Post: #301

(12-17-2012 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is a really good point. Even if guns are banned, people will just post the knowledge of how to build guns on the internet and people will build their own guns.

The AK-47 I hear is insanely simple and cheap to make, it really would be like trying to ban pot. How can you can something that is so easy to produce nearly anyone with some will power could do it?

Even easier. Just print the gun.

The first open-source 3D-printed gun.





This technology is in its infancy. Technology will make gun control obsolete. Laws can't prevent criminals from acquiring commercially manufactured guns. So how the hell is a law going to prevent criminals from printing the gun at home? All the laws can effectively do is disarm people who are inclined to obey the law.

Post: #302

(12-17-2012 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 08:18 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  Guns are actually incredibly simple pieces of machinery, and can be made with basic hand tools anyway. Whether or not your moral issue is more guns or less guns or that they don't matter, enforcing the legislation won't work, it'll just piss people who own guns legitimately off.

This is a really good point. Even if guns are banned, people will just post the knowledge of how to build guns on the internet and people will build their own guns.

The AK-47 I hear is insanely simple and cheap to make, it really would be like trying to ban pot. How can you can something that is so easy to produce nearly anyone with some will power could do it?

I think some of the things people say about guns on the internet are more the stuff of urban legends than reality. An AK-47 is cheap and easy to produce because it's comprised of many stamped parts. Certain parts of the gun require precision machine work and that makes the individual component expensive, but the overall cost of the gun remains fairly low.

If you're trying to build the parts that go into a gun, that's going to cost you some money. But with certain guns, you can go out and purchase every part needed to build it and assemble it. In that regard, even an AR-15 can be built with little more than simple hand tools.

Post: #303

(12-17-2012 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 08:18 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  Guns are actually incredibly simple pieces of machinery, and can be made with basic hand tools anyway. Whether or not your moral issue is more guns or less guns or that they don't matter, enforcing the legislation won't work, it'll just piss people who own guns legitimately off.

This is a really good point. Even if guns are banned, people will just post the knowledge of how to build guns on the internet and people will build their own guns.

The AK-47 I hear is insanely simple and cheap to make, it really would be like trying to ban pot. How can you can something that is so easy to produce nearly anyone with some will power could do it?

You're giving far too much credit to the average persons will power...
You'll always find a small percentage of people willing to go to those lengths, and you'll find a small percentage that whether they have guns or not will find another way to pull off some atrocity but how is, if a small percentage of people will build their own anyway an argument for let's make it as easy as possible for everyone to have them?

Pots also an entirely different animal...I'm guessing gun parts would be controlled as well, so joe average wouldn't go online to guns r us and order ak 47 parts without a visit from the feds...but there's nothing illegal about pot seeds...even still how common are private grow ops...most people will buy weed from somebody who does have good shit...getting caught with weed, slap on the wrist unless it's a large amount...buying aks from some guy who makes them and getting caught with it, jail time...average law abiding citizen gonna risk that or get a legal gun? Not exactly the same playing field. The guys who would likely make their own are the people we'd be trying to keep the guns away from in the first place...

Post: #304

(12-18-2012 12:06 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  The guys who would likely make their own are the people we'd be trying to keep the guns away from in the first place...

So, by your own admission, the guys you don't want having guns will probably still acquire firearms, while those of us that are law-abiding gun owners would be left defenseless.

Post: #305

fuck it

Post: #306

(12-18-2012 12:09 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:06 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  The guys who would likely make their own are the people we'd be trying to keep the guns away from in the first place...

So, by your own admission, the guys you don't want having guns will probably still acquire firearms, while those of us that are law-abiding gun owners would be left defenseless.

my fault I probably should've wrote the guys TRYING to make their own guns...

yes they would be the ones trying to build their own guns would they be successful? would they have the intelligence to? would they have the means and access to parts needed? you've added another level of difficulty in their ability to get access...all you can do is make it harder on the ones wanting to do damage...how many that discourages, stops outright, forces them into revealing their plan by trying to reach out for these weapons and how many lives that ends up saving we don't know but it will save more lives than letting them have unlimited access.

Post: #307

(12-18-2012 12:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  fuck it

My guess is it will close pretty soon.

