Private firearm ownership

Dogma Hater
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Private firearm ownership

What are your thoughts on private ownership of firearms?

I'll start.  I support the private ownership of firearms because:

1)  They are the most effective, technologically advanced, usable, readily available means for self-defense.  They serve to even the odds for those who are outnumbered, elderly, and/or unskilled in fighting relative to the assailant.

2)  I think that it is creepy to advocate a state monopoly on the possession of firearms, for obvious historical reasons.

3)  Targetshooting is fun, and people have as much of a right to have fun with this hobby as they do with any other hobby that does not adversely impact anyone.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
I can't get worked up about

I can't get worked up about guns one way or another. The most I can say with any feeling, if it's not pointed at me or someone I care about the gun's just fine.

When it comes to rights, I prefer to think that a person has all rights, until and unless a particular "right" is incompatible with a functioning society. I've never thought of or heard a particularly good argument for removing the right to gun ownership, any more than for owning knives or swords or hammers.

I guess I support gun ownership in a de facto sort of way.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Don't buy more gun than you

Don't buy more gun than you can safely handle, learn how to use it and don't point it my way and we'll get along great.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun wrote:When

Deadly Fingergun wrote:
When it comes to rights, I prefer to think that a person has all rights, until and unless a particular "right" is incompatible with a functioning society. I've never thought of or heard a particularly good argument for removing the right to gun ownership, any more than for owning knives or swords or hammers.

I guess I support gun ownership in a de facto sort of way.

Same here. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
::::::::::::::::::::::

I'm a member of the NRA, a handgun owner and regular target shooter but only for the lack of a burglar or home invasion robber.

 

Crime goes up consistantly when criminals know gun ownership is banned or hampered by the Government.

 

Arm everyone, let's shoot it out!

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Don't buy

jcgadfly wrote:

Don't buy more gun than you can safely handle, learn how to use it and don't point it my way and we'll get along great.

pretty much this.

 

I would say ban them but that won't make criminals stop using them.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Even though I believe

  Even though I believe atheists, demographically speaking, primarily lean to the left I was pleasantly surprised to discover that quite a few of us on this forum are gun owners/collectors.  My tastes run toward socially unacceptable military-style firearms and magnum revolvers. (  and I'm not a hunter though I have a couple of bolt action rifles, too )


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:My

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

My tastes run toward socially unacceptable military-style firearms and magnum revolvers. (  and I'm not a hunter though I have a couple of bolt action rifles, too )

 

For some reason, PDW, I had you down as an owner and user of one of these:

 

 

Yes, legal to own. No, Sadly, I don't currently have one but I'm sure Santa got my letter this year!

 

 

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Never seen one in the

  Never seen one in the "flesh".  Is that an XM214 ?  ( chambers 5.56 x 45mm )  ....but you are correct, I'd love to own it.

  ( edit: my second guess is it's an M134 / GAU-2B  )


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
I don't care one way or

I don't care one way or another since I haven't personally got any interest in guns and I haven't personally got any interest in restricting other people's freedoms.

I do think America comes across as quite pathologically obsessed with this issue, though.

Seriously, I'd love to see everyone in the US just stop caring so damn much about guns and rights to gun ownership all the time, stop spouting the same old worn out fear and hysteria excuses as to why everyone must own a gun, and stop arguing like war is expected to break out in your street every single day, if you really have that to fear then FFS what is your military doing peacekeeping in other countries, clearly you need it more than they do.

If you shoot for sport or you farm and need to keep ferals out of your produce fields or if you just like to admire the mechanical craft of an automatic weapon, those are all good things that no one should have any reason to oppose.

On the other hand, fear and belligerence are inherently poisonous regardless of what they are being used to sell, so I don't think much of what I get to read from the US about peoples attitudes to weapons.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I like America but can't help feeling

 

You guys are a bit funny with guns. My brother and I have a place in the country and we have a .22 for shooting snakes (a remington 850 would be better).

But I think we're out of ammo and have been for years. Anyway, we'd both happily just herd the bloody snakes out the door with a broom.

Living in a country without lots of guns is better in my opinion but I have to quantify this by confessing that in Oz we have a lot of knife crime and a lot of

death by getting your fucken head kicked in by a gang of drunk dudes. So it's swings and roundabouts.

There's also the fact guns are metallic, shiny and oily. That's appealing to me in a boy sort of way. Mercury outboards. V-twin motorbikes. Bent 8s. Guns. I get it, but...

I was in Vegas last year for a security conference and went to a casino with a massive gunstore in it. They were lined up 3 deep at the counter. There was a toddler on

the counter and young kids under ten looking at rifles. A family picked their new guns and went through to the range and blazed away together as a family. In 2008.

It was all so matter of fact. You have to not live with that frontier gun culture to understand how it looks to us on the outside.

