American Gun Laws

[Imperializt Russia]

To the last point, that's because the countries are poorer than the Western world.

Brazil is richer than every nation in the world except France, the UK, Germany, Japan, China, Australia, and the US. (Source is International Monetary Fund 2014)

Except for the whole "being 74th" thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

[Narland]

If they cannot put their lives at risk, they do not need to be peace officers.

This statement does not make sense.

If they cannot put their lives at risk, they do not need to be peace officers. Their purpose is to keep the peace, protect the rights, privileges, and immunities of every human being from encroachment, and to serve writs; this is a very dangerous vocational choice. There are evil people out there and no on can be vigilant over their life, liberty and property 24 hours a day. This isn’t day care.

It is safer (and more tempting ) to create an order in the name of law enforcement that instead harrass the general law abiding public with legal policy violations in order to generate revenue for the state; utilize a system that creates a permenant criminal underclass with diminished rights to mine; and go after otherwise law abiding milk farmers with full swat teams and military gear.

[Crockerland]

Brazil is richer than every nation in the world except France, the UK, Germany, Japan, China, Australia, and the US. (Source is International Monetary Fund 2014)

Except for the whole "being 74th" thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Your own source lists Brazil as 7th. The three tables it features say that either Bulgaria, the Dominican Republic, or Kenya is 74th.

[Imperializt Russia]

Except for the whole "being 74th" thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Your own source lists Brazil as 7th.

The article has three tables. The first is your source, IMF 2014. It lists Brazil at 74th place. It comes 72nd and 79th in the other two tables.
7th place in IMF 2014 goes to the UAE (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil), to Norway in World Bank 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil) and to Kuwait in CIA Factbook 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil).

What are you reading?

[Imperializt Russia]

This statement does not make sense.

If they cannot put their lives at risk, they do not need to be peace officers. Their purpose is to keep the peace, protect the rights, privileges, and immunities of every human being from encroachment, and to serve writs; this is a very dangerous vocational choice. Their are evil people out there and no on can be vigilant over their life, liberty and property 24 hours a day. This isn't day care.

It is safer (and more tempting ) to create an order in the name of law enforcement that instead harrass the general law abiding public with legal policy violations in order to generate revenue for the state; utilize a system that creates a permenant criminal underclass with diminished rights to mine; and go after otherwise law abiding milk farmers with full swat teams and military gear.

I don't think you have any understanding of risk.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Your own source lists Brazil as 7th.

The article has three tables. The first is your source, IMF 2014. It lists Brazil at 74th place. It comes 72nd and 79th in the other two tables.
7th place in IMF 2014 goes to the UAE (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil), to Norway in World Bank 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil) and to Kuwait in CIA Factbook 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil).

What are you reading?

Your link fucked up, the page it sends to has Brazil ranked 7th.

[Crockerland]

Your own source lists Brazil as 7th.

The article has three tables. The first is your source, IMF 2014. It lists Brazil at 74th place. It comes 72nd and 79th in the other two tables.
7th place in IMF 2014 goes to the UAE (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil), to Norway in World Bank 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil) and to Kuwait in CIA Factbook 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil).

What are you reading?

I'm reading the article you linked
Those other two tables cite the world bank and CIA world factbook
world bank data, place 7 is Brazil
CIA world factbook, place 8 is Brazil

I'm not sure what you're reading, but you didn't link it.

[Narland]

If they cannot put their lives at risk, they do not need to be peace officers. Their purpose is to keep the peace, protect the rights, privileges, and immunities of every human being from encroachment, and to serve writs; this is a very dangerous vocational choice. Their are evil people out there and no on can be vigilant over their life, liberty and property 24 hours a day. This isn't day care.

It is safer (and more tempting ) to create an order in the name of law enforcement that instead harrass the general law abiding public with legal policy violations in order to generate revenue for the state; utilize a system that creates a permenant criminal underclass with diminished rights to mine; and go after otherwise law abiding milk farmers with full swat teams and military gear.

I don't think you have any understanding of risk.

The risk is choosing a vocation that in the United States used to be one about protecting the citizens rights from a criminal element. This puts them in harms way as an occupational hazard. My understanding of risk is irrelevant to what putting on a uniform of public service entails, and not germaine to the argument.

[Imperializt Russia]

The article has three tables. The first is your source, IMF 2014. It lists Brazil at 74th place. It comes 72nd and 79th in the other two tables.
7th place in IMF 2014 goes to the UAE (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil), to Norway in World Bank 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil) and to Kuwait in CIA Factbook 2014 (with PPP/capita four times that of Brazil).

What are you reading?

I'm reading the article you linked
Those other two tables cite the world bank and CIA world factbook
world bank data, place 7 is Brazil
CIA world factbook, place 8 is Brazil

I'm not sure what you're reading, but you didn't link it.

I did link it, but it is quite obvious the link did not properly parse because it uses brackets and the auto-parser is bitchy about it.
I felt it was so obvious (since one would have to actually add a bracket onto the url unless wikipedia redirects you when you're a bracket short now, it didn't use to) that I didn't bother correcting the link.