Post: #308

(12-18-2012 12:09 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:06 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  The guys who would likely make their own are the people we'd be trying to keep the guns away from in the first place...

So, by your own admission, the guys you don't want having guns will probably still acquire firearms, while those of us that are law-abiding gun owners would be left defenseless.

and again...not letting you have aks, doesn't leave you defenseless...you would still have guns, just not certain ones...you act as if you don't have access to fk'n flame throwers and assault weapons you can't defend yourself. This is gun control, not taking away ALL guns...

Post: #309

I'm a bit pissed off right now, I'll write a better reply when I've cooled down.

Post: #310

(12-18-2012 01:28 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  Arguing with idiots who want to take away rights is fruitless, they are all childish subhuman trash who don't run on facts or logic when it comes to this stuff, it's all emotion. If you have no respect for my rights I have no respect for yours. I'm going to have my Ar-15s and AK47 clones and there's nothing you can do to stop me. I'm a free man and if you try to "regulate" me, expect violent retaliation.

So go ahead, try to ban "assault weapons" or whatever propaganda term the Brady Bunch (the goal of which is, as stated by their leadership, a defacto total gun ban) has come up with, see if it doesn't result in more violence, this time political.

We are *this* fucking close to dissolving the entire social contract and resorting to organized violence, don't push it any further.

Post: #311

(12-18-2012 01:31 AM)houston Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 01:28 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  Arguing with idiots who want to take away rights is fruitless, they are all childish subhuman trash who don't run on facts or logic when it comes to this stuff, it's all emotion. If you have no respect for my rights I have no respect for yours. I'm going to have my Ar-15s and AK47 clones and there's nothing you can do to stop me. I'm a free man and if you try to "regulate" me, expect violent retaliation.

So go ahead, try to ban "assault weapons" or whatever propaganda term the Brady Bunch (the goal of which is, as stated by their leadership, a defacto total gun ban) has come up with, see if it doesn't result in more violence, this time political.

We are *this* fucking close to dissolving the entire social contract and resorting to organized violence, don't push it any further.

lmao glad hes got access to guns...anyone pro gun starting to think mental health tests may not be a bad thing yet?

Post: #312

I see that someone has mentioned "Switzerland as the country where everyone has an assault weapon, yet there are almost no homicides or shootings at all." The fact about its low crime rate is completely true, and even what there is can partially be attributed to immigration (sorry).

How many guns are there really in Switzerland?

However, it's misleading to say that everyone has guns there. First of all, they're #4 with 45 guns per 100 residents, not #1 like United States with 88 guns per 100 residents.

Ways of getting a gun in Switzerland

Second of all, consider how they get their guns. The government gives them those military rifles because Switzerland doesn't have a standing army - rather, it relies on a people's militia. The rifle issued is only there for the purposes of surviving an immediate attack if the soldier encounters one while traveling to the official armory. The gun also comes with a sealed container containing 50 bullets, which is not to be opened under any circumstances other than a declaration of war and having to travel to the said armory. Even this has recently been softened, and now only special forces members are issued guns with ammo for this purpose, although militia members are still obligated to visit designated shooting centers annually for training.

Of course, a private person can still own and/or carry a non-military-issued gun for his own reasons, with a proper permit that involves certifications and background checks. This is the case mainly in people who work in security.

Differences in motivation for gun ownership

So whereas the people of USA buy guns, thinking that they'll need them, that they provide social status, or whatever else, the Swiss are issued their guns. Doesn't sound very weapon-loving. If the government didn't give them guns, most of them wouldn't care enough to get one.

Difference in motivation for allowing guns

Whereas Switzerland allows its people (and even obligates them) to have guns, it does so to defend the country against a possible foreign aggressor. The Swiss people are the army. Their guns are aimed at other countries. Doesn't this seem reasonable? If someone invades you, your citizens are ready to fight.

In contrast, the USA allows its people to have guns so that they can fight against the government if it becomes a tyranny. Their guns are aimed at their own country. I have heard of many countries that allow guns as personal liberty, or as method of defense against enemies, but as a method of defense against one's own government almost never. This reflects an universal paranoia that seems inherent to the American way of life today.

