Gun Rights

[GeneralHaNor]

Not killing people with sharp bits of metal doesn't make us civilized.

more civilized than killing people.

We stopped killing people?

Alert the media!!

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Civilized is a relative term. Knights thought themselves very civilized. I'm sure that people in 500 years will look at us and think us uncivilized for one reason or another.

"Can you really believe that they use to "rule" one another?"

"Barbarians, the lot of them"

More likely is a one world government, actually.

[GeneralHaNor]

"Can you really believe that they use to "rule" one another?"

"Barbarians, the lot of them"

More likely is a one world government, actually.

Frankly, I'm tempted to become a mad scientist, if only to prevent such a thing from every happening

I think destroying civilization should take care of that problem.

[Senestrum]

A halfway-decent OWG would be fan-fucking-tastic.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

More likely is a one world government, actually.

Frankly, I'm tempted to become a mad scientist, if only to prevent such a thing from every happening

I think destroying civilization should take care of that problem.

What's wrong with a one-world govt?

You're apparently doing better than 75% of the world under the US government. You live in a home, you have a job, you have a computer, you have Internet access. Bam you're better than 3/4th's of the world population right there.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Funny story about that guy, his name is Kyle and he's from Georgia (from the info I've found out), and regularly borrows many of those NFA items from a local Class 3 dealer, or rents them when he's at the indoor range (although I hear he does have a decent firearms collection as well).

He's actually said that he often borrows or rents a lot of weapons that he uses, and owns a lot of others. I think he lives outside of Chicago now. Please tell me you mean the Republic of Georgia and not the state of Georgia, because it would be deeply disappointing to find out that he's just acting.

I got a 7.5 inch KABAR in my camping gear. Best fucking knife i've ever had the pleasure of handling.

I heard the new ones, the OKC-3S, are 8 inches. Ghastly mofos, and I hope to one day have the privilege of carrying one.

He's an American, the accent is fake.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

IF YOU LOVE YOUR GUNS SO MUCH WHY DONT YOU MARRY THEM

*** Warned for trolling ***

Bear in mind that with two deleted nations already, the number of chances you will received until you are not only deleted, but disinvited from this site entirely will dwindle rapidly. I recommend best behavior or moving on to greener pastures.

[Separatist Peoples]

Yeah, anything longer then about 8 inches, people tend to get "Rambo syndrome".

I got a 7.5 inch KABAR in my camping gear. Best fucking knife i've ever had the pleasure of handling. Its saved my ass on a couple occasions, but it can get unwieldy in some situations. I've done some pretty basic combat knife fighting stuff with it, and it really isn't hard to see how anything larger would be a problem. I know people who can't use 2.5 inch paring knives, let alone a 4 inch buck knife...
"

Anything less than a 17" spike is not an effective bayonet. 8" is barely effective for stabbing, tbh. Maybe trimming your whiskers, or cutting a steak, or perhaps some other utility task like wirecutting or hand-to-hand combat, but not for bayonet fighting. I personally believe that a bayonet and a combat knife are separate weapons, like a shotgun and a rifle, they can't be used for the same purposes because they are inherently different. Speaking of which, my Mosin Nagant gets more use as a spear than a rifle.

I'm also in the process of acquiring a 18" sword bayonet for my FN49. I don't like the stubby thing that came with it.

I don't recall mentioning bayonets, but if you want an effective one, I recommend the Springfield 1861 socket bayonet/rifle combo. Nothing like a dull, triangular spear head on the end of a 15lb, .58 caliber musket. I love that rifle...so very much Suck for cutting or slashing, but anything you stab is staying down. Plus, they look nice locked together in a pretty "stack arms" formation.

In all seriousness, I see no need to own any knife longer then my forearm. Anything bigger then that will only get in my way, sadly.

[Vingtor]

In all seriousness, I see no need to own any knife longer then my forearm. Anything bigger then that will only get in my way, sadly.

