Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Grave_n_idle]

That massive private army you don't like would acctualy be dozens of private armies (aka militias) organised seperatly threw (sorry) out the country. As to access to military hardware, you and I clearly disagree.

Also, bomb the supply convoy to stop it then shot the people to get supplies. Just one example. Do the Insurgents not use guns at all? If not, how are there fire fights in Iraq and Afganistant? If so, then would not millions with guns waging a massive guerilla war be benifitial?

The advantage of bombs in guerrilla tactics, is that you dont have to stand and fight - always an advantage in asymmetrical warfare. Gun use is not as effective, overall - especially in today's world - because it means being present on-site, which means you're always expecting to lose lives.

As for the private armies - another reason I don't much care for them, is that allowing organisations other than the elected government to build an actual military, opens up the potential for foreign interests to 'own' an army WITHIN America. Surely you can see how that isn't ideal?

1) Yes, bombs are better if you never have to be near your enemy and they can never find you. Niether of those two things will universaly be true. The more guns, the better.

2) The US would have to allow their citizens in, and if they are our citizens, then I can't see some great army of China forming here. Do you have more opposition?

You wouldn't have to build an especially 'great' army, if you're using modern military grade equipment.

Looking at current political climates... would you trust, for example, an Iranian or Saudi company to own and operate a large private military force on US soil?

[Grave_n_idle]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

[The Adrian Empire]

But what is to stop that under the current system or a total ban? Nothing. Therefor, the best argument is still more guns, for your weaker links are still stronger.

note: You did not show that they were not, you showed that sometimes nothing can be done.

Well, an actual effective total ban would obviously reduce the ability to obtain guns and silencers. But an effective ban is difficult to orchestrate.

There is a proportional increase problem with your math, though... there is a point where 'more guns' simply can't help. I'd say, that the absolute limit of that calculation is probably about one gun per hand.

Except of course that this would just lead to a pre-gun powder like society of barbarism, where strength and brutality are king and might is right, men would rape women in the street, criminals would rob at sword point, hostage situations would be near impossible to resolve without bloodshed, school shootings would be replaced with stabbings and decapitations. That is unless you ban sharp edges, then people will go back to the neolithic and bash each others heads in with rocks and

Because banning guns = banning the Police, of course.

A complete ban would include the police and the military would it not, as if not criminals could just steal them, or buy them from un-scrupled soldiers and police, or smuggle them in from other countries. It would also require the halt of all exports, to stop said smuggling, there is no way to close pandora's boxs

[Grave_n_idle]

Note: My argument for guns is not fear-based, but human nature based.

So, you don't believe you need a gun for self-defence?

You're one of the rarer breed that would just argue that you need it for sport or hunting, for example?

1) No, one would have guns for self defence. That is from an understanding that bad people exist, not a fear of them,

2) Does the defence of ones rights count as self-defence?

The argument that you need to be able to employ lethal-force to defend yourself is an argument from fear.

If you didn't have fear of harm, you wouldn't need to prepare a potentially lethal response.

Note: I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's NOT a bad thing, it's only sensible - but we should understand what masters we are serving.

[South Norwega]

But what is to stop that under the current system or a total ban? Nothing. Therefor, the best argument is still more guns, for your weaker links are still stronger.

note: You did not show that they were not, you showed that sometimes nothing can be done.

Well, an actual effective total ban would obviously reduce the ability to obtain guns and silencers. But an effective ban is difficult to orchestrate.

There is a proportional increase problem with your math, though... there is a point where 'more guns' simply can't help. I'd say, that the absolute limit of that calculation is probably about one gun per hand.

Except of course that this would just lead to a pre-gun powder like society of barbarism, where strength and brutality are king and might is right, men would rape women in the street, criminals would rob at sword point, hostage situations would be near impossible to resolve without bloodshed, school shootings would be replaced with stabbings and decapitations. That is unless you ban sharp edges, then people will go back to the neolithic and bash each others heads in with rocks and

Because banning guns = banning the Police, of course.

A complete ban would include the police and the military would it not, as if not criminals could just steal them, or buy them from un-scrupled soldiers and police, or smuggle them in from other countries. It would also require the halt of all exports, to stop said smuggling, there is no way to close pandora's boxs

Yes, but there would still be a Police force without guns, there are other weapons they can use, such as batons. Also, I really don't think that your view of pre-gun society is particularly accurate.