I can dig long guns because they're beautiful but buying a Mossberg Persuader just because it's the ultimate in home security?

Maybe if I lived in Jo'burg... If I needed a Mossberg for home security in the USA I'd become a Canadian...

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Dogma Hater wrote: What

 

Dogma Hater wrote:
What are your thoughts on private ownership of firearms?

I'll start.  I support the private ownership of firearms because:

1)  They are the most effective, technologically advanced, usable, readily available means for self-defense.  They serve to even the odds for those who are outnumbered, elderly, and/or unskilled in fighting relative to the assailant.

Non lethal weapons are much prefered for self defense, given that they, unlike guns, don't tend to kill.

Dogma Hater wrote:
2)  I think that it is creepy to advocate a state monopoly on the possession of firearms, for obvious historical reasons.

We're past the point where the people, armed or not, have a chance against a state's military.

Dogma Hater wrote:
3)  Targetshooting is fun, and people have as much of a right to have fun with this hobby as they do with any other hobby that does not adversely impact anyone.

I agree with this and also think that weapons are really cool. Also, note that I'm not for making gun ownership illegal, I just wish people wouldn't be so obsessed with them and happy to use them on other people.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:On the other

Eloise wrote:

On the other hand, fear and belligerence are inherently poisonous regardless of what they are being used to sell, so I don't think much of what I get to read from the US about peoples attitudes to weapons.

The belligerence is directed at those trying to ban firearms or otherwise restrict access to them. When I see a politician lying on TV about guns in order to scare people into supporting a new assault weapons ban, I get a little angry. I am pretty fed up with politicians telling outright lies in order to fool people into supporting new bans.

 

Eloise wrote:

If you shoot for sport or you farm and need to keep ferals out of your produce fields or if you just like to admire the mechanical craft of an automatic weapon, those are all good things that no one should have any reason to oppose.

Sounds good. So long as you don't oppose me using my firearms for their primary function, self defense, then I really like your veiws on this matter.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

 

Has another super cool avatar. ClockCat's going to be jealous of this one...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Waiting for Oblivion

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

 

 

 

 

We're past the point where the people, armed or not, have a chance against a state's military.

  So, the US is going to go nuclear to put down a rebellion ?  Wow, that'll really further the cause of democracy around the world.

  But seriously, the size of the US military is seriously dwarfed by the sheer number of armed civilians who also normally possess multiple firearms for those citizens who don't.  In Viet Nam the technologically superior US military was defeated on the ground ( in a war of attrition ) by guerrilla fighters ( the Viet Cong ) who frequently employed only small arms and sometimes even crudely manufactured home-made firearms. And more recently if superior technology is a trump card why haven't we defeated the Taliban ?  Look how our Army Rangers got mauled in Mogadishu, Somolia...by a bunch of half-starved fanatics armed with shoulder-fired weapons.

  Our battlefield weaponry, although greatly feared, does not in itself ensure victory. This is not World War 2. 

 Also the number of civilians who are re ex-military is enormous and knowledge is also a weapon.  That means all military technology that falls into civilian hands immediately functions against it's previous owners.  What about the effects of military personell who are sympathetic to a rebellion ? Remember the scores of Soviet military personell who refused to follow orders to fire during the former Soviet Union's final dissolution ?  And unlike the Soviet Union our US culture already instills the political concept of civilian ascendancy so to say that there might be hesitancy to fire on their fellow citizens would be an understatement.

  

(still, I hate war..I just want to target shoot  an be left the hell alone. )


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:What are

Dogma Hater wrote:

What are your thoughts on private ownership of firearms?

I'll start.  I support the private ownership of firearms because:

1)  They are the most effective, technologically advanced, usable, readily available means for self-defense.  They serve to even the odds for those who are outnumbered, elderly, and/or unskilled in fighting relative to the assailant.

2)  I think that it is creepy to advocate a state monopoly on the possession of firearms, for obvious historical reasons.

3)  Targetshooting is fun, and people have as much of a right to have fun with this hobby as they do with any other hobby that does not adversely impact anyone.

I think 1) is not accurate - willingness to use a weapon and experience is a much bigger factor in a face-off, which makes abundant weapons in a society a good idea for people who are willing to use them and have experience with face-offs: police, military and criminals. I don't think it does anything for the average Joe, except maybe give his assailant a better weapon, once he uses it on Joe himself. Or gets his ass shot instead of stabbed by his wife, if she flips one day over his banging the neighbor. Or vice versa.

I don't know what 2) means. You think you can fight the military or something in the case they want to disarm you? Historically that has turned out not too good for people who tried it. But if you are aiming for practice for the rainy day, I think that's a good idea. You should also plan for subverting whole regiments of the current military and law enforcement to defect and join. That is how Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and partially Palestina are surviving onslaught after onslaught by supperior forces with no scruples about who they aim at.

