Gun Control

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

So again as I said there has been no legistlation brought forward to ban guns.

Yes, there clearly has as shown in that video if you'd actually watch it. They're not going to ban them all at once.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yeah, the other two aren't really relevant to citizens within the country.

Whomever. Once people decide to take up arms it's not a case of right vs wrong it's a case of winner vs loser. What gave the "moderate rebels" the right to rebel against Assad? I think most would agree its when the government starts breaking its own laws, committing genocide. There is already precedent that a person can use lethal force against a cop during a no knock raid. A man shot a member of a swat team dead during a no knock raid on the wrong address and he was acquitted. So there is precedent for armed citizens defending themselves from illegal government actions.

Ahhh so these other 2 factors which make it ok in your eyes for citizens to start shooting and killing because they don't like their government are not really relevant to the citizens within the country who are the ones making the decisions and doing the shooting and killing.


Again we are talking about the United States here and your claim about needing guns to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government.


You still have not addressed who gets to decide when its ok for citizens to start shooting and killing because some citizens do not like the decisions the government makes. What number of citizens does it take for that decision to be valid?
Who gets to decide what is a tyrannt? Who gets to decide when the government has become so tyrannical that it is ok to start shooting and killing?
As I said before the idea that a group of people can say its time and its ok to start shooting and killing because they claim the government is so tyrannical that is an incredible and dangerous precedent to set and that is a massive understatement I would say.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yes, there clearly has as shown in that video if you'd actually watch it. They're not going to ban them all at once.

So the point stands there is no legislation that has been brought forward to ban guns and yes I did listen to what Cruz said.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

No it is indeed the only truly free country because at any moment our governments in Europe could turn tyrannical and put us in camps and there's nothing we could do about it. If that were to happen in America the people would have the means to resist.

How do you explain the fact that our governments in Europe have not, in fact, turned tyrannical and put us in camps? If the only thing preventing this is a heavily-armed populace, shouldn't it have happened by now?

walshyn93 wrote: »

The fact is, a tyrannical US government would not last long fighting against its own people in terms of public opinion and practicality, but without those people being armed there wouldn't even be a fight.

I get that the reason many Americans are desperate to hold on to their guns is the firmly-held belief that they are the only thing preventing an otherwise despotic government from enslaving them all.

My question is: why are you so utterly certain that (a) the people could successfully defend themselves against the world's best-equipped military as long as they had their AR15s, and (b) the same people would be as helpless as kittens if they had to depend on less weaponry?

I will admit, these questions are rhetorical. If someone is convinced that their own government is so hell-bent on their destruction that only a semi-automatic weapon will keep them at bay, while simultaneously believing that a semi-automatic weapon will, in fact, keep so tyrannical a government at bay, then I don't think there's a great deal to be achieved through mere logic or reason.

ancapailldorcha

walshyn93 is currently one a week's holiday so you might have to wait a while before getting a response.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you explain the fact that our governments in Europe have not, in fact, turned tyrannical and put us in camps? If the only thing preventing this is a heavily-armed populace, shouldn't it have happened by now?



I get that the reason many Americans are desperate to hold on to their guns is the firmly-held belief that they are the only thing preventing an otherwise despotic government from enslaving them all.

My question is: why are you so utterly certain that (a) the people could successfully defend themselves against the world's best-equipped military as long as they had their AR15s, and (b) the same people would be as helpless as kittens if they had to depend on less weaponry?

I will admit, these questions are rhetorical. If someone is convinced that their own government is so hell-bent on their destruction that only a semi-automatic weapon will keep them at bay, while simultaneously believing that a semi-automatic weapon will, in fact, keep so tyrannical a government at bay, then I don't think there's a great deal to be achieved through mere logic or reason.

Have you reread that first paragraph since you wrote it?

A motivated, comparatively poorly armed force has been shown to be capable of successfully fighting a better equipped military on multiple occasions. In the event that an actual conflict developed in the US against the Federal Government, as happened in the Civil War, you would have National Guard units fighting against the Government, units with access to the same advanced weaponry employed by the Federal Military.

With regards to the relevancy of the 2nd as protection against tyranny, the Battle of Athens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 was illustrative. Personally, I feel a Government should be fearful of its citizens, lest it feel that it can rule without concern or regard for ordinary people.

Overheal

Higher military technology would probably be useless in a civil war to the insurgent side though, depending on how networked it becomes. Network centric warfare would dominate the fighting ability of a straight up fight.