Conclusion: Because of all these unique characteristics, Switzerland cannot be used as a case for proving the benefits or disproving the harm of gun ownership.

Post: #313

(12-18-2012 03:02 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  lmao glad hes got access to guns...anyone pro gun starting to think mental health tests may not be a bad thing yet?

The gun control act of 1968 establishes those who cannot possess firearms.

Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

The mental health thing might need a little polishing up, but it was addressed 45 years ago. No wonder all you gun grabbers want the guns taken away, you people are only capable of shooting from the hip. I guess that's what happens when you only learn marksmanship skills from watching Rambo movies and shitty rap videos.

Post: #314

(12-18-2012 04:26 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I see that someone has mentioned "Switzerland as the country where everyone has an assault weapon, yet there are almost no homicides or shootings at all." The fact about its low crime rate is completely true, and even what there is can partially be attributed to immigration (sorry).

How many guns are there really in Switzerland?

However, it's misleading to say that everyone has guns there. First of all, they're #4 with 45 guns per 100 residents, not #1 like United States with 88 guns per 100 residents.

Ways of getting a gun in Switzerland

Second of all, consider how they get their guns. The government gives them those military rifles because Switzerland doesn't have a standing army - rather, it relies on a people's militia. The rifle issued is only there for the purposes of surviving an immediate attack if the soldier encounters one while traveling to the official armory. The gun also comes with a sealed container containing 50 bullets, which is not to be opened under any circumstances other than a declaration of war and having to travel to the said armory. Even this has recently been softened, and now only special forces members are issued guns with ammo for this purpose, although militia members are still obligated to visit designated shooting centers annually for training.

Of course, a private person can still own and/or carry a non-military-issued gun for his own reasons, with a proper permit that involves certifications and background checks. This is the case mainly in people who work in security.

Differences in motivation for gun ownership

So whereas the people of USA buy guns, thinking that they'll need them, that they provide social status, or whatever else, the Swiss are issued their guns. Doesn't sound very weapon-loving. If the government didn't give them guns, most of them wouldn't care enough to get one.

Difference in motivation for allowing guns

Whereas Switzerland allows its people (and even obligates them) to have guns, it does so to defend the country against a possible foreign aggressor. The Swiss people are the army. Their guns are aimed at other countries. Doesn't this seem reasonable? If someone invades you, your citizens are ready to fight.

In contrast, the USA allows its people to have guns so that they can fight against the government if it becomes a tyranny. Their guns are aimed at their own country. I have heard of many countries that allow guns as personal liberty, or as method of defense against enemies, but as a method of defense against one's own government almost never. This reflects an universal paranoia that seems inherent to the American way of life today.

Conclusion: Because of all these unique characteristics, Switzerland cannot be used as a case for proving the benefits or disproving the harm of gun ownership.

Good post lad.

But you guys are all avoiding the real problem, it's not your guns (as much as I'm not a fan of people waving around guns), it's your culture sidelining men. An epidemic throughout the western world.

Post: #315

From Massad Ayoob, a very well known firearms instructor.

AGAINST MONSTERS

The atrocity at the Connecticut elementary school will not be the last such horror, nor was it the first or even the worst. Go back to the year 1764, in what is now Franklin County, Pennsylvania. The first: during Pontiac’s Rebellion in the wake of the French and Indian War, four “warriors” entered a schoolhouse and slaughtered the headmaster and some ten children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s...l_massacre . The worst: in 1927, a crazed monster beat his wife to death, then triggered a bombing in an elementary school in Bath, Michigan, killing some 38 kids and several adults. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster .

I’ll repeat what I said in the Wall Street Journal op-ed section and on the Today show in 1999, after the Columbine High School atrocity: if we simply prepared teachers to handle this type of crisis the way we teach them to handle fires and medical emergencies, the death toll would drop dramatically. We don’t hear of mass deaths of children in school fires these days: fire drills have long since been commonplace, led by trained school staff, not to mention sprinkler systems and smoke alarms and strategically placed fire extinguishers that can nip a blaze in the bud while firefighters are en route. In the past, if someone “dropped dead,” people would cry and wring their hands and wail, “When will the ambulance get here?” Today, almost every responsible adult knows CPR; most schools have easily-operated Automatic Electronic Defibrillators readily accessible; and a heart attack victim’s chance of surviving until the paramedics arrive to take over is now far greater.