I don't agree with 3) - leathal projectile weapons are not toys and should not be used that way. If you however plan your own little armed resistance in the future, it is essential that you can pick from a population that is well-versed in weapon use. More essential however are logistics, knowledge of terrain and cluster/splinter cell organisation - clear priority for games people should play. Again, this sort of peasant-play is what makes guerilla forces on home terrain a formidable opponent.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Has another super cool avatar. ClockCat's going to be jealous of this one...

 

:I

 

I had a friend that used that avatar 6-7 years ago. There are like 3-4 dif music bobbing cats he would alternate between.

 

 

As for guns, if they were banned in the states it would eliminate a lot of the crime, because the physical violence that happens in the UK would have trouble getting off the ground here.

 

There are too many FAT FAT FATTIES. It'd be like a slow motion action movie, with people waddling after eachother drunkenly with intent of violence, but then too out of breath to actually do it.

 

Actually, that sounds rather entertaining to watch...

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  So,

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  So, the US is going to go nuclear to put down a rebellion ?  Wow, that'll really further the cause of democracy around the world.

  But seriously, the size of the US military is seriously dwarfed by the sheer number of armed civilians who also normally possess multiple firearms for those citizens who don't.  In Viet Nam the technologically superior US military was defeated on the ground ( in a war of attrition ) by guerrilla fighters ( the Viet Cong ) who frequently employed only small arms and sometimes even crudely manufactured home-made firearms. And more recently if superior technology is a trump card why haven't we defeated the Taliban ?  Look how our Army Rangers got mauled in Mogadishu, Somolia...by a bunch of half-starved fanatics armed with shoulder-fired weapons.

  Our battlefield weaponry, although greatly feared, does not in itself ensure victory. This is not World War 2. 

 Also the number of civilians who are re ex-military is enormous and knowledge is also a weapon.  That means all military technology that falls into civilian hands immediately functions against it's previous owners.  What about the effects of military personell who are sympathetic to a rebellion ? Remember the scores of Soviet military personell who refused to follow orders to fire during the former Soviet Union's final dissolution ?  And unlike the Soviet Union our US culture already instills the political concept of civilian ascendancy so to say that there might be hesitancy to fire on their fellow citizens would be an understatement.

I don't know much about warfare to be honest, and I'm not american so I don't know much about it's army, but, while I agree with you for the most part, I was just talking about the people wining an armed rebelion.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 I don't understand why pro-gun people always go right to apocalyptic scenarios to justify the population having weaponry.

 

If it's not "fear of government elected by the people" it is fear of something else. It always is some kind of doomsday though.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"What are your thoughts on

"What are your thoughts on private ownership of firearms?"

Complicated.

"1)  They are the most effective, technologically advanced, usable, readily available means for self-defense.  They serve to even the odds for those who are outnumbered, elderly, and/or unskilled in fighting relative to the assailant."

I disagree. An armed populace equals an armed criminal. It becomes easy for the weak, old or young, and unskilled aggressor to accomplish that which they could not accomplish on their own. In the case of an armed aggressor and victim, you get wounded bystanders. One right is outweighed by two wrongs.

And yet, I fully agree with #2. The populace should have access to tools capable of removing an oppressor. I also think #3 is understated. Practice increases skill of use and confidence to use an item for the defence of oneself and others, simultaneously reducing risk to bystanders.

I may have more to say later, but time just cut me off.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: An armed

Vastet wrote:
An armed populace equals an armed criminal.

But disarmed populaces still have armed criminals. You can't legally carry a knife in London, but your likelihood of being stabbed is fairly high. Russia and Mexico have almost total bans of firearm ownership, yet they have higher per capita firearm crime rates than the US. They have disarmed populaces and highly armed criminals frequently assaulting one another with fully automatic weapons. Switzerland has higher per capita legal gun ownership than the US, yet it has much lower firearm crime rates. I see no correlation between having and armed or disarmed populace and having armed or disarmed criminals. There are countries like Japan with virtually no legal private ownership of firearms and virtually no firearm crime. There are other countries like Russia and Mexico that have virtually no legal private ownership of firearms and extremely high rates of crimes that involve firearms. So I'm going to say that the causual claim that you made is wrong and contradicts the complete lack of a correlation between legal gun ownership and firearm crime rates seen around the world.

Another problem here is that Pandora's box is already open in the US. Even if we tried to ban guns, we really couldn't. Our government doesn't even know the exact number of guns in private circulation. Guns that were made in the 1800's are still usable and in circulation in the US today. Every rare now and then someone is actually shot with a civil war firearm. There is also no gun registration. Even if the government had a clear idea of how many guns are out there, they still don't know who has the guns. Even California, the state with the harshest anti-gun laws, only requires registration for handguns. If I owned zero rifles or five hundred, they wouldn't know the difference. This all just means that it is unfeasable to think that they could enforce a gun ban. They could pass laws saying that we all have to surrender our firearms, but I can't imagine them being able to enforce such laws.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:
An armed populace equals an armed criminal.