AbusesToilets

It depends, a more networked military is very vulnerable to disruption. Motivated hackers could do some serious damage, especially as any defecting units would, at least initially, have access to the same networks as the Federal forces.

Manic Moran

walshyn93 wrote: »

In the sense that they can own guns and defend themselves. In countries like the UK you're expected to flee from an intruder in your home.

Eh? No. The Castle Doctrine is a British invention and dates back to a 14th Century legal precedent. The British may not have access to firearms in the same way as we have in the US, but they are under no legal obligation to flee their home should they choose to make a stand with whatever they happen to have handy.

On other matters,

One has to be careful about the difference between outright bans, and bans in all-but-name.

California's regulation is an excellent case in point. We have what we call the "Safe Handgun Roster". Well, technically, no politician wanted to be on the record of saying any handguns are safe, so they are reported as "not unsafe." But anyway. The gist behind this is that all handguns on sale in California must be submitted for tests, and have certain listed 'safety features.' If it passes the tests (three firearms must be submitted, with 6,000 rounds of ammo), they are added to the roster of handguns certified for sale in California.

This seems not unreasonable at face value. After all, who wouldn't want a gun which doesn't fire when it's dropped, or which doesn't blow up after 4,500 rounds? I'm sure all sorts of folks would support it.

The problem is that the effect of the system in real life is that Californians are rapidly running out of handguns 'legal' for purchase, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, over time, California has added more and more 'required' safety features, which most sensible gun owners don't want and so are not offered by the manufacturer, or which aren't sufficiently advanced technologically to be produced, such as microstamping. Secondly, a fee must be paid for each model (down to color of the gun) and the gun re-certified every five years. If it isn't paid, the gun suddenly becomes 'unsafe' and is removed from the roster. And, of course, some 'older' firearms are simply replaced on the production line by something else... which isn't 'safe' by California's legislation. "Unsafe" guns are still legal for purchase for police use, for some reason.

So the effect is as follows:
In 2008, about 1,400 handgun models were authorised for sale in California.
In 2014, when the latest batch of requirements hit, that number was 1,152. Today, we're down to 741, with this year over 80 models being removed, and four (two derringers and two revolvers) added. Companies such as S&W and Ruger have announced that they will not be manufacturing firearms which attain California's 'safety' standards and are leaving the California market. And, of course, as a California resident, you can't go to Nevada and buy one.

With 'regulations' like this which 'aren't bans' but are, in effect, bans, I think you can understand why there is such a hot reaction to things which restrict availability.

melissak

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think the idea that you can catch someone who may become suicidal in their lifetime with a background check to be fanciful at best.

And if a person does become suicidal the lack of a gun won't stop them. Are most suicides gun related. I doubt it. Will we stop people who might be depressed buying ropes, knives, cars...

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Have you reread that first paragraph since you wrote it?

Yup. Strangely enough, I'm still not reading it from an internment camp, despite living in a country where it's quite difficult to legally own a firearm.

A motivated, comparatively poorly armed force has been shown to be capable of successfully fighting a better equipped military on multiple occasions. In the event that an actual conflict developed in the US against the Federal Government, as happened in the Civil War, you would have National Guard units fighting against the Government, units with access to the same advanced weaponry employed by the Federal Military.

I'm struggling to see the relevance to being able to legally own 30-round magazines.

With regards to the relevancy of the 2nd as protection against tyranny, the Battle of Athens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 was illustrative. Personally, I feel a Government should be fearful of its citizens, lest it feel that it can rule without concern or regard for ordinary people.

I prefer to live in a society that isn't organised around mutual fear. Maybe that's just me.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Have you reread that first paragraph since you wrote it?

A motivated, comparatively poorly armed force has been shown to be capable of successfully fighting a better equipped military on multiple occasions. In the event that an actual conflict developed in the US against the Federal Government, as happened in the Civil War, you would have National Guard units fighting against the Government, units with access to the same advanced weaponry employed by the Federal Military.

With regards to the relevancy of the 2nd as protection against tyranny, the Battle of Athens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 was illustrative. Personally, I feel a Government should be fearful of its citizens, lest it feel that it can rule without concern or regard for ordinary people.

You're right a government should fearful of the electorate. But that should have nothing to do with fire arms. The greatest weapon the people have is a vote.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

. The greatest weapon the people have is a vote.