The same principle works for defending against mass murders…it just doesn’t work HERE, because it is politically incorrect to employ it HERE. After the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, Israel instituted a policy in which volunteer school personnel, parents, and grandparents received special training from the civil guard, and were seeded throughout the schools armed with discreetly concealed 9mm semiautomatic pistols. Since that time, there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school, and every attempt at such has been quickly shortstopped by the good guys’ gunfire, with minimal casualties among the innocent. Similar programs are in place in Peru and the Phillippines, with similarly successful results.

Some people see the logic in the Israeli approach. Dave Workman does, as seen here: http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-wa...b_articles . Ann Coulter does, as seen here: http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post...laws-69361 .

Unfortunately, in this country, logic has been buried under political correctness. Those in power whose ego is invested in brie et Chablis values that include scorn for the peasantry they accuse of “clinging to guns and Bibles” will never see that logic. Children will continue to die in gun-free zones (hunting preserves for psychopathic murderers), and the cowardly murderers will continue to surrender or kill themselves as soon as armed good guys show up…far too late.

Post: #316

(12-17-2012 09:35 PM)Grit Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 12:33 PM)dragnet Wrote:  There is no reason on this earth that civilians should be allowed to own automatic weapons or possess high-capacity magazines. Zero. Zip. Zilch. No reason at all.

Why make such blanket generalizations? You do realize that our military is privatized to a great extent? Raytheon is run by civilians, contracts with the government, but owns patents to missile systems, miniguns, smart munitions. A bunch of dumb civilians that own the rights to tactical weapons systems? Heresy!!!

Or Blackwater Security Consulting. Ex military guys were in Iraq as security for valuable infrastructure. Someone has to protect construction workers, truck drivers, etc. In fact, Blackwater guys could buy their own gear. There is a huge market to making the best tactical gear because they want to buy the best and protect themselves. You need civilian entrepreneurs to own tactical guns so that they can invent better products.

Take your fuzzy pander elsewhere.

This is easily the dumbest possible response to my argument. You're arguing that because a miniscule portion of the civilian population may need automatic & heavy weapons in their roles as civilian contractors for foreign wars (itself a controversial mode of employ) such weapons therefore must be made available to the general public.

How about a better plan: you ban all automatic weapons and issue exception permits to own them to the 0.001 percent of individuals who can actually show cause to do so. When the weapons are no longer needed, they can then be acquired by the gov't at a premium through a buyback program so they don't find their way to the streets. Or any of the other 6,232,321 possible plans that would do something similar and have worked in other countries. Do a little research and stop uncritically disseminating defense industry & NRA talking points.

And it's my view that our military is far too privatised---but that's another line of discussion altogether.

Post: #317

(12-18-2012 08:11 AM)dragnet Wrote:  How about a better plan: you ban all automatic weapons and issue exception permits to own them to the 0.001 percent of individuals who can actually show cause to do so.

The assumption here is you can always trust your government. Which historically is not true.

The largest massacres of civilians have been by governments that disarmed their own populace, time and time again.

Allowing a government to decide what is cause for owning arms invariably means the politically inconvenient are disarmed. And then murdered in a state sanctioned, entirely legal way.

Post: #318

(12-18-2012 05:08 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 03:02 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  lmao glad hes got access to guns...anyone pro gun starting to think mental health tests may not be a bad thing yet?

The gun control act of 1968 establishes those who cannot possess firearms.

Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

The mental health thing might need a little polishing up, but it was addressed 45 years ago. No wonder all you gun grabbers want the guns taken away, you people are only capable of shooting from the hip. I guess that's what happens when you only learn marksmanship skills from watching Rambo movies and shitty rap videos.

Guys, is it really that hard to figure out? What is the point of the law if there is absolutely no enforcement and loopholes the size of a fucking planet?
The Gun Show Loophole
The whole video is informative but watch especially from 0:42-1:34, an 18 year old with NO ID buys an AK-47. Who can defend this with a straight face?