This^

[DaWoad]

more civilized than killing people.

We stopped killing people?

Alert the media!!

never claimed that, I claimed that it's more civilized not to kill people than it is to kill people.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

He's an American, the accent is fake.

Awwww...

[GeneralHaNor]

Frankly, I'm tempted to become a mad scientist, if only to prevent such a thing from every happening

I think destroying civilization should take care of that problem.

What's wrong with a one-world govt?

You're apparently doing better than 75% of the world under the US government. You live in a home, you have a job, you have a computer, you have Internet access. Bam you're better than 3/4th's of the world population right there.

Shit, vs Prosperity flavored shit
Granted I will take the propsperity flavored shit if it's all your offering,

Heres your problem with the One World Order, it has zero incentive to behave itself, under the current system, you at least have to be concerned about what your neighbors and the rest of the world think about you, granted the more power you have the less concerned you need to be.

If you have no competition, and a complete monopoly on violence, you have no incentive to behave in an even remotely beneficial fashion to your citizens. which is now everyone, and there is no escape to a "better" country.

Yeah, that's my nightmare. I would sooner destroy civilization and most of humanity, then allow even a single generation of people to be subjected to that hellscape

[Galla-]

We stopped killing people?

Alert the media!!

never claimed that, I claimed that it's more civilized not to kill people than it is to kill people.

We currently kill more people yearly than 11th century knights dreamed existed. Every year, twice as many people who died in the black death die in our modern world. Either through economic mismanagement, war, uncontrolled disease, or some other factor.

Are we not more civilised than "dark age" Europe?

[DaWoad]

never claimed that, I claimed that it's more civilized not to kill people than it is to kill people.

We currently kill more people yearly than 11th century knights dreamed existed. Every year, twice as many people who died in the black death die in our modern world. Either through economic mismanagement, war, uncontrolled disease, or some other factor.

Are we not more civilised than "dark age" Europe?

well . . . in parts of the world?
but more importantly, there's a larger population now than then. Proportionally, people live longer, are healthier and etc.

[GeneralHaNor]

We currently kill more people yearly than 11th century knights dreamed existed. Every year, twice as many people who died in the black death die in our modern world. Either through economic mismanagement, war, uncontrolled disease, or some other factor.

Are we not more civilised than "dark age" Europe?

well . . . in parts of the world?
but more importantly, there's a larger population now than then. Proportionally, people live longer, are healthier and etc.

I've seen this before, it's a variation on "It's okay that we kill millions more these, because we have billions more to kill!!!"

1=1, it's not proportionality weighted. It's not 1/N where N is the population at any given time, thus making 1 worth less over the years., now, 1=1 It's a finite value.

[Galla-]

We currently kill more people yearly than 11th century knights dreamed existed. Every year, twice as many people who died in the black death die in our modern world. Either through economic mismanagement, war, uncontrolled disease, or some other factor.

Are we not more civilised than "dark age" Europe?

well . . . in parts of the world?
but more importantly, there's a larger population now than then. Proportionally, people live longer, are healthier and etc.

Your never argued that.

You said:

(...) it's more civilized not to kill people than it is to kill people.

We kill more people now than we did then. By your definition, we are uncivilised. And yes, we do kill more people proportionally, because Humanity's overall ability to wage war, and murder each other on an industrial scale has increased dramatically since the 19th century. We have the ability to kill millions of our species with a button press.

The Battle of Stalingrad alone, over a single city, killed ten times more people than all five Crusades of the medieval era combined.

That was one battle out of a single war.

One battle that killed more people than most knights of the "dark ages" could even imagine. The entire war killed as many people who died, worldwide, as in the Black Death, including all subsequent outbreaks during later centuries. 3x as many people who died in Europe alone as the Black Death.

This is not counting every other war of the 20th century, which was Humanity's bloodiest century in existence, and the most technologically and socially progressive.