[The Adrian Empire]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

Being armed doesn't mean bad people won't shoot you, it means you can shoot back, which makes you equal, crazy people will still shoot you but with a 50% chance of dying no sane criminal would challenge an armed man. Insane people still will though, but there is no real defence against insane people, especially insane laws the only thing that will keep you safe from them is a gun

[Grave_n_idle]

People who would have died had you not tried to protect them, in a hostage situation a delay is an amazing benefit to law enforcement, what you describe as a situation is improbable, why take a hostage if you are out in the open? If he goes for a hostage that is usually enough to warrant firing on him, if he doesn't then you are still equal to favourable in odds. It is ridiculous to assume that passivity will lead to less damage in all but the most rarest of cases, in addition you're situation requires zero cover which unless this man took hostages in a field, makes no sense, second if you try to help and die, you may buy valuable time for the police and die a hero, if you don't fight back then he is liable to kill you anyway and your death would serve no purpose, and that man could still get away, in holding him off until authorities arrive you neutralize an otherwise deadly situation.

I don't think hostage situations are even slightly improbable - I think they're fairly realistic and common where the possibility of armed response is considered. (Unless the goal is JUST to kill, and dying in a hail of bullets is part of your agenda).

I think the idea that, in most situations where a gun is employed in a criminal act, the intention is to NOT be shot - so taking hostages is fairly logical... and that does seem to happen whenever protracted crimes take place.

Obviously, when gang-guy-A rolls by gang-guy-B and pops a cap in his ass, there's less likely to be a hostage situation. But - in that situation - your armed observer is also less likely to get involved.

As for 'dying a hero'... it's a poor substitute for living-to-an-old-age-and-having-a-long-and-happy-life.

[Grave_n_idle]

Most Neo Nazis are currently armed. Your racists with guns are obviously armed. If they could win right now, why haven't they tried anything?

Fear or apathy. Those are usually the two obstacles you have to overcome for anything - even a mobrule.

[Grave_n_idle]

Hey, just because he is a political pupit doesn't mean he can't have the right idea on occasion!

No, but I'm not willing to say he's 'rarely completely wrong'

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, one of the points of the constitution was that it be re-interpreted by the people as nessisary, so it should do that now, even if that was not the initial intent.

I'm not sure I agree. One of the points of the Constitution was to make it amendable, I'm not sure it was ever intended it should be re-interpreted.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, I caught up with it and should have slept 2:40 ago, so... gut nacht.

Later, my friend.

[Grave_n_idle]

Please, pray tell how a gun free society is possible, there isn't a single example and aside from a "1984"esque destruction of rights there is no way to create that society. Because criminals will always find a way to get guns, smuggle them, steal them or build them, it is impossible with out the destruction of the laws of physics and near every human right to create this society

'Destruction of rights'? Well, if the right has been revoked... you can't destroy it... no?

We have the technology to spot weapons, even concealed. We don't employ such technology outside of very limited avenues for a number of reasons - not least of which is massive expense. There are also arguments that randomly scanning people invades their privacy or something.

But it exists. We could have a basically gun-free society.

[Grave_n_idle]

On most issues? No, I would never revolt for such a reason. On certain key issues? Yes, of corse. If the majority of people say we should start killing babies, and a constitutional amendment is made saying each citizen must kill at least one baby a year, I would rebel. If my ability to effectively rebell has been legaly removed, I may rebel. Or, I may stockpile weapons illegaly for the eventuality that tyranny rears its ugly head.

But, we're not talking about killing babies.

We're talking about the Second Amendment - which protects your right to keep and bear arms, being suspended by democratic mechanism - which is entirely legal AND constitutional.

If the Second Amendment were overturned, and you decided to lead revolt - it would be a revolt AGAINST the Constitution, and against the democracy that altered it.

That's what I'm asking you about - would you fight an un-Constitutional revolution against democracy and your peers, if the Second Amendment was the casualty of democratic revocation?

Not if it were possible to democratically resist it or democratically change it back, but I know if my government changed what I considered a fundamental right, I would fight it, if it is not possible democratically, then I will pack my bags and head for a society that doesn't intend to destroy my liberty, or create my own on some deserted island, if that is not possible yes, yes I would fight back, if the government democratically destroyed the right to free speech, wouldn't you fight said oppression? If they democratically destroyed the emancipation proclamation and re-enslaved all black people would't you fight back?

Why do you keep blaming 'the government' in this example?

[The Adrian Empire]

But what is to stop that under the current system or a total ban? Nothing. Therefor, the best argument is still more guns, for your weaker links are still stronger.

note: You did not show that they were not, you showed that sometimes nothing can be done.

