What is OT's thoughts on guns and gun control?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
So there is no actual need of owning a gun, meaning it would be ok to enforce gun control to eliminate guns altogether.[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]
YOu don't need a gun to feel safe. Never owned a gun in my life, and barely anyone around my town does...except my friend's father who is a crazy Vietnam war vet who has basically an armory in his garage, but he never uses them.
wis3boi
People use them to go hunting, for use on a range for fun, or to collect old ones for show...you can't just magically make hundreds of millions of them evaporate
This can be regulated as I stated in my original post, no problem with that.Few thoughts, though it's not really my place to comment on American gun laws but w/e: 1. No real problems with guns being legal. 2. Mixed thoughts on more restrictions. Not opposed to them per se, but will not pretend to have enough knowledge of the state to state restrictions and requirements to really comment. 3. Though tbh the American gun culture can be a bit silly and over the top. 4. The whole "semi automatic" and "assault" thing is a pretty clever but annoying political red herring. 5. While I do not want a gun ban, I'm not sure that the common argument that everything can be bought on the "black market" holds a lot of water. A socially anxious and awkward social outcast would have a lot of trouble buying from the so called "black market". 6. Piers Morgan is a c*nt of the highest order. 7. Regardless of truthfulness, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty worthless and lazy wordplay. 8. Having an opportunity to defend yourself against a tyrannical government = always +1. To quote Bill Hicks: all governments are liars and murderers.MrPraline
What are you smoking people :/
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Few thoughts, though it's not really my place to comment on American gun laws but w/e: 1. No real problems with guns being legal. 2. Mixed thoughts on more restrictions. Not opposed to them per se, but will not pretend to have enough knowledge of the state to state restrictions and requirements to really comment. 3. Though tbh the American gun culture can be a bit silly and over the top. 4. The whole "semi automatic" and "assault" thing is a pretty clever but annoying political red herring. 5. While I do not want a gun ban, I'm not sure that the common argument that everything can be bought on the "black market" holds a lot of water. A socially anxious and awkward social outcast would have a lot of trouble buying from the so called "black market". 6. Piers Morgan is a c*nt of the highest order. 7. Regardless of truthfulness, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty worthless and lazy wordplay. 8. Having an opportunity to defend yourself against a tyrannical government = always +1. To quote Bill Hicks: all governments are liars and murderers.GazaAli
What are you smoking people :/
nothing at the moment, sadly
lolwut? Are you saying guns that are owned by people can be though of as a safeguard against the government? What is this Nigeria?GazaAliI take it you have not read the entire Second Amendment of the Constitution, nor do you know why it was put in (regarding the history of America's founding)? But being, well with today's education system in the US, anything but Canadian kind of makes it difficult to find these things out without exposure to them on the internet. Most American's don't even know the history of their own country, and think it was founded on "Christian values". The whole foundation of American gun culture is defense against tyrannical governments trying to control the citizenry. It's why, based on number in the Constitution, guns are more important than anything else besides the Separation of Church and State. Which of course is being subverted today in US federal and state governments.
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] When it has its adverse effects on someone other than you, here you go.GazaAliSuch as the things I mentioned...They all have an adverse effect on others. None of what you mentioned holds except for booze which is regulated (no public drinking, DUI..etc) person eats unhealthy foods. person is inflicted with diabetes. plethora of persons raise risk assesments for health insurers. insurance premiums go up/work productivity goes down/disgusting obese people roam the streets in mini skirts.