But disarmed populaces still have armed criminals. You can't legally carry a knife in London, but your likelihood of being stabbed is fairly high. Russia and Mexico have almost total bans of firearm ownership, yet they have higher per capita firearm crime rates than the US. They have disarmed populaces and highly armed criminals frequently assaulting one another with fully automatic weapons. Switzerland has higher per capita legal gun ownership than the US, yet it has much lower firearm crime rates. I see no correlation between having and armed or disarmed populace and having armed or disarmed criminals. There are countries like Japan with virtually no legal private ownership of firearms and virtually no firearm crime. There are other countries like Russia and Mexico that have virtually no legal private ownership of firearms and extremely high rates of crimes that involve firearms. So I'm going to say that the causual claim that you made is wrong and contradicts the complete lack of a correlation between legal gun ownership and firearm crime rates seen around the world.

Another problem here is that Pandora's box is already open in the US. Even if we tried to ban guns, we really couldn't. Our government doesn't even know the exact number of guns in private circulation. Guns that were made in the 1800's are still usable and in circulation in the US today. Every rare now and then someone is actually shot with a civil war firearm. There is also no gun registration. Even if the government had a clear idea of how many guns are out there, they still don't know who has the guns. Even California, the state with the harshest anti-gun laws, only requires registration for handguns. If I owned zero rifles or five hundred, they wouldn't know the difference. This all just means that it is unfeasable to think that they could enforce a gun ban. They could pass laws saying that we all have to surrender our firearms, but I can't imagine them being able to enforce such laws.

 

These are all valid points.
 

 

I think that it is necessary in urban environments to restrict or even outlaw private (working) gun carrying permits..because the consequences of one misfire are much much higher than they would be in a rural area.

 

I don't think that owning a gun should be illegal, but carrying them into a crowded place where any number of things could happen I disagree with. In the same manner, I disagree with people carrying guns inside a bar to drink in public.

 

I think that there need to be restrictions agreed on by everyone for the safety of everyone. Some things are obvious. Drinking and guns often don't work. Some guy was just shot a few days ago because he got in an argument drunk with another drunk, and in the bar the guy pulled a gun and shot him dead. 

 

But yes, I do agree that it is "out of the box" already in the country, and while it may be possible to confiscate many of the firearms it would be an impossible and costly task to eliminate them, especially as new ones would be smuggled into the country.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Waiting for Oblivion wrote:I

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

I don't know much about warfare to be honest, and I'm not american so I don't know much about it's army, but, while I agree with you for the most part, I was just talking about the people wining an armed rebelion.

  Okay, point taken.  Btw, I hope my previous post didn't come across as a lecture.  For better or worse most Americans from my generation were raised to consider resistance to domestic tyranny as an almost holy concept.  In plain terms I am a product of my environment.

  Cheers.

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Eloise

Jormungander wrote:

Eloise wrote:

On the other hand, fear and belligerence are inherently poisonous regardless of what they are being used to sell, so I don't think much of what I get to read from the US about peoples attitudes to weapons.

The belligerence is directed at those trying to ban firearms or otherwise restrict access to them. When I see a politician lying on TV about guns in order to scare people into supporting a new assault weapons ban, I get a little angry. I am pretty fed up with politicians telling outright lies in order to fool people into supporting new bans.

Then you might be pleased to be assured, I was directing that argument at both sides of the issue, as equally at those who are hostile and fear campaigning against gun ownership as anyone else, no good can really come of that either.

Jormangunder wrote:

Eloise wrote:

If you shoot for sport or you farm and need to keep ferals out of your produce fields or if you just like to admire the mechanical craft of an automatic weapon, those are all good things that no one should have any reason to oppose.

Sounds good. So long as you don't oppose me using my firearms for their primary function, self defense, then I really like your veiws on this matter.

Well I don't oppose firearms as a means of self defense, no. But nor would I recommend them to all for the purpose either, untrained use of weapons of any kind is notoriously unreliable and thus a stupid way to try to defend yourself in my opinion, we should always stick to what we know and are good at when confronted with a dangerous situation rather than escalating things beyond our control. For most of the world population, that rules out guns from the start.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I don't

ClockCat wrote:

 I don't understand why pro-gun people always go right to apocalyptic scenarios to justify the population having weaponry.

 

"Guns are the ultimate source of all political power." Mao Tse-tung

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Expert opinion

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I don't understand why pro-gun people always go right to apocalyptic scenarios to justify the population having weaponry.

 

"Guns are the ultimate source of all political power." Mao Tse-tung

 

Lol!