Well, an actual effective total ban would obviously reduce the ability to obtain guns and silencers. But an effective ban is difficult to orchestrate.

There is a proportional increase problem with your math, though... there is a point where 'more guns' simply can't help. I'd say, that the absolute limit of that calculation is probably about one gun per hand.

Except of course that this would just lead to a pre-gun powder like society of barbarism, where strength and brutality are king and might is right, men would rape women in the street, criminals would rob at sword point, hostage situations would be near impossible to resolve without bloodshed, school shootings would be replaced with stabbings and decapitations. That is unless you ban sharp edges, then people will go back to the neolithic and bash each others heads in with rocks and

Because banning guns = banning the Police, of course.

A complete ban would include the police and the military would it not, as if not criminals could just steal them, or buy them from un-scrupled soldiers and police, or smuggle them in from other countries. It would also require the halt of all exports, to stop said smuggling, there is no way to close pandora's boxs

Yes, but there would still be a Police force without guns, there are other weapons they can use, such as batons. Also, I really don't think that your view of pre-gun society is particularly accurate.

That was the middle ages were it not, the latest pre-gun society wasn't exactly civilized, even during the roman age, the only reason the common person survived the litany of thieves and highwayman was if he had a sword in his hands, police or then town guards could only stop the crime they saw, as police today only can, they are not are bodyguards, are defence is in our own hands, any officer will agree with that. We were no safer then, we were a lot more in danger, as criminals were often stronger and because of that were able to overpower even the armed citizen. The gun changed this, now a gun in the hands of weak man is as powerful as one in the hand of a strong one, it is the great equalizer, a armed woman can stop and armed man, an armed paraplegic can stop an armed body builder, an armed nerd can stop an armed jock, and vice-versa, they are equals and unfortunately this is the only maintainer of equality in the world, not laws, not the police, not even martial arts, the gun.

[Grave_n_idle]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who is going to protect somebody, when a armed person enters a house, and there are no guns? It dosen't take long to pull a trigger and the bullet to hit it's target. But if aperson has a gun, they may get the chance to defend themslef.

Why would you need to shoot an unarmed intruder?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

'Destruction of rights'? Well, if the right has been revoked... you can't destroy it... no?

We have the technology to spot weapons, even concealed. We don't employ such technology outside of very limited avenues for a number of reasons - not least of which is massive expense. There are also arguments that randomly scanning people invades their privacy or something.

But it exists. We could have a basically gun-free society.

Yes, you can also have a society with essentially zero crime, but you wouldn't want to live there.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except of course that a complete gun ban of even the police and military would just lead to a pre-gun powder like society of barbarism, where strength and brutality are king and might is right, men would rape women in the street, criminals would rob at sword point, hostage situations would be near impossible to resolve without bloodshed, school shootings would be replaced with stabbings and decapitations. That is unless you ban sharp edges, then people will go back to the neolithic and bash each others heads in with rocks and clubs, that is until you ban rocks and clubs, then they use their fists.

Which 'pre-gun powder like society' do you think was like that?

It's worth pointing out, 'might makes right' has simply been replaced by 'he who can afford the best toys, wins'. Same thing - less about how tough you are, more about how rich... but still, basically the same.

[The Adrian Empire]

On most issues? No, I would never revolt for such a reason. On certain key issues? Yes, of corse. If the majority of people say we should start killing babies, and a constitutional amendment is made saying each citizen must kill at least one baby a year, I would rebel. If my ability to effectively rebell has been legaly removed, I may rebel. Or, I may stockpile weapons illegaly for the eventuality that tyranny rears its ugly head.

But, we're not talking about killing babies.

We're talking about the Second Amendment - which protects your right to keep and bear arms, being suspended by democratic mechanism - which is entirely legal AND constitutional.

If the Second Amendment were overturned, and you decided to lead revolt - it would be a revolt AGAINST the Constitution, and against the democracy that altered it.

That's what I'm asking you about - would you fight an un-Constitutional revolution against democracy and your peers, if the Second Amendment was the casualty of democratic revocation?

Not if it were possible to democratically resist it or democratically change it back, but I know if my government changed what I considered a fundamental right, I would fight it, if it is not possible democratically, then I will pack my bags and head for a society that doesn't intend to destroy my liberty, or create my own on some deserted island, if that is not possible yes, yes I would fight back, if the government democratically destroyed the right to free speech, wouldn't you fight said oppression? If they democratically destroyed the emancipation proclamation and re-enslaved all black people would't you fight back?