[QUOTE="Person0"]The difference in technology is not even close. We also had cannons, mortars and rockets like the British, i don't think any citizens have fighter jets or main battle tanks. (We also had the French help us a lot) "We also had cannons, mortars and rockets like the British" Before the war civilians certainly didn't have these things. WTF are you on about? A lot of the artillery was captured otherwise it was made or sold to the Americans. How could rebels in modern day capture things like tanks and jets when the army would be able to provide a rapid response to any attacks on military bases? They can't be made nearly as easily cannons and other things could be, and no one is going to be able to sell heavy arms to people. So how would people fighting the government get technology to match the government forces like we did during the revolution?[QUOTE="thegerg"]You seem to be very confused. The government certainly had muskets, but they also had cannon. Don't forget about the rockets and mortars either. And then there were the warships. And, of course, the strongest, most experienced, and well-trained military in the history of the world at the time. Ignorance FTL.thegerg
[QUOTE="GazaAli"]lolwut? Are you saying guns that are owned by people can be though of as a safeguard against the government? What is this Nigeria?ZevianderI take it you have not read the entire Second Amendment of the Constitution, nor do you know why it was put in (regarding the history of America's founding)? But being, well with today's education system in the US, anything but Canadian kind of makes it difficult to find these things out without exposure to them on the internet. Most American's don't even know the history of their own country, and think it was founded on "Christian values". The whole foundation of American gun culture is defense against tyrannical governments trying to control the citizenry. It's why, based on number in the Constitution, guns are more important than anything else besides the Separation of Church and State. Which of course is being subverted today in US federal and state governments. I remember reading about that a while ago actually and was really surprised to be honest. Do not really agree but I'm just stating my opinion. From my experience guns in the hand of your average everyday citizen is not a good idea. Few years ago we had the same situation in Palestinian territories. Everybody could own a gun. We are not talking about pistols here, we are talking about serious firearms, AK-47 and M16 was the most popular. For a while it was ok but then with the second Intifada the social fabric of society, due to conflict, unemployment...etc started to disintegrate and people started shooting each others for the most trivial things. A mechanic was shot once because he was having lunch and refused to serve a customer, a mango seller got killed because he did not want to serve a customer due to lack of change, if someone got into a fight with another guy, the two families attack each other with whatever firearms available and so on and so forth. One of the very few things that Hamas did is to heavily regulate firearms' ownership, so did the PA in the west bank. I know the U.S is not the Palestinian Territories but you can't be sure what the future holds. I mean in the case of civil unrest, economic collapse...etc it will not be pretty for the U.S with all these guns laying around.
So how would people fighting the government get technology to match the government forces like we did during the revolution?Person0Because military personnel are robots and not capable of thinking for themselves I guess. Forces have gone rogue before, and I could guarantee many American soldiers would go AWOL if the government overstepped their power. Their families and rights mean more to them than their "country".
[QUOTE="Person0"]So how would people fighting the government get technology to match the government forces like we did during the revolution?ZevianderBecause military personnel are robots and not capable of thinking for themselves I guess. Forces have gone rogue before, and I could guarantee many American soldiers would go AWOL if the government overstepped their power. Their families and rights mean more to them than their "country". But that paycheck...
You seem to be very confused. The government certainly had muskets, but they also had cannon. Don't forget about the rockets and mortars either. And then there were the warships. And, of course, the strongest, most experienced, and well-trained military in the history of the world at the time. Ignorance FTL. The difference in technology is not even close. We also had cannons, mortars and rockets like the British, i don't think any citizens have fighter jets or main battle tanks. (We also had the French help us a lot) Nah man, guerilla tactics will work, which military obviously has no idea of what they are, nor have they ever used them. Besides if rebels in the past were able to operate a cannon, they can also now operate tanks and fly jets, right after easily taking them over. It is all part of the rebel handbook.[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Person0"] Yeah when the government only had muskets too..... Go ask the insurgents in Iraq how well they did against the U.S, in highly favorable terrain and with heavy arms (LMG's, RPG's, IEDS, Mortars) that Americans don't have access to.Person0
people expecting the government to fix all their problems. Zeviander
How can the private person deal with gun violence?
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Person0"] A lot of the artillery was captured otherwise it was made or sold to the Americans. How could rebels in modern day capture things like tanks and jets when the army would be able to provide a rapid response to any attacks on military bases? They can't be made nearly as easily cannons and other things could be, and no one is going to be able to sell heavy arms to people. So how would people fighting the government get technology to match the government forces like we did during the revolution?Person0"How could rebels in modern day capture things like tanks and jets when the army would be able to provide a rapid response to any attacks on military bases?" In the same manner that colonists did. Just as many colonial forces did, I would guess many American soldiers would either join the People or, at least, not fire at their neighbors. "no one is going to be able to sell heavy arms to people." What in the world makes you think that? Would heavy weapons suddenly disappear from the Earth, or Americans have nothing of value to trade? Because capturing tanks and jets is so easy, thats why it happens all the time in recent conflicts.... If the soldiers join the revolution then the people don't need to be armed beforehand for a successful revolution, people shooting at soldiers is more likely to make them shoot back. And who would supply those heavy weapons to American rebels? And even if some country tried they would have fun trying to get through the U.S navy and airforce.
You are just completely ignoring the entire principle of the 2nd amendment. Your claiming to know the future.
But that paycheck...GazaAliWhich will cease to exist when the government defaults on all it's debt. Most of which, other than the unfunded liabilities, is held by the military. Just imagine how much money the US could save if it concentrated on a defense-only military. When the US economy crashes, I doubt the military will even have the money to supply it's troops on home soil, let alone the rest of the world.