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I hate the term "gun

I hate the term "gun control" it makes it seem like guns are out of control. But guns are under control, by the people who own them.  So when somebody says gun control they just mean that they want to control their gun and yours. They aren't happy with you controlling your shit and them controlling their shit because they might decide to kick your ass later and they don't want you to be armed when they do it.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Pretty Much...

 

ClockCat wrote:
I think that there need to be restrictions agreed on by everyone for the safety of everyone. Some things are obvious. Drinking and guns often don't work. Some guy was just shot a few days ago because he got in an argument drunk with another drunk, and in the bar the guy pulled a gun and shot him dead.

I'm not entirely sure, as I don't drink at all and therefore don't need a comprehensive understanding of the laws, but I'm fairly certain that, at least round these here parts, having even a Single drink, we're talking like Blood Alcohol Level of .001 or so, and carrying a Firearm, much less a concealed one, is a felony that carries extremely harsh penalties.  I know that in my circle of friends, the one who is closest to being an Alcoholic (He's not he's just German) won't even touch a bottle if he has his gun, and he's the less responsible of him and his brother.

Although it is generally portrayed as otherwise, most gun owners take firearms VERY Seriously. Its just every now and then there is some retard who doesn't.

I will say I am in favor of Gun Control Reform on the condition that the Federal or State Governments do not receive full control over who gets a gun.  I think there needs to be a system of checks and balances, and I would suggest a joint venture by the Government and the NRA and/or other Gun Owner's Associations to come to a suitable agreement.  I think this would be the best way as, at least in my experience, just as with Jormungander, most NRA members and Gun Owners in general only get really militant when people try to take away all gun rights.  If the olive branch was extended for both sides to come together and work this out I think most would jump at the opportunity.  The problem is the few radical extremists on both sides.  That being said if they try to implement NY,NY or Sweden Like Gun control you can expect it to be shot down.*

Personally for instance, I think the laws regarding CCWs need to be looked at and made much stricter, on the condition that an independenty entity such as the NRA could issue federally recognized CCWs to prevent the Federal Government from arbitrarily removing the rights of a group of people to obtain CCWs.

Also, on the whole 'Civil War' Scenario, I will state that trying to ban guns would be the quickest route to a Civil War and, given the current breakdown of the population, the Pro-Gun side would probably win, given that they would likely enjoy considerable support from the Military, what with a large portion of the Military and Police Force belonging to the NRA, and the Civilians on the Anti-Gun side would obviously be completely useless, as they obviously don't have any guns.

That being said, I always considered the 'Guns to Prevent Fascism' idea as being similar to M.A.D. So long as there are enough guns in Civilian Hands, the Guvernment won't try to become truly Fascist in the first place because they realize that no one would win, as even if they managed to quell a Civilian Uprising the instability and infighting in addition to the massive loss of manpower would weaken them enough that a coalition of foreign powers would be able to invade.

*Yes I went there.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
As for civil war senarios:

As for civil war senarios: our military is straining itself trying to occupy two tiny pissant nations. Lengthy, brutal occupations wear at it and produce unpopular casualties with little to no obvious gain for the losses. It could not sustain a military occupation of all American towns and cities. And its advanced hardware (cruise missiles, nukes, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, etc.) would be worthless in any kind of uprising. What are they going to do: bomb US cities, fire artillery at US cities from ships off the coast, nuke US targets, fly stealth bombers over US cities to drop bombs on US civilians, and shoot Trident missiles out of submarines at US civilian targets? Only a lenthy and sustained occupation consisting of soldiers partrolling occupied cities ("boots on the ground" seems to be the catch phrase that they use for this) could work. And I can not imagine our government doing that. I can not imagine our soldiers obeying those kinds of orders. I could not imagine them succeeding in such an endevour unless they brought out the nukes and bombs and obliterated portions of our nation. And they sure as hell are not going to do that. Our soldiers have been instructed to disobey certain kinds of orders. I trust that they would have the good sense to not bomb or shoot at their friends and families in any kind of civil war senario.