In any case, by very clearly stating I was looking at PPP per capita three times, I felt there was no doubt I was not talking about raw GDP which means nothing in the debate we are having.

[Gun Manufacturers]

If the United Kingdom, along with the vast majority of the developed world for that matter, can function perfectly fine without allowing its citizens to buy machine guns at the local supermarket why can't the United States? So what if I don't have the freedom to walk into my local Waitrose with a loaded assault rifle strapped to my back? The fact that many people in the United States actually see this as a necessity to protect themselves only proves to me that unrestricted gun ownership is an utterly ludicrous concept!

The bolded shows how little you actually know about firearms (especially full auto/select fire weapons) in the US. To buy a full auto/select fire weapon costs tens of thousands of dollars (because there's a finite amount available for civilian transfer), as well as a lot of paperwork to ATF, and months or more of time to do the detailed background check, change the registry, and obtain the tax stamp.

[Prolieum]

So, you think guns are so evil that forcing people to move their homes-often to more expensive areas that they can hardly afford-and then just straight-up abandoning farmers, and others in rural areas, who cannot move to a city because, you know, you can exactly plant there, and then bankrupting the nation by buying attack helicopters for every Sheriff Taylor's office in the nation, is somehow better than just letting the people defend themselve?

Not as you would word it - I certainly wouldn't buy attack helicopters for every sherrif if I were the president (I should have worded it better; most police bureaus, my bad) -, but yes. Subsidise the people to move there, or stimulate it by not stopping small building projects in rural places, and instead support building projects in urban places. Bankrupting the nation by buying attack helicopters... hm, strange to say that. The United States is one of the most powerful, richest countries there was.. or so I thought? Well, then, apparently. But anyways, yes, the US could support that. Reallocate some of the military budget to the police and there's that.

The U.S. Is a rather rich nation. It is also twenty trillion in the hole. Cutting defense spending is almost impossible on any large scale in the U.S. politically, cutting defense spending to pay for a program to get rid of guns? Not going to happen.Inner cities already have high rates of gun crime-what you are doing is not only putting more people in the places where they are most likely to be shot, but also, by vastly increasing police presence, leading to more of the rebelliousness that causes inner city crime. There are hundreds of millions of privately owned guns in the U.S. The only way to make this work is either to actively try to confiscate them, which would be impossible politically, and likely lead to armed revolt, or seal off borders so nothing else gets in, and declare them illegal, at which point criminals in the new mega-cities will essentially have free reign, at minimum for the year or more to expand police forces, and likely for the few decades it is going to take to finally disarm them. You are, essentially, sacrificing the lives of those people, forced into a hold they do not want, stripped of the right to defend themselves, for your beliefs-they are basically unwilling martyrs.

[Vassenor]

If the United Kingdom, along with the vast majority of the developed world for that matter, can function perfectly fine without allowing its citizens to buy machine guns at the local supermarket why can't the United States? So what if I don't have the freedom to walk into my local Waitrose with a loaded assault rifle strapped to my back? The fact that many people in the United States actually see this as a necessity to protect themselves only proves to me that unrestricted gun ownership is an utterly ludicrous concept!

The bolded shows how little you actually know about firearms (especially full auto/select fire weapons) in the US. To buy a full auto/select fire weapon costs tens of thousands of dollars (because there's a finite amount available for civilian transfer), as well as a lot of paperwork to ATF, and months or more of time to do the detailed background check, change the registry, and obtain the tax stamp.

Because apparently getting one word wrong invalidates the entire argument.

[Prolieum]

The bolded shows how little you actually know about firearms (especially full auto/select fire weapons) in the US. To buy a full auto/select fire weapon costs tens of thousands of dollars (because there's a finite amount available for civilian transfer), as well as a lot of paperwork to ATF, and months or more of time to do the detailed background check, change the registry, and obtain the tax stamp.

Because apparently getting one word wrong invalidates the entire argument.

When it is clear that your argument is knocking down a strawman, yes, it does.

"So what if I don't have the freedom to walk into my local Waitrose with a loaded assault rifle strapped to my back?"

You could use this for literally anything.

"So what if I don't have the freedom to talk about the government in my local Waitrose? The fact that many people actually see this as necessary for a representative political system only proves to me that freedom of speech is an utterly ludicrous concept!"

See?

[Vassenor]

Why are guns needed for American politics to be representative?

[Prolieum]

Why are guns needed for American politics to be representative?

Who said they were? I was saying that your argument makes no real point that could not be applied to anything-you essentially just say that it is absurd that someone thinks they need a gun to defend themselves, and that was it. I countered that my saying that people thinking they needed free speech for a representative government was absurd was just as well-supported as your argument.