A parallel with the claimed Andrew Jackson quote "Judge Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!" comes to mind.

The greatest weapon the people have is the people and their physical capabilities themselves. North Korean people have a vote, after all.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. Strangely enough, I'm still not reading it from an internment camp, despite living in a country where it's quite difficult to legally own a firearm. I'm struggling to see the relevance to being able to legally own 30-round magazines. I prefer to live in a society that isn't organised around mutual fear. Maybe that's just me.

Given the fact that two genocides (three if you include Turkey) have occurred in Europe in the past century, that statement reeks of willful ignorance.

You are certainly comfortable in your situation, I like having the ability to defend myself and my family from predation if necessary.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Given the fact that two genocides (three if you include Turkey) have occurred in Europe in the past century, that statement reeks of willful ignorance.

You are certainly comfortable in your situation, I like having the ability to defend myself and my family from predation if necessary.

Three years ago, I spent a total of about nine weeks in Colorado, visiting my girlfriend who had a job there for almost a year. During that time, her office was placed in lockdown because of a manhunt for an ex-employee who had shot his girlfriend on the on-ramp to the interstate beside our apartment block. A colleague of my OH had a daughter murdered. And, a few miles up the road in Aurora, several people were shot dead in a cinema.

But if you feel that a heavily-armed populace makes you safer, and that I'm the one who's willfully ignorant, I doubt that anything I say will change your mind.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

Three years ago, I spent a total of about nine weeks in Colorado, visiting my girlfriend who had a job there for almost a year. During that time, her office was placed in lockdown because of a manhunt for an ex-employee who had shot his girlfriend on the on-ramp to the interstate beside our apartment block. A colleague of my OH had a daughter murdered. And, a few miles up the road in Aurora, several people were shot dead in a cinema.

But if you feel that a heavily-armed populace makes you safer, and that I'm the one who's willfully ignorant, I doubt that anything I say will change your mind.

People committing crimes, is that something unique to the US? How well did the police do at stopping those murders before that happened? Or any mass shooting?

Saying that Europe has been some bastion of safety and that there have been no occasions of governments oppressing and murdering their citizens is what I was calling willfully ignorant.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Saying that Europe has been some bastion of safety and that there have been no occasions of governments oppressing and murdering their citizens is what I was calling willfully ignorant.

I'll spell this out for the avoidance of doubt: the argument is that a heavily-armed populace is necessary to keep tyrannical governments at bay, and that a heightened risk of being murdered by one of your heavily-armed neighbours is an acceptable price to pay for the hypothetical ability to defend yourself against said tyrannical governments.

My personal risk assessment is that the risk of murder is orders of magnitudes higher than the risk of tyrannical government. If genocides decades ago are more compelling in your personal risk assessment than murders that happen every. single. day, then - as I've already said - it's unlikely that mere reason will change your mind.

Overheal

How well did the police do at stopping those murders before that happened? Or any mass shooting?

How well did the Good Guy With A Gun do?

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

How well did the Good Guy With A Gun do?

First result from a google search https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

Seems to be fairly useful.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll spell this out for the avoidance of doubt: the argument is that a heavily-armed populace is necessary to keep tyrannical governments at bay, and that a heightened risk of being murdered by one of your heavily-armed neighbours is an acceptable price to pay for the hypothetical ability to defend yourself against said tyrannical governments.

My personal risk assessment is that the risk of murder is orders of magnitudes higher than the risk of tyrannical government. If genocides decades ago are more compelling in your personal risk assessment than murders that happen every. single. day, then - as I've already said - it's unlikely that mere reason will change your mind.

Are you talking about the risk of murder based on rates that are at a historical low? How is the murder rate in the gun free paradise that exists in Chicago? If the murder rate is so extreme as you are trying to portray it (murders happen everyday, along with car crashes, drug overdoses and any other causes of death you care to name), then why would your response be to weight the situation more in the favor of the armed criminal?

Are criminals less likely to commit crimes and violence in a populace that lacks access to firearms to defend themselves with? Has there been a surge in crimes and shootings committed by people using their legally purchased firearms?

Manic Moran

oscarBravo wrote: »

Three years ago, I spent a total of about nine weeks in Colorado, visiting my girlfriend who had a job there for almost a year. During that time, her office was placed in lockdown because of a manhunt for an ex-employee who had shot his girlfriend on the on-ramp to the interstate beside our apartment block. A colleague of my OH had a daughter murdered. And, a few miles up the road in Aurora, several people were shot dead in a cinema.