But this is all hypothetical and won't be happening anyways. The detterent factor of a heavily armed populace that has a large body of civilian veterans is just a safeguard that happens to be nice to have. Trying to remove what many see as a safeguard against possible future tyranny will be naturally interpreted as a first step to imposing tyranny. That makes some people freak out and suddenly stop supporting politicians who appear to be attempting to make us helpless, weak and ripe for oppressing. The fact that history's most brutal tyrants actually did disarm their victims makes this seem very obvious to gun owners. I think that most politicians get it that infringing on gun rights is kicking a hornets nest. Gun owners come from all parts of the political spectrum. But, when democratic politicians try to ban guns, they force democrat gun owners to vote for a gun-rights-loving republican politician. Supposedly, the dems lost a lot of seats in congress thanks to passing the federal assault weapons ban. Supposedly, Republican politicians played off of people's fears about the dems coming to get all our guns and rode a temporary wave of support that allowed them to gain a magority in the legislature. They democrats don't want to return house and senate control over to the republicans again, so they leave gun owners alone. Most democratic politicians are against a new assault weapons ban. I thought that now that they are in control, they'de renew the ban, but I was wrong. As a matter of not putting their re-elections at risk, they have choosen to leave gun owners alone. And with recent massive increases in the number of new gun owners, I don't forsee them thinking that gun bans are politically wise in the near future. All it took was some democrat politicians implying that there would be a new assault weapons ban to kick off an insane spree of buying all available guns and ammunition. Its kind of sad, but the fact that we over-react on gun issues is what makes most politicians fear infringing on our gun rights.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Yes, how foolish of the

  How foolishly idealistic of pro-gun advocates to continue harping upon the possibility of having to defend against serious political oppression, violent persecution, etc.     Besides, all sane people should realize that in this enlightened era of the 21'st century world governments have evolved beyond the desire to corner and crush civilian dissent.  

 Totalitarianism is extinct...gone forever...it's all good...they'll never hurt us again.  It's just not possible.  Really.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"But disarmed populaces

"But disarmed populaces still have armed criminals."

I didn't say they don't. I simply said an armed populace has more armed criminals. Which is quite obviously true. If you're a criminal in a gun-banned society, you don't have to worry about your victims having a gun, so your need to employ or utilise one is significantly less than if everyone around you might be similarly armed. And it's harder to get one in the first place. Also more dangerous to try.
It isn't an argument for banning weapons, it's a counter to the suggestion that more guns increase safety from crime, which is absurd.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
I have one question should I

I have one question should I be able to buy one of these? After all my semi automatic rifle will be useless against a tank should the government turn fascist?

hmmm but that isn't a gun so how about this then....

not very practical for self defense.... a hand gun would be better tbh

I cannot see the need for them to be legal though... if the threat of a fascist government was really a reason for this gun stuff why isn't the javlin missle launcher legal (im assuming they are illegal..infact im praying they are illegal)? you can do more harm to the general public with this rifle than with a javlin.

 

We all know the reason guns are so "free" in America is because people love guns... everything else is just making up reasons for what you want.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I have one

Tapey wrote:

I have one question should I be able to buy one of these? After all my semi automatic rifle will be useless against a tank should the government turn fascist?

hmmm but that isn't a gun so how about this then....

not very practical for self defense.... a hand gun would be better tbh

I cannot see the need for them to be legal though... if the threat of a fascist government was really a reason for this gun stuff why isn't the javlin missle launcher legal (im assuming they are illegal..infact im praying they are illegal)? you can do more harm to the general public with this rifle than with a javlin.

 

We all know the reason guns are so "free" in America is because people love guns... everything else is just making up reasons for what you want.

It would be helpful if you would stop approaching the topic of weaponry as if it's a class on comparative anatomy.  You are getting distracted with the argument of "this" weapon versus ''that" weapon.  Yes, mechanically speaking for every measure ( ie, armor plate ) there is a counter-measure ( ie, armor piercing projectiles ) but during a scenario such as an armed revolution tactics should take priority.

  Also, I am not disagreeing with you concerning the relative effectiveness of various weapons systems and their ability to wreak havoc. Technology has its place.  Partisan warfare though, is an approach that can be used to eventually wear down an enemy and facilitate the acquisition of more powerful weaponry which will then be turned against the previous owner.

  Weapon systems, such as mortars for instance,  are only a threat for as long as there are persons alive to operate them.  An accurately placed rifle bullet fired from a great distance can ensure that at least one mortar will remained unfired and out of action.

 

   A very dramatic example of the potential use of effective tactics was during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was interested in neutralizing the threat of a nuclear response from the Western powers.  The answer was not to destroy the weapons with another weapon.  In the event of actual nuclear conflict the Soviet's solution was instead to use their network of GRU military intelligence combined with the use of elite Spetsnaz to infiltrate these facilities and kill the human operators themselves.

 Again, tactics when employed properly   ...and not without losses... can overcome a serious military advantage.

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I have one

Tapey wrote:

I have one question should I be able to buy one of these? After all my semi automatic rifle will be useless against a tank should the government turn fascist?

 

 

I cannot see the need for them to be legal though... if the threat of a fascist government was really a reason for this gun stuff why isn't the javlin missle launcher legal (im assuming they are illegal..infact im praying they are illegal)?

 

 

  Hunh ?  I'm pretty sure that in the event of an armed revolution the insurgents really won't give much thought to whether their possession of any particular weapon is within the bounds of the "law".   After all, trying to violently overthrow the government is against the law, too. Right ?