[Vassenor]

So maybe you can explain what's so different about America that the argument doesn't work.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The bolded shows how little you actually know about firearms (especially full auto/select fire weapons) in the US. To buy a full auto/select fire weapon costs tens of thousands of dollars (because there's a finite amount available for civilian transfer), as well as a lot of paperwork to ATF, and months or more of time to do the detailed background check, change the registry, and obtain the tax stamp.

Because apparently getting one word wrong invalidates the entire argument.

When that one word shows a pretty large misunderstanding of American gun laws, kinda yeah.

[Spirit of Hope]

Why are guns needed for American politics to be representative?

Guns aren't needed for american to be represented in politics.

However guns are fun for shooting sports and hunting, useful tools for self defense and defense of property and a deterrent against overreach by the government.

[Vassenor]

Why are guns needed for American politics to be representative?

Guns aren't needed for american to be represented in politics.

However guns are fun for shooting sports and hunting, useful tools for self defense and defense of property and a deterrent against overreach by the government.

And how is your CCW going to stop an armed takeover?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Guns aren't needed for american to be represented in politics.

However guns are fun for shooting sports and hunting, useful tools for self defense and defense of property and a deterrent against overreach by the government.

And how is your CCW going to stop an armed takeover?

Armed takeover of what exactly?

[Vassenor]

And how is your CCW going to stop an armed takeover?

Armed takeover of what exactly?

Given their statements about government overreach, the country.

[Viking Confederacy]

That statement was very distanced from reality.
1: The police force is not for self "defence", it's for enforcing the law
2: People living in rural areas obviously cannot rely on the police for protection.
3: The average police response time is more than 10 minutes in many parts of the United States

Sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/12/police-response-times for the police response time, basic logic for the rest

What a bizarre statement.

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.
Furthermore, the average emergency service response time can be increased by building more hospitals, police bureaus, fire departments (even if these three are small) in places further away, and by allowing the police force to buy more and/or faster helicopters with their budget.

You have a lot of nerve claiming you are "Pro: tolerance, individualism... ...democratism, freedom..." when every post you make to this thread includes some of the most intolerant, anti-individual, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, nonsense I have ever seen written anywhere.

Having the government confiscate people's guns, force them from their homes and make them move to locations the government dictates? That violates just about every every part of the Bill of Rights with the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment (and THAT would depend on where you intend to house all the soldiers you'd need to send out to rural areas to drive people from their land).

How in the name of God can you equate seizure of property and forced migration with "tolerance, individualism... ...democratism, [and] freedom..."? And even if your proposal was not a giant cornucopia of human-rights violations, how do you think you will lower crime by moving the entire population CLOSER to the most crime-infested portions of the country?

The bottom line: You come across as an intolerant, closed-minded, totalitatrian, dictatorial, condescending, elitist, know-it-all, wanna-be social engineer - in short: the exact opposite of what you claim to be. Maybe you should consider taking a break from trying to run everyone else's lives and go to a quite place so you can engage in some serious self-analysis regarding your REAL values system.

[Prolieum]

So maybe you can explain what's so different about America that the argument doesn't work.

Because it is litearally a statement of opinion. In order for it to be an argument, you have to say why it is absurd.

Guns aren't needed for american to be represented in politics.

However guns are fun for shooting sports and hunting, useful tools for self defense and defense of property and a deterrent against overreach by the government.

And how is your CCW going to stop an armed takeover?

Three ways

1. Interdiction. The knowledge of its existence makes other plans alternative to a takeover seem like better options.
2. Guerrilla warfare. Never wins a war, but it can make cost of victory too high for the enemy.
3. Practicality. So long as we still have the Second Amendment, you are never going to get a big enough majority for an armed takeover to actually happen.


I also like how you were talking about machine guns and assault rifles before, when it suited your argument, as if they were the only weapons in America, and now that smaller, weaker guns fit in your argument, you pretend that rifles do not exist. A bit hypocritical, no?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Armed takeover of what exactly?

Given their statements about government overreach, the country.

As has been previously pointed out, any potential American insurgency would be the most well armed and by far the largest in history. Assuming the whole 3% thing is true and only 3% of gun owners in this situation fought back you'd have millions of insurgents on the home front with modern gear on par with the military. The military is also full of people who would most likely defect to join said 3% group.

[Spirit of Hope]

Guns aren't needed for american to be represented in politics.

However guns are fun for shooting sports and hunting, useful tools for self defense and defense of property and a deterrent against overreach by the government.

And how is your CCW going to stop an armed takeover?

Because a large stock of small arms would allow the civilian populace to resist, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts through the ages. The civilian population wouldn't need to win a stand up battle against the army. This also doesn't get into the possibility of defection from armed forces, or the ability of such an insurgency to steal weapons from arsenals.

There are 66,000,000 gun owners in the United States, if 1% of them chose to resist the government violently that would be 660,000 fighters. Using the Iraq war as a reference point (~27,000 insurgents killed, 4,425 US killed, 32,223 WIA) we get that US armed forces would suffer 88,000 KIA and 644,000 WIA to take out this insurgency. The entire active US Army is 475,000, including other branches and reserves we get 2,147,000.