Operating a tank isn't exactly brain surgery. thegergno, but it's really really hard. unless you just want to drive around- that's pretty easy.
How can the private person deal with gun violence?pie-juniorIn what way? Against their person on their property? In public? Personally, I find the idea of owning a firearm (preferably a small pistol for personal defense and shotgun for home defense) and bullet-resistant clothing (not necessarily a ballistic best, but kevlar cloth) an ideal. Granted, gun laws in my province would likely only allow me to own a shotgun, and *maybe* a revolver if I jump through their bureaucratic licensing nightmare, but I wouldn't be allowed to carry them off my property without the proper license (and security hardware) and forget about protecting myself in public. I don't like the idea of having to leave my personal safety and that of my loved ones, in the hands of others, who might not be able to respond quickly enough when needed. Nor, do I like the idea of the government mandating what I can and cannot own/use to aid that protection of myself (even pepper spray is a controlled device, and illegal to own without a hunting license). But I have little choice if I want to avoid being put in jail.
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="thegerg"]Operating a tank isn't exactly brain surgery. thegergno, but it's really really hard. unless you just want to drive around- that's pretty easy. Which doesn't mean it can't be done. I've worked with my share of tankers, not exactly all geniuses. the most difficult part is commanding a tank and a unit of tanks for proper positioning, not being a loader/gunner/driver. Not to mention that a tank is a bottomless pit for menial labour and maintenance skills- you need (really) expensive parts (and I don't mean like a computer- I mean like track parts), delicate technical knowledge for repair, very expensive and unique ammunition, a diesel tank 30 times that of a car for covering a 1/4 of the distance, various oils for various parts, specific grease, unique maintenance tools. etc. etc. etc. There's a reason why modern day guerillas do not comandeer tanks. Only standard militaries can operate a tank unit.
[QUOTE="pie-junior"]How can the private person deal with gun violence?ZevianderIn what way? Against their person on their property? In public? Personally, I find the idea of owning a firearm (preferably a small pistol for personal defense and shotgun for home defense) and bullet-resistant clothing (not necessarily a ballistic best, but kevlar cloth) an ideal. Granted, gun laws in my province would likely only allow me to own a shotgun, and *maybe* a revolver if I jump through their bureaucratic licensing nightmare, but I wouldn't be allowed to carry them off my property without the proper license (and security hardware) and forget about protecting myself in public. I don't like the idea of having to leave my personal safety and that of my loved ones, in the hands of others, who might not be able to respond quickly enough when needed. Nor, do I like the idea of the government mandating what I can and cannot own/use to aid that protection of myself (even pepper spray is a controlled device, and illegal to own without a hunting license). But I have little choice if I want to avoid being put in jail.
I don't mean in the sense that I can shoot back at someone shooting at me, I mean in the sense of creating a safe public enviorment. The wild west atmosphere that you're advocating is obviously to the detriment of anyone involved (usually I would go on, but I feel it's pretty self apparent).
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="thegerg"] No, it doesn't happen all the time. Very few nations that have such resources are in such unstable positions, or recognize the human right to be armed. "If the soldiers join the revolution then the people don't need to be armed beforehand for a successful revolution" Of course they do. Simply because professional warfighters would join the effort doesn't mean that private citizens don't have the right to tools that may be useful to ensure their on freedom. "And who would supply those heavy weapons to American rebels?" US military personnel, Mexican cartels...thegergAnd who would supply those heavy weapons to American rebels? Ensure freedom by winning a fight where you need the soldiers on your side, so obviously the ways to get soldiers on your side is to shoot at them. "US military personnel," Well that would mean the military siding with the rebels which would mean victory for the rebels, otherwise those weapons will break, run out of ammo or gas pretty fast and be useless. Also random people with no weapons training vs trained professionals that will work out well. "Mexican cartels..." .....wtf?
"Or because it is insanely difficult and leads to useless weapons because of supply and maintenance needs for the captured weapons."
Nope. Yeah logistics and supply lines are just a government conspiracy
"Well that would mean the military siding with the rebels which would mean victory for the rebels, otherwise those weapons will break, run out of ammo or gas pretty fast and be useless. Also random people with no weapons training vs trained professionals that will work out well."
Numerous civilians have training as well. Not a many or as well trained as the military who also would have things like air support and cyber warfare support.
"....wtf?" Get a map and a dictionary. Look up the word "cartel" and find the country labeled "Mexico" on the map. That should help. Yes the mexican drug