  Besides, I've repeatedly stressed that the collective possession of small arms among a population is a sufficient stepping stone to the acquisition of more powerful devices.  A victorious scenario could only exist if their were a united effort put forth to topple a government. You're right, one individual rifle ( or even one individual Javelin ) against government might is virtually useless, that's why throughout history most successful revolutions have always required the participation of vast numbers of people working together over an extended period.

 

 If you hate the civilian ownership of firearms that's your prerogative.  Nevertheless your opinion does nothing to invalidate their proven utility in the hands of civilians against those political entities that pursue such goals as ethnic cleansing, and other forms of extreme oppression. There's a reason most nation's with gross human rights violations don't allow their population to be armed.

  Anyway, I'm done here.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Anyway, I'm done here." I

"Anyway, I'm done here."

I hope so. You've made me think there was a new post here 4 times now through your edits. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Sorry.  Apparently

  Sorry.  Apparently someone has intervened on your behalf.  I have no idea why an edit would keep bumping a thread.  Why does the software read it as a new post ?  Weird.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No need to apologise. It

No need to apologise. It took me awhile before I noticed it did that. A couple of arguments got screwed up because I was editting a post while someone was responding to it. So I tend to put in an edit explanation now when I edit a post. Which is not to suggest you have to, it's just my semi-solution.
I'd guess it says new because there is new content that hasn't been seen. I suspect that if the OP is changed it qualifies as updated, but if a post is changed it qualifies as new.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Apparently someone has intervened on your behalf.

Shit, I didn't know what you meant by this at the time, so I passed it over, but it just struck me that it was me. Some of the forums don't allow you to edit your posts after someone has responded. I'm sorry. I didn't think in my haste to make an attempt at humour.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
I say own as many guns as

I say own as many guns as you want and as many as you can. as long as your responsible it's a non issue. Anytime any place has tried to outlaw or limit gun ownership, crime rates rise. Take away people means of defense and they are prey. If a criminal knows I have a bunch of guns and the person across the street has none, who's house is he more likely to rob.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Big E wrote:

I say own as many guns as you want and as many as you can. as long as your responsible it's a non issue. Anytime any place has tried to outlaw or limit gun ownership, crime rates rise. Take away people means of defense and they are prey. If a criminal knows I have a bunch of guns and the person across the street has none, who's house is he more likely to rob.

 

Do you have evidence to support your claims?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:I say own as

Big E wrote:

I say own as many guns as you want and as many as you can. as long as your responsible it's a non issue. Anytime any place has tried to outlaw or limit gun ownership, crime rates rise. Take away people means of defense and they are prey. If a criminal knows I have a bunch of guns and the person across the street has none, who's house is he more likely to rob.

I don't know about where you are but here they will go to your house first for the sole purpose of stealing your guns and as you have guns they are more likly to kill you then after that they will go to the person across the street. You get far more money from stealing guns then you do for a tv or cellphone etc.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Tapey wrote:

Big E wrote:

I say own as many guns as you want and as many as you can. as long as your responsible it's a non issue. Anytime any place has tried to outlaw or limit gun ownership, crime rates rise. Take away people means of defense and they are prey. If a criminal knows I have a bunch of guns and the person across the street has none, who's house is he more likely to rob.

I don't know about where you are but here they will go to your house first for the sole purpose of stealing your guns and as you have guns they are more likly to kill you then after that they will go to the person across the street. You get far more money from stealing guns then you do for a tv or cellphone etc.

Less going across the street here. The law enforcement is usually pretty on the ball, and breakins get the cops called. 

 

But gun collectors are still targets for burglary. Especially the ones that like to put guns on display and brag about it. They might as well be hanging wads of cash on the wall.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:I say own as

Big E wrote:

I say own as many guns as you want and as many as you can. as long as your responsible it's a non issue. Anytime any place has tried to outlaw or limit gun ownership, crime rates rise. Take away people means of defense and they are prey. If a criminal knows I have a bunch of guns and the person across the street has none, who's house is he more likely to rob.

Yours.

As has already been mentioned - the guns are beaucoup more valuable on the street than anything else you're likely to have lying around the house.

Thieves are not afraid of guns - because they have no intent at all of confronting you even if you're unarmed. Robbery is a game of stealth and misdirection, not confrontation.

Also, there isn't any significant correlation between gun control and crime rates either way. There's no reason to believe that gun ownership is any kind of factor in crime rates. (And those who say that gun crime rises without gun control - well, duh. Availability and all that. The crime rate itself stays about the same.) About the only thing that correlates with any significance is the rate of gun accidents - I'm not really one to want laws that protect people from themselves. As you said, if you're responsible it's a non-issue.