Post: #319

(12-18-2012 11:26 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 08:11 AM)dragnet Wrote:  How about a better plan: you ban all automatic weapons and issue exception permits to own them to the 0.001 percent of individuals who can actually show cause to do so.

The assumption here is you can always trust your government. Which historically is not true.

The largest massacres of civilians have been by governments that disarmed their own populace, time and time again.

Allowing a government to decide what is cause for owning arms invariably means the politically inconvenient are disarmed. And then murdered in a state sanctioned, entirely legal way.

If you actually think that your M-16 is going to stop a gov't massacre when the gov't has access to tanks/missiles/nukes/artillery/warplanes you are sadly mistaken. By that same logic, individuals citizens should be able to own missile launchers, anti-tank guns, anti-anticraft systems---the works. It's absurd on its face.

And the notion that an armed citizenry can pushback gov't overreach has no real basis in history in this country. There has not been a single case in American history of gov't overreach that was pushback by armed citizens or significant change that was initiated by private arms. The New Deal, Civil Rights, universal suffrage, feminist revolution, Prohibition, westward expansionism, etc---never were any of these major undertakings and historic changes the product of action by an armed citizenry against the gov't. The Civil War doesn't count (it was not an action by an armed citizenry but by treasonous Southern gov'ts that mutined and seized Federal forts and other military hardware---private arms weren't the driving factor).

Forget the constutional concept for a moment and think about actual lived history and you will realize that there was never one instance, during the entire 225-odd year history of this country where gov't tyranny was counteracted by private citizens applying second amendment remedies. And this was before the era of tanks/missiles and other advanced weaponry. The vast majority of all major changes (except the Civil War which is different for the reason I explained above) were secured at the ballot box.

Just face it--for people like you, owning guns isn't about opposing gov't tyranny. It's about having fun and blowing shit up. And that's totally fine--but it needs to be regulated and balanced against other imperatives (ie, social saftey). The notion that your AR-15 is the key to American liberty isn't about freedom and it isn't even nationalism---it's a twisted kind of civic narcissism that now has the blood of children on its hands.

Post: #320

(12-18-2012 07:43 AM)assman Wrote:  From Massad Ayoob, a very well known firearms instructor.far too late.[/b]

Massad Ayoob is the man.

Of his many articles and examples, my favorite always went something like this.:

"An elderly woman is laying in bed at night when she hears a rattling at her window. Turns out a burglar had found a ladder and used it to climb to her second-floor bedroom. As he opened the window, the elderly woman pointed a snub nose at him. The burglar said, 'Lady, you ain't got the balls to shoot me.' She blew him away."

Post: #321

(12-18-2012 12:01 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:26 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 08:11 AM)dragnet Wrote:  How about a better plan: you ban all automatic weapons and issue exception permits to own them to the 0.001 percent of individuals who can actually show cause to do so.

The assumption here is you can always trust your government. Which historically is not true.

The largest massacres of civilians have been by governments that disarmed their own populace, time and time again.

Allowing a government to decide what is cause for owning arms invariably means the politically inconvenient are disarmed. And then murdered in a state sanctioned, entirely legal way.

If you actually think that your M-16 is going to stop a gov't massacre when the gov't has access to tanks/missiles/nukes/artillery/warplanes you are sadly mistaken. By that same logic, individuals citizens should be able to own missile launchers, anti-tank guns, anti-anticraft systems---the works. It's absurd on its face.

And the notion that an armed citizenry can pushback gov't overreach has no real basis in history in this country. There has not been a single case in American history of gov't overreach that was pushback by armed citizens or significant change that was initiated by private arms. The New Deal, Civil Rights, universal suffrage, feminist revolution, Prohibition, westward expansionism, etc---never were any of these major undertakings and historic changes the product of action by an armed citizenry against the gov't. The Civil War doesn't count (it was not an action by an armed citizenry but by treasonous Southern gov'ts that mutined and seized Federal forts and other military hardware---private arms weren't the driving factor).