By your definition, we would be outright barbarians compared to the people of Western Europe during the "dark ages", simply because we kill more proportionally to our own population than they ever have.

[DaWoad]

well . . . in parts of the world?
but more importantly, there's a larger population now than then. Proportionally, people live longer, are healthier and etc.

I've seen this before, it's a variation on "It's okay that we kill millions more these, because we have billions more to kill!!!"

1=1, it's not proportionality weighted. It's not 1/N where N is the population at any given time, thus making 1 worth less over the years., now, 1=1 It's a finite value.

that's ridiculous in this context. You loose more people to disease because disease is a proportional killer ditto random, unpreventable, accident. Hell, go back far enough and we loose more people a year to completely unpreventable death than the entirety of the human population.

[DaWoad]

well . . . in parts of the world?
but more importantly, there's a larger population now than then. Proportionally, people live longer, are healthier and etc.

Your never argued that.

You said:

(...) it's more civilized not to kill people than it is to kill people.

We kill more people now than we did then. By your definition, we are uncivilised. And yes, we do kill more people proportionally, because Humanity's overall ability to wage war, and murder each other on an industrial scale has increased dramatically since the 19th century. We have the ability to kill millions of our species with a button press.

The Battle of Stalingrad alone, over a single city, killed ten times more people than all five Crusades of the medieval era combined.

That was one battle out of a single war.

One battle that killed more people than most knights of the "dark ages" could even imagine. The entire war killed as many people who died, worldwide, as in the Black Death, including all subsequent outbreaks during later centuries. 3x as many people who died in Europe alone as the Black Death.

This is not counting every other war of the 20th century, which was Humanity's bloodiest century in existence, and the most technologically and socially progressive.

By your definition, we would be outright barbarians compared to the people of Western Europe during the "dark ages", simply because we kill more proportionally to our own population than they ever have.

except that the bolded is an outright falsehood. We kill fewer proportional to our population than we did in the dark ages.

[Cameroi]

until guns develop artificial intelligence, i fail to see the logic in their having rights.

[DaWoad]

until guns develop artificial intelligence, i fail to see the logic in their having rights.

don't flowers have rights somewhere? like .. . Sweden or something? Guns could be claimed to be approximately as intelligent as flowers (ie. not even a little).

[Galla-]

Your never argued that.

You said:



We kill more people now than we did then. By your definition, we are uncivilised. And yes, we do kill more people proportionally, because Humanity's overall ability to wage war, and murder each other on an industrial scale has increased dramatically since the 19th century. We have the ability to kill millions of our species with a button press.

The Battle of Stalingrad alone, over a single city, killed ten times more people than all five Crusades of the medieval era combined.

That was one battle out of a single war.

One battle that killed more people than most knights of the "dark ages" could even imagine. The entire war killed as many people who died, worldwide, as in the Black Death, including all subsequent outbreaks during later centuries. 3x as many people who died in Europe alone as the Black Death.

This is not counting every other war of the 20th century, which was Humanity's bloodiest century in existence, and the most technologically and socially progressive.

By your definition, we would be outright barbarians compared to the people of Western Europe during the "dark ages", simply because we kill more proportionally to our own population than they ever have.

except that the bolded is an outright falsehood. We kill fewer proportional to our population than we did in the dark ages.

There were 2 or so billion people in the world during WWII. There were, roughly, 300 million during the Crusades. So let's see if I can do math, bear with me, it's never been my strong subject with regards to actually properly doing formulae that I don't have explained to me:

2,000,000,000/75,000,000 = 26.6666-ad infinitum.

So in other words 3.75% of the world died horribly.

300,000,000/200,000 = 1,500.

So yeah 0.004% if I have the casualty figures right.

[Gun Manufacturers]

until guns develop artificial intelligence, i fail to see the logic in their having rights.

If guns didn't have rights, then their lefts would be supporting all the weight.