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Tapey

ClockCat wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Big E wrote:

I say own as many guns as you want and as many as you can. as long as your responsible it's a non issue. Anytime any place has tried to outlaw or limit gun ownership, crime rates rise. Take away people means of defense and they are prey. If a criminal knows I have a bunch of guns and the person across the street has none, who's house is he more likely to rob.

I don't know about where you are but here they will go to your house first for the sole purpose of stealing your guns and as you have guns they are more likly to kill you then after that they will go to the person across the street. You get far more money from stealing guns then you do for a tv or cellphone etc.

Less going across the street here. The law enforcement is usually pretty on the ball, and breakins get the cops called. 

 

But gun collectors are still targets for burglary. Especially the ones that like to put guns on display and brag about it. They might as well be hanging wads of cash on the wall.

hehe I was more thinking a day or 2 later not directly after even though from one house to the next has been known to happen aswell. As an example 6 months ago there was 5 breakins in 7 days in the 9 closest houses to me. Luckly they didn't hit us but my car was broken into. All by the same people, they stole guns from the first house and used those guns to rob the rest. Im aware it can go the otherway and the robbers could be shot  but it really does paint a target on your back.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: hehe I was

Tapey wrote:

 

hehe I was more thinking a day or 2 later not directly after even though from one house to the next has been known to happen aswell. As an example 6 months ago there was 5 breakins in 7 days in the 9 closest houses to me. Luckly they didn't hit us but my car was broken into. All by the same people, they stole guns from the first house and used those guns to rob the rest.

 

Wow, SA sounds like a real shit-hole. 

  [edit]  not trying to flame you, just stating my perception.

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:

I say own as many guns as you want and as many as you can. as long as your responsible it's a non issue. Anytime any place has tried to outlaw or limit gun ownership, crime rates rise. Take away people means of defense and they are prey. If a criminal knows I have a bunch of guns and the person across the street has none, who's house is he more likely to rob.

Yours.

As has already been mentioned - the guns are beaucoup more valuable on the street than anything else you're likely to have lying around the house.

Thieves are not afraid of guns - because they have no intent at all of confronting you even if you're unarmed. Robbery is a game of stealth and misdirection, not confrontation.

Also, there isn't any significant correlation between gun control and crime rates either way. There's no reason to believe that gun ownership is any kind of factor in crime rates. (And those who say that gun crime rises without gun control - well, duh. Availability and all that. The crime rate itself stays about the same.) About the only thing that correlates with any significance is the rate of gun accidents - I'm not really one to want laws that protect people from themselves. As you said, if you're responsible it's a non-issue.

 

 

In 2005 55% of gun related deaths in the U.S. were suicide.

40% were murder.

2% were legal manslaughter.

3% were accident.

 

So. Yeah. Gun owners are more likely to kill themselves than anyone else with them.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:  In 2005

ClockCat wrote:


  In 2005 55% of gun related deaths in the U.S. were suicide.

40% were murder.

2% were legal manslaughter.

3% were accident.

 

.

   CC how do US figures in these categories compare with other countries such as the UK ?  Or Columbia or Switzerland ?   Is there a politically-neutral ( not NRA or Handgun Control )  websource that I can access ?


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Tapey

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Tapey wrote:

 

hehe I was more thinking a day or 2 later not directly after even though from one house to the next has been known to happen aswell. As an example 6 months ago there was 5 breakins in 7 days in the 9 closest houses to me. Luckly they didn't hit us but my car was broken into. All by the same people, they stole guns from the first house and used those guns to rob the rest.

 

Wow, SA sounds like a real shit-hole. 

 

It can be, but it really isn't that bad we haven't had a serious breakin since then, but we did invest in a 24 hour guard (my complex). I personally have only been a victim of crime once in my life and that was with them breaking into my car. I won't speak for others though . Complaining is a national pass time here so it appears worse than it actually is. I live quiet close to a squatter camp with a km of forest right next to the fence that is the reason for the high crime in my area but it has quietened down since we got the guard and a permanant private security car parked in the complex not to mention regular police patrols of the roads near us ooo and we got a 1.2 million rand fence put up to replace the old one. We are quite safe now. It was just a short crime spree. It has been fixed now. 

 

P.S. anywhere a tourist goes is safe... well unless it is a tourist with no common sense.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

  In 2005 55% of gun related deaths in the U.S. were suicide.

40% were murder.

2% were legal manslaughter.

3% were accident.

 

.

   CC how do US figures in these categories compare with other countries such as the UK ?  Or Columbia or Switzerland ?   Is there a politically-neutral ( not NRA or Handgun Control )  websource that I can access ?

 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

 

I don't know if columbia or switzerland publishes this kind of stuff like the U.S. and U.K. do. I'll check later.

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

 

I don't know if columbia or switzerland publishes this kind of stuff like the U.S. and U.K. do. I'll check later.

 

 

 

 Thanks.