Forget the constutional concept for a moment and think about actual lived history and you will realize that there was never one instance, during the entire 225-odd year history of this country where gov't tyranny was counteracted by private citizens applying second amendment remedies. And this was before the era of tanks/missiles and other advanced weaponry. The vast majority of all major changes (except the Civil War which is different for the reason I explained above) were secured at the ballot box.

Just face it--for people like you, owning guns isn't about opposing gov't tyranny. It's about having fun and blowing shit up. And that's totally fine--but it needs to be regulated and balanced against other imperatives (ie, social saftey). The notion that your AR-15 is the key to American liberty isn't about freedom and it isn't even nationalism---it's a twisted kind of civic narcissism that now has the blood of children on its hands.

Proving yet again that everyone in favor of more gun control is too ignorant to be allowed to vote.

If you try to ban guns and impose tyranny you'll see that we WILL use them to maintain our freedom. Do you really want another Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Post: #322

(12-18-2012 12:39 PM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:01 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:26 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 08:11 AM)dragnet Wrote:  How about a better plan: you ban all automatic weapons and issue exception permits to own them to the 0.001 percent of individuals who can actually show cause to do so.

The assumption here is you can always trust your government. Which historically is not true.

The largest massacres of civilians have been by governments that disarmed their own populace, time and time again.

Allowing a government to decide what is cause for owning arms invariably means the politically inconvenient are disarmed. And then murdered in a state sanctioned, entirely legal way.

If you actually think that your M-16 is going to stop a gov't massacre when the gov't has access to tanks/missiles/nukes/artillery/warplanes you are sadly mistaken. By that same logic, individuals citizens should be able to own missile launchers, anti-tank guns, anti-anticraft systems---the works. It's absurd on its face.

And the notion that an armed citizenry can pushback gov't overreach has no real basis in history in this country. There has not been a single case in American history of gov't overreach that was pushback by armed citizens or significant change that was initiated by private arms. The New Deal, Civil Rights, universal suffrage, feminist revolution, Prohibition, westward expansionism, etc---never were any of these major undertakings and historic changes the product of action by an armed citizenry against the gov't. The Civil War doesn't count (it was not an action by an armed citizenry but by treasonous Southern gov'ts that mutined and seized Federal forts and other military hardware---private arms weren't the driving factor).

Forget the constutional concept for a moment and think about actual lived history and you will realize that there was never one instance, during the entire 225-odd year history of this country where gov't tyranny was counteracted by private citizens applying second amendment remedies. And this was before the era of tanks/missiles and other advanced weaponry. The vast majority of all major changes (except the Civil War which is different for the reason I explained above) were secured at the ballot box.

Just face it--for people like you, owning guns isn't about opposing gov't tyranny. It's about having fun and blowing shit up. And that's totally fine--but it needs to be regulated and balanced against other imperatives (ie, social saftey). The notion that your AR-15 is the key to American liberty isn't about freedom and it isn't even nationalism---it's a twisted kind of civic narcissism that now has the blood of children on its hands.

Proving yet again that everyone in favor of more gun control is too ignorant to be allowed to vote.

If you try to ban guns and impose tyranny you'll see that we WILL use them to maintain our freedom. Do you really want another Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

You have got to be kidding me. A few yahoos with rifles in a bumfuck Tennessee town does not even come close to counting as sustained armed citizen action against the federal gov't to effect change. And if you seriously think your machine gun is going to win the day in Second Civil War against a federal gov't armed with drones/bombers/nukes/etc then you are barely sentient. No doubt you also believe the earth was created in six days, that climate change is a hoax and that 911 was an inside job.

Stop offering looney, far-right, fringe talking points as gospel. You've got your whole life ahead of you, son---if you start now, change is possible.

Post: #323

(12-18-2012 05:08 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution

so if theyre in an asylum no guns or by luck if theyve been diagnosed as mentally defective no guns...that doesnt account for the millions upon millions walking around undiagnosed that can get easy access to a gun... a mental competency test prior to being given the right to own a gun seems like an easy enough step. Even a pro gun guy has to like the idea of keeping guns away from mentally unbalanced individuals, it strengthens your cause as well.

Post: #324

(12-17-2012 04:35 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  1n 1996 there was a school massacre in Scotland, 15 kids killed. The UK immediately banned guns. There hasn't been a massacre since.