[DaWoad]

except that the bolded is an outright falsehood. We kill fewer proportional to our population than we did in the dark ages.

There were 2 or so billion people in the world during WWII. There were, roughly, 300 million during the Crusades. So let's see if I can do math, bear with me, it's never been my strong subject with regards to actually properly doing formulae that I don't have explained to me:

2,000,000,000/75,000,000 = 26.6666-ad infinitum.

So in other words 3.75% of the world died horribly.

300,000,000/200,000 = 1,500.

So yeah 0.004% if I have the casualty figures right.

Maybe more, maybe less. Regardless, it's quite obvious that was wrong, although I still don't see where you mentioned proportions except after the fact that I pointed out that we do, in fact, kill more people now than we did then.

you don't have your casualty figures right.
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

[Galla-]

There were 2 or so billion people in the world during WWII. There were, roughly, 300 million during the Crusades. So let's see if I can do math, bear with me, it's never been my strong subject with regards to actually properly doing formulae that I don't have explained to me:

2,000,000,000/75,000,000 = 26.6666-ad infinitum.

So in other words 3.75% of the world died horribly.

300,000,000/200,000 = 1,500.

So yeah 0.004% if I have the casualty figures right.

Maybe more, maybe less. Regardless, it's quite obvious that was wrong, although I still don't see where you mentioned proportions except after the fact that I pointed out that we do, in fact, kill more people now than we did then.

you don't have your casualty figures right.
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

62-78 million is the generally accepted casualty range for WW2.

I see that the latter figure I listed now was a lower end figure for the 1st Crusade, although it was worded poorly and inaccurately from the source I gleamed it from. In that case:

1%, obviously.

edit:

We currently kill more people yearly than 11th century knights dreamed existed. Every year, twice as many people who died in the black death die in our modern world. Either through economic mismanagement, war, uncontrolled disease, or some other factor.

Are we not more civilised than "dark age" Europe?

well . . . in parts of the world?
but more importantly, there's a larger population now than then. Proportionally, people live longer, are healthier and etc.

Wait, according to my poor maths, we killed 3.75% of the world population in WWII and 1% of the world population in the Crusades.

Proportionally, we kill more people today than we did then, because of the industrialisation of death and war itself. Our wars are more bloody than they ever have been in the history of the world. You should be arguing that we're less civilised, right?

Right? Right.

Somewhere along the line I switched argument, and got sidetracked, probably due to shocking realisation that I was, in fact, correct when i was expecting to be wrong and had already resigned myself to being wrong and thus ceding the point before ever fully examining the evidence.

Regardless, my casualty figures were off, but 3,000,000 with an estimate of 300,000,000 population worldwide is 1% of the global population. 3,000,000,000 with an estimate of 75 megadeaths is 3.75% of the world population.

We kill more proportionally than we do now, and your figure supports this even at higher estimates. The mechanisation of warfare has brought more deaths to this world than ever before.

except that the bolded is an outright falsehood. We kill fewer proportional to our population than we did in the dark ages.

This is wrong.

And yet we are still more civilised. We do not stone adulterers, we do not condone legal murder of homosexuals or women, and we do not have open air sewers in our most advanced nations, which are not only capable of the most destruction and death ever witnessed in human history, but also the most civilised nations in human history.

Surely in the future both figures will climb up, because the rate of proportional ability to murder wholesale is a somewhat decent indicator of technological progress, and by extension, social progress because society is influenced by technology and innovation, not the other way around.

[Tsal-Kar]

Take a look at the lower chart.
Interesting - crime per 100,000 people has gone up by about 1,500 instances since 1960. Violent crime has skyrocketed (admittedly except for murder - as of 2009, the murder rate per 100,000 people was down by .1 since 1960.)!!!

Take a look at how gun control has been going since then.
Hey, look - more gun control, and yet crime has gone up! How could that be? Shouldn't gun control magically prevent violent crime when it is passed?