2010). By 2005, guns were used in 75% of chicago's murders and handguns were 96% of those murders that used guns (pages 25-27), up from 40% when the ban was instituted.

There's no such thing as a "gun free" zone, and criminalizing gun ownership merely ensures that only criminals (and of course, your friendly government) has guns.

Funny thing about %, they don't tell you if murders went up or down...

Aug 18, 2012#447

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Funny thing about %, they don't tell you if murders went up or down...

I'M GOING TO KILL YOU
...but only 96%.

Actually, those stats would be valid if the total # of murders went down significantly, but the number of gun deaths was unchanged. It's a lot like the stats about heart disease.
"Heart disease is the #1 killer of American citizens, up 500% since 1864!*" is not a very useful statistic since people in the 19th century usually died of trauma, tuberculosis, or some other cause long before they ever had a chance to succumb to heart disease.

--Patrick
*Total BS numbers just invented as an example.

Forums