In 1996 there was a massacre in Australia 35 killed. The government immediately banned guns. There hasn't been a massacre since.

Got to love guns.

He is showing a before and after with Australia and UK. Is it purely coincidence that the banning of guns eliminated massacres in the forementioned countries?
[/quote]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12...ide_a.html

Here's a piece from Slate about the measures taken by the Australian government, and the results of them. According to the article, the measures didn't just stop massacres (there were 11 such massacres pre-'95, none after), but a drop in robberies and even suicides with firearms. They eliminated the private sale of firearms, and gun buy-backs were largely effective. At the same time, we have to compare cultures of different countries before we assume the same results in a country like ours. It's still food for thought.
[/quote]

What is the culture difference? Doesn't the premise essentially lie behind the same reason as to why Americans are overly fat? Too much access, non? If you make it harder to lay hands on these things, won't the incidences stop occurring?
You can get guns in the UK (this I know). I believe you can get guns in Australia if you want.

How do British citizens/inhabitants feel knowing that there are goons running around with pistols in their country? Do they feel that the rights to bear arms will make them feel safe? How do the Auzzies feel?

Post: #325

(12-18-2012 05:30 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 04:26 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I see that someone has mentioned "Switzerland as the country where everyone has an assault weapon, yet there are almost no homicides or shootings at all." The fact about its low crime rate is completely true, and even what there is can partially be attributed to immigration (sorry).

How many guns are there really in Switzerland?

However, it's misleading to say that everyone has guns there. First of all, they're #4 with 45 guns per 100 residents, not #1 like United States with 88 guns per 100 residents.

Ways of getting a gun in Switzerland

Second of all, consider how they get their guns. The government gives them those military rifles because Switzerland doesn't have a standing army - rather, it relies on a people's militia. The rifle issued is only there for the purposes of surviving an immediate attack if the soldier encounters one while traveling to the official armory. The gun also comes with a sealed container containing 50 bullets, which is not to be opened under any circumstances other than a declaration of war and having to travel to the said armory. Even this has recently been softened, and now only special forces members are issued guns with ammo for this purpose, although militia members are still obligated to visit designated shooting centers annually for training.

Of course, a private person can still own and/or carry a non-military-issued gun for his own reasons, with a proper permit that involves certifications and background checks. This is the case mainly in people who work in security.

Differences in motivation for gun ownership

So whereas the people of USA buy guns, thinking that they'll need them, that they provide social status, or whatever else, the Swiss are issued their guns. Doesn't sound very weapon-loving. If the government didn't give them guns, most of them wouldn't care enough to get one.

Difference in motivation for allowing guns

Whereas Switzerland allows its people (and even obligates them) to have guns, it does so to defend the country against a possible foreign aggressor. The Swiss people are the army. Their guns are aimed at other countries. Doesn't this seem reasonable? If someone invades you, your citizens are ready to fight.

In contrast, the USA allows its people to have guns so that they can fight against the government if it becomes a tyranny. Their guns are aimed at their own country. I have heard of many countries that allow guns as personal liberty, or as method of defense against enemies, but as a method of defense against one's own government almost never. This reflects an universal paranoia that seems inherent to the American way of life today.

Conclusion: Because of all these unique characteristics, Switzerland cannot be used as a case for proving the benefits or disproving the harm of gun ownership.

Good post lad.

But you guys are all avoiding the real problem, it's not your guns (as much as I'm not a fan of people waving around guns), it's your culture sidelining men. An epidemic throughout the western world.

@Bojangles You mean an epidemic throughout the UNITED STATES. Please don't put Canada and Europe under the same flag. There are barely any "incidents" like this in our part of the western world.

@handsome creepy eel, good post about Switzerland where I like to add that it a great strategic move also.
In World War 1, the Germans had a really hard time crossing through Belgium for exact the same reason. They were getting massive resistance from locals owning their own guns. They couldn't set foot in any place small or big without having the risk of getting shot by an angry citizen.

In fact the Germans were so desperate that they resorted to mass killing (aka The Rape of Belgium) to force the surrender of the Belgium citizens long after the Belgium army was already defeated.