Why do you keep blaming 'the government' in this example?

How would the people change the constitution without the government? If my peers said I hade better get rid of my gun if I wanted to live in their town, I would politely explain my position, if they still disagreed I would move, if the whole country became this way I'd move to another the whole world? I'd create my own country, if it required force I would regretfully accept it, but it shouldn't

[Sgt Poke-A-Man]

'Destruction of rights'? Well, if the right has been revoked... you can't destroy it... no?

We have the technology to spot weapons, even concealed. We don't employ such technology outside of very limited avenues for a number of reasons - not least of which is massive expense. There are also arguments that randomly scanning people invades their privacy or something.

But it exists. We could have a basically gun-free society.

Yes, you can also have a society with essentially zero crime, but you wouldn't want to live there.

True. It's all grey and colorless and perfect and shit.

*shivers*

[Grave_n_idle]

A complete ban would include the police and the military would it not...

Maybe. The UK has pretty strict laws about guns, but also has a military and armed police.

[Grave_n_idle]

Being armed doesn't mean bad people won't shoot you,

It's too late at night (...in the morning?) for me to go back and find the post I believe you contradict here.

...it means you can shoot back, which makes you equal,

Equally dead is still dead.

...crazy people will still shoot you but with a 50% chance of dying no sane criminal would challenge an armed man.

Hence the hostages?

Insane people still will though, but there is no real defence against insane people, especially insane laws the only thing that will keep you safe from them is a gun

Which, you just said, wouldn't work but maybe 50% of the time. Maybe.

[Grave_n_idle]

'Destruction of rights'? Well, if the right has been revoked... you can't destroy it... no?

We have the technology to spot weapons, even concealed. We don't employ such technology outside of very limited avenues for a number of reasons - not least of which is massive expense. There are also arguments that randomly scanning people invades their privacy or something.

But it exists. We could have a basically gun-free society.

Yes, you can also have a society with essentially zero crime, but you wouldn't want to live there.

Yeah. Who wants to not get killed.

[Grave_n_idle]

How would the people change the constitution without the government? If my peers said I hade better get rid of my gun if I wanted to live in their town, I would politely explain my position, if they still disagreed I would move, if the whole country became this way I'd move to another the whole world? I'd create my own country, if it required force I would regretfully accept it, but it shouldn't

The government's invovlement would only be as messenger, and recorder or public choice, wouldn't it?

And then, one assumes, enforcer of the new law.

But it would be 'the people' that changed the law.

[The Adrian Empire]

Except of course that a complete gun ban of even the police and military would just lead to a pre-gun powder like society of barbarism, where strength and brutality are king and might is right, men would rape women in the street, criminals would rob at sword point, hostage situations would be near impossible to resolve without bloodshed, school shootings would be replaced with stabbings and decapitations. That is unless you ban sharp edges, then people will go back to the neolithic and bash each others heads in with rocks and clubs, that is until you ban rocks and clubs, then they use their fists.

Which 'pre-gun powder like society' do you think was like that?

It's worth pointing out, 'might makes right' has simply been replaced by 'he who can afford the best toys, wins'. Same thing - less about how tough you are, more about how rich... but still, basically the same.

England pre-gun powder
France pre-gun powder
any feudal state,
That is if the gun drawing itself doesn't diffuse the situation, it isn't whoever can afford the best toy wins, a pistol's bullet kills the same as an assault rifle, might makes right is far worse because there is no chance for a feeble old man to win against an oxen of a mugger, with the gun, the ox might have a better gun, but the old man has one, the oxen must think if he misses, and the old man fires he is dead, he does not need to fear this with a sword, because even if the old man lifts his sword, the ox with sheer power will eventually over power him. With a pistol he has distinct chance of death and if he is not insane then he obviously will not continue.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yeah. Who wants to not get killed.

Actually, the solution to achieve no crime at all could very easilly wind up getting you killed.

There are three ways:

1) Kill every living human. No humans, no crime.

2) Abolish all governments. No concept of law, no crime.

3) Multiple CCTV cameras in every room of every building and everywhere in every public place. Chips implanted in every human that instantly introduces a lethal dose of [insert poison here] the second they try to tamper with one of these cameras. Anything that could ever possibly be used to do anything wrong is banned. If you need to use it for an approved purpose, you must do so entirely under supervision. The boarders must be completely guarded, and all immigration to and from your society absolutely illegal. I could go on.