But if you feel that a heavily-armed populace makes you safer, and that I'm the one who's willfully ignorant, I doubt that anything I say will change your mind.

Meh. I've moved here fifteen years ago, and I had crime affect me and my family more in Ireland than I've suffered here. Actually, I can't think of any criminal incidents which have affected me at all, outside of the train being delayed by police chasing someone.

Manic Moran

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll spell this out for the avoidance of doubt: the argument is that a heavily-armed populace is necessary to keep tyrannical governments at bay, and that a heightened risk of being murdered by one of your heavily-armed neighbours is an acceptable price to pay for the hypothetical ability to defend yourself against said tyrannical governments.

My personal risk assessment is that the risk of murder is orders of magnitudes higher than the risk of tyrannical government. If genocides decades ago are more compelling in your personal risk assessment than murders that happen every. single. day, then - as I've already said - it's unlikely that mere reason will change your mind.

Mm. Are you stating that the only notable argument is the tyrannical government, or just the one that you are addressing at this moment and time? Although it doesn't make the government argument redundant, I'm quite fond of the personal defence aspect of things myself, something which has been done far more frequently in the US than once since 1946.

Personal or property, I guess. One bears in mind the images of the Koreatown shopowners in Los Angels or the New Orleans block groups which armed themselves for protection when the police had other things to be doing.

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Mm. Are you stating that the only notable argument is the tyrannical government, or just the one that you are addressing at this moment and time?

I was addressing tyrannical government, but it appears to have morphed into self-defence. It's one of the reasons it's hard to have a rational conversation on the topic: people keep changing the subject.

The specific point I was taking issue with is the idea that a 30-round magazine is sufficient to keep a tyrannical government at bay, while a 15-round magazine is not. Apparently there's a tipping point somewhere in between that somehow keeps governments in check; I'm guessing it's somewhere around the 23-round mark.

I was also amused by the idea that genocides in the early part of the 20th century are considered a sufficiently compelling argument for citizens to keep their governments at permanent (metaphorical - sort of) gunpoint, while there is apparently no number of incidents of toddlers shooting their siblings with their parents' guns that can collectively add up to a reason to reduce the number of guns in society.

Maybe I'm a good little brainwashed government stooge, but I find it very hard to embrace the logic that the best antidote to America's bizarre rate of gun violence is more and more and more and more guns.

Manic Moran

Hmm again. I think it's again a matter of what the purpose of the magazine restriction is. Magazines are sized for a good blend of usability, reliability and capacity. The use for which the firearm is intended rarely has any effect on magazine size, with a few narrow exceptions which would make the weapon unwieldy. Possibly hunting, or in my case I took a 20-round along with me to Iraq because it would fit in my pocket for those times when I couldn't leave it in the rifle and didn't want to wear webbing.

If the intent is to stop mass shooters, the effect is limited. Firstly, despite the fact that they all 'tool up' and bring scores if not hundreds of rounds along with them, they rarely use many of them. In addition, we have run occasional scenarios in the past, with the 'bad guys' using blank ammo. They rarely need to change magazine as they wander around the building, one shot here, two shots there, as they search for people to kill. If they do need to change mags, it's plenty of time for them in between executions. (The one time people note as a shooter being tackled due to a magazine change, Tuscon, was actually a malfunction which took time to clear. The majority of weapon malfunctions (90%) are caused by the magazine, and this chap was using an extended one which is known to be unreliable). Then when the police show up (we call them ahead of time, so they bring blanks!) it's over pretty quickly.

Now, on the other hand, the private citizen using his firearm for defense likely has only the ammunition in the weapon. They don't tool up ahead of time. Maybe a CCW holder will have a spare magazine. I don't leave spare magazines lying around the home, and I don't wear a pistol belt to bed. We know from studying police shootouts that in high stress defense situations, on average only one round in five or six will hit the target, and that's different from stopping the threat. Mass murderers, however, tend to be under less pressure as they shoot unarmed victims, they have a substantially higher hit rate. California limits me to ten round magazines, so the chances are one or two hits is all I'm likely to get.

Put simply, magazine restrictions affect legitimate defense users more than they affect anyon else. When New York passed their knee-jerk legislation about two years ago, the police freaked out as it was written so quickly, the legislators forgot to put in an exception for them. Why the freak-out? It hampered their ability to effectively defend themselves.

This is, I fear, all a result of people legislating gun restrictions without taking the time to understand the mechanics of gun use. I will agree with you that the best antidote to US gun violence is not more guns, but it's a pretty good band-aid until that antidote, which is far more societal, is put into effect over the course of several decades. After all, gun violence has been dropping consistently over the past few decades despite the fact that more guns are on the street, both figuratively and literally given the amount of States which have changed their laws since he mid 1980s to allow people to carry them.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was addressing tyrannical government, but it appears to have morphed into self-defence. It's one of the reasons it's hard to have a rational conversation on the topic: people keep changing the subject.

The specific point I was taking issue with is the idea that a 30-round magazine is sufficient to keep a tyrannical government at bay, while a 15-round magazine is not. Apparently there's a tipping point somewhere in between that somehow keeps governments in check; I'm guessing it's somewhere around the 23-round mark.

I was also amused by the idea that genocides in the early part of the 20th century are considered a sufficiently compelling argument for citizens to keep their governments at permanent (metaphorical - sort of) gunpoint, while there is apparently no number of incidents of toddlers shooting their siblings with their parents' guns that can collectively add up to a reason to reduce the number of guns in society.

Maybe I'm a good little brainwashed government stooge, but I find it very hard to embrace the logic that the best antidote to America's bizarre rate of gun violence is more and more and more and more guns.

Forgotten about Bosnia then have you? Or if you stretch to further afield than Europe, Rwanda, Sudan. All those occasions where armed groups preyed on unarmed civilians.

The argument isn't that more people should be buying guns, it's that the Government should stop trying to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens, based of ignorance and fear based policies.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

First result from a google search https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

Seems to be fairly useful.

Cites a few (8) anecdotes that it has to cherry pick through multiple years between 2015 and 2007.

Here's a more substantial stat for ya: the FBI study of mass shootings between 2000 and 2013 found that just 3.1% of mass shooting incidents were resolved by a firearm other than from law enforcement. In contrast, 13.1% were resolved by unarmed citizens restrained the shooter.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

The majority of the 160 incidents (90 [56.3%]) ended on the shooter’s initiative—
sometimes when the shooter committed suicide or stopped shooting, and other times when
the shooter fled the scene.
There were at least 25 incidents where the shooter fled the scene before police arrived. In 4
additional incidents, at least 5 shooters fled the scene and were still at large at the time the
study results were released.
In other incidents, it was a combination of actions by citizens and/or law enforcement that
ended the shootings. In at least 65 (40.6%) of the 160 incidents, citizen engagement or the
shooter committing suicide ended the shooting at the scene before law enforcement arrived.
Of those:
■ In 37 incidents (23.1%), the shooter committed suicide at the scene before police
arrived.
■ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully
restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement
officers were present and assisted.
■ Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school
staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters
were students).
■ In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law
enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters
were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.
■ The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms
permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally
managed museum, and a school board meeting.25
■ In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting
in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a
responding officer to end the threat.26
Even when law enforcement arrived quickly, many times the shooter still chose to end his
life. In 17 (10.6%) of the 160 incidents, the shooter committed suicide at the scene after law
enforcement arrived but before officers could act.
In 45 (28.1%) of the 160 incidents, law enforcement and the shooter exchanged gunfire. Of
those 45 incidents, the shooter was killed at the scene in 21, killed at another location in 4,
wounded in 9, committed suicide in 9, and surrendered in 2.

AbusesToilets

The question posed was whether a citizen was able to stop a mass shooting, with a personal weapon. Clearly that is the case. That it has happened less than other methods doesn't diminish its efficacy. Your argument that you would rather people be unarmed, without the option to equitably defend themselves in the event that they have to face a violent attacker, is bonkers to me.

You must have much more faith in the police than I do. Those stats say nothing about the number of people who have defended themselves or their property from criminals in incidents that do not meet the criteria to be described as a mass shooting (which is 3+ individuals if I remember correctly).

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Cites a few (8) anecdotes that it has to cherry pick through multiple years between 2015 and 2007.

Here's a more substantial stat for ya: the FBI study of mass shootings between 2000 and 2013 found that just 3.1% of mass shooting incidents were resolved by a firearm other than from law enforcement. In contrast, 13.1% were resolved by unarmed citizens restrained the shooter.

That's data, but not information as it lacks context. In how many of those cases were the citizens unarmed because they were prohibited from being armed by either policy or law? It is no mere canard that these shootings tend to happen in "gun free zones" (92%, apparently). And how many people were killed between initiation and successful unarmed response vs armed response?

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Forgotten about Bosnia then have you? Or if you stretch to further afield than Europe, Rwanda, Sudan. All those occasions where armed groups preyed on unarmed civilians.

None of these are first world countries.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

None of these are first world countries.

The point made no reference as to status of the country.

Bosnia was not a third world slum when the genocide occurred, neither was Germany in the Forties. To act as though that sort of oppression is impossible in modern countries, like those in Europe, is ludicrous given the very recent history and the events happening currently in the world.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The point made no reference as to status of the country.

Bosnia was not a third world slum when the genocide occurred, neither was Germany in the Forties. To act as though that sort of oppression is impossible in modern countries, like those in Europe, is ludicrous given the very recent history and the events happening currently in the world.

So you would rank the likelihood of oppression as being equal be it Finland or Ethiopia then? Do you not think Western civilisation has advanced at all over the last 70 or so years?

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you would rank the likelihood of oppression as being equal be it Finland or Ethiopia then? Do you not think Western civilisation has advanced at all over the last 70 or so years?

Not particularly, no. I's sure people thought Western civilisation was plenty advanced before the war in Bosnia happened. The same social issues exist today that spurred the rise of extremism previously, economic depression, ethnic and religious tension, disenchantment with the body politic.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not particularly, no. I's sure people thought Western civilisation was plenty advanced before the war in Bosnia happened. The same social issues exist today that spurred the rise of extremism previously, economic depression, ethnic and religious tension, disenchantment with the body politic.

They might exist but not to anywhere near the extent that the citizenry needs to arm itself.

AbusesToilets

I would disagree.

For one, a citizen should be afforded the ability to protect themselves from the criminal element. Relying on the police to save oneself in the event of a violent confrontation is a fool's gambit.

Secondly, preserving some ability for a populace to protect itself from a tyrannical and oppressive Government serves a purpose, however unlikely it may be that it would ever be necessary. An unarmed populace would pose no bulwark against a predatory power, as has been shown repeatedly in the past.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would disagree.

For one, a citizen should be afforded the ability to protect themselves from the criminal element. Relying on the police to save oneself in the event of a violent confrontation is a fool's gambit.

Secondly, preserving some ability for a populace to protect itself from a tyrannical and oppressive Government serves a purpose, however unlikely it may be that it would ever be necessary. An unarmed populace would pose no bulwark against a predatory power, as has been shown repeatedly in the past.

What about the right to life of other citizens? Is this not important. Tens of thousands of Americans are lost every year to shootings. Would stricter gun laws not be worth it if it would reduce this count?

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not particularly, no. I's sure people thought Western civilisation was plenty advanced before the war in Bosnia happened. The same social issues exist today that spurred the rise of extremism previously, economic depression, ethnic and religious tension, disenchantment with the body politic.

The old Yugoslavia wasn't a first world country, a whole different set of problems than first vs. third world. It was an archetypal second world Communist country kept together by a tyrant in Tito.

In fact that would be a despotic regime you would be encouraging people to rebel against. The problem was Tito kept together a disparate population by tyranny and once the rebellions started, that kick started a whole host of under lying problems that were beneath the surface.

Brian?

K-9 wrote: »

The old Yugoslavia wasn't a first world country, a whole different set of problems than first vs. third world. It was an archetypal second world Communist country kept together by a tyrant in Tito.

In fact that would be a despotic regime you would be encouraging people to rebel against. The problem was Tito kept together a disparate population by tyranny and once the rebellions started, that kick started a whole host of under lying problems that were beneath the surface.

Further to this point. There were no shortage of arms in Yugoslavia. Every man over 18 had done 2 years military service and were trained to a very high standard.

The genocide in Yugoslavia was exacerbated by the availability of firearms. More arms would have meant more deaths, not less.

Unlike the US where a civilian owned "AK47" is usually a .22 rifle, te AK47s in Yugoslavia were the real deal deal.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would disagree.

For one, a citizen should be afforded the ability to protect themselves from the criminal element. Relying on the police to save oneself in the event of a violent confrontation is a fool's gambit.

Secondly, preserving some ability for a populace to protect itself from a tyrannical and oppressive Government serves a purpose, however unlikely it may be that it would ever be necessary. An unarmed populace would pose no bulwark against a predatory power, as has been shown repeatedly in the past.

But America is not - and will never be, and never has been - an unarmed populace. That argument holds no water, there are hundreds of millions of weapons already in circulation. Bringing up this tired old talking point from the middle of the last century is continually ridiculous. Insisting on making it part of every conversation on the matter needlessly pulls us back to a redundant frame of reference.

AbusesToilets

It's not a redundant point, given the continued efforts by those on the anti-gun side to erode the scope of how a citizen can own a firearm. Politicians like Pelosi, Obama and Feinstein would ban all guns given the chance, and have clearly set their strategy on death by a thousand cuts to accomplish this, in similar fashion to those who are against abortion. Would you take a similar tack with those fighting to maintain access to Planned Parenthood, or voter registration? Every citizen of legal age (not a felon) has the right to vote, are efforts to promote registration and access redundant so?

Making an argument that people die from guns, so that they should be restricted, is specious and juvenile. Many more people die annually in car accidents or medical malpractice, yet quite rightly, no one calls for reducing accessibility to cars and doctors. The majority of deaths involving firearms are either from suicides or from criminals, often killing other criminals using an illegally procured gun. The best way to reduce those deaths is better policing and improving mental health resources.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Making an argument that people die from guns, so that they should be restricted, is specious and juvenile. Many more people die annually in car accidents or medical malpractice, yet quite rightly, no one calls for reducing accessibility to cars and doctors. The majority of deaths involving firearms are either from suicides or from criminals, often killing other criminals using an illegally procured gun. The best way to reduce those deaths is better policing and improving mental health resources.

You're moving the goalposts. Hospitals and cars are important elements of a society. Guns are weapons and nothing else. So far, the only reason I've encountered in favor of the status quo is "we want them" which seems to be the most childish, prudish attitude of all. There are no downsides I can see to gun control or, ideally, complete prohibition save for those who actually need them. America has a big gun problem and removing them is the only logical solution.

syklops

walshyn93 wrote: »

If Obama is so hopeless about gun control being enacted why doesn't he focus on something worthwhile like increasing mental health awareness and treatment? I've been to America. I saw no civilians with guns, but saw about 5 crazy people a day. He could sort that out, but it's not an election decider so he won't bother his feckin arse.

Ive worked with 4 different people who had carry and conceal permits, so just because you didn't see any guns, doesnt mean there wasn't one nearby.

That said, Canada has quite lax gun laws and they don't have anything like the same events as the US.

AbusesToilets

K-9, can't quote you because Boards is displaying incorrectly at the mo. The point made was that an oppressive government that would commit crimes and atrocities against its citizens couldn't arise in Europe, such that the idea of the citizenry needing an ability to protect themselves from a predatory government would be ridiculous. Clearly that has not been the case.

AbusesToilets

[QOUTE]You're moving the goalposts. Hospitals and cars are important elements of a society. Guns are weapons and nothing else. So far, the only reason I've encountered in favor of the status quo is "we want them" which seems to be the most childish, prudish attitude of all. There are no downsides I can see to gun control or, ideally, complete prohibition save for those who actually need them. America has a big gun problem and removing them is the only logical solution.

You may not feel that the ability to own a firearm is important, but that is not a sentiment shared by many. Having the ability to protect oneself and property is of high value. Not to mention other areas, such as hunting, pest control or sports.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You may not feel that the ability to own a firearm is important, but that is not a sentiment shared by many. Having the ability to protect oneself and property is of high value. Not to mention other areas, such as hunting, pest control or sports.

Why should people be allowed to turn their firearms on innocent animals? Pests are one thing but hunting is a disgusting, barbaric sport.

The oppressive government argument holds no water with me either. It's like saying we should all wear gasmasks in case of an anthrax attack. Western governments don't need to take their citizens' property. We're all nice and docile as it is.

AbusesToilets

Hunting is barbaric? Sorry, but that is a load of guff. It's far less barbaric than the mass processing involved in the meat industry, and much healthier too. Ascribing human characteristics like innocence is a childish attitude to take.

Interesting mental dissonance there, where you acknowledge the intrusion of the government into citizens lives, yet consider it ridiculous that a situation could arise where citizens might need to protect themselves from the government.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not a redundant point, given the continued efforts by those on the anti-gun side to erode the scope of how a citizen can own a firearm. Politicians like Pelosi, Obama and Feinstein would ban all guns given the chance, and have clearly set their strategy on death by a thousand cuts to accomplish this, in similar fashion to those who are against abortion. Would you take a similar tack with those fighting to maintain access to Planned Parenthood, or voter registration? Every citizen of legal age (not a felon) has the right to vote, are efforts to promote registration and access redundant so?

Making an argument that people die from guns, so that they should be restricted, is specious and juvenile. Many more people die annually in car accidents or medical malpractice, yet quite rightly, no one calls for reducing accessibility to cars and doctors. The majority of deaths involving firearms are either from suicides or from criminals, often killing other criminals using an illegally procured gun. The best way to reduce those deaths is better policing and improving mental health resources.

You're guzzling the kool-aid I see. The left does not want to take away guns - it's a boogeyman argument pushed by the NRA, Smith and Wesson, and other gun interests. Why? IT SELLS. Also, it's a self defeating point: "IF they could," they demonstrably, can not. It will not happen. Even if they wish roads were made out of rainbows and guns were candy bars, it will not happen. There's no point in drumming up this infantile scare tactic.

I'm not sure what you mean by Planned Parenthood. Voter registration is something that happens. Voter ID is something that happens. I just recently had to go to the DMV, to update said registration. My card clearly indicates I must provide ID at the voting booth. Whoop?

Your latter argument is beyond ridicule: Medical Malpractice happens. Car deaths happen. we regulate both! Is GM not under lawsuit for ignition switch defects? Does the National Transportation Safety Board not exist? Do you not need a drivers license to operate a car? Are there not severe penalties for driving while intoxicated? I believe state laws require among other things: seatbelts, headlights to be used while raining, turn signals, etc. etc. - and these are all features in cars that are regulated by law. You cannot sell a car in the United States without airbags, wiper blades, specified brakes, etc.; Doctors must have, to my knowledge, insurance for malpractice, must be diligently trained before treating patients, etc. etc. etc. so I very much can't understand why you would bring up either type of death as a red herring in this discussion. I am truly baffled.

FISMA.

Brian? wrote: »

Unlike the US where a civilian owned "AK47" is usually a .22 rifle, te AK47s in Yugoslavia were the real deal deal.

What?

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Hunting is barbaric? Sorry, but that is a load of guff. It's far less barbaric than the mass processing involved in the meat industry, and much healthier too. Ascribing human characteristics like innocence is a childish attitude to take.

You keep accusing me of being childish without actually rebutting my posts.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Interesting mental dissonance there, where you acknowledge the intrusion of the government into citizens lives, yet consider it ridiculous that a situation could arise where citizens might need to protect themselves from the government.

Again, you ignore my point and continue moaning about non-existent oppression. Somehow, if the home office ever decides to confiscate my property, I doubt a Berretta under my pillow is going to do me much good.

AbusesToilets

Overheal, by there words and actions, the anti-gun side has shown their desire to do everything they can to limit citizens ability to own firearms. Pushing legislation that would restrict sales of certain models based solely on meaningless cosmetic features, banning magazines, mandating that manufactures install ludicrous features, the list goes on and on. None of these efforts has had any impact on actual levels of gun violence mind you, just as various efforts to ban concealed carry in places like Chicago.

This is the same approach taken by those who would wish to eliminate abortion, or those who pursue efforts to disenfranchise voters. A continuous, persistent effort to accomplish those goals by passing laws that chip away at the fundamental right in small increments. While I don't agree with some of the things that the NRA does, I am glad that they exist to fight to protect against such efforts.

You made a relevant point that there are laws that cover motor vehicles and medical practices, just as there are for firearms. With all those laws in place, there are still tens of thousands of deaths annually. What new laws do you feel will prevent someone from killing themselves or a criminal from committing a crime? Easier just to pass laws making life more difficult for law abiding citizens.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha, describing an animal as innocent is the level of thinking I would expect from a child. Is a lion evil for killing and eating an antelope? Is a fish evil for eating an innocent fly? Ridiculous argument. Hunting for food is about as natural as you can get, far more so than the industrial slaughter that puts meat on shelves.

You can claim that the government doesn't currently oppress its citizens? Do you feel that the intrusion into peoples electronic lives as surveillance isn't oppression? How about the numbers of people imprisoned on minor drug violations? Are these not examples of systematic denials of peoples rights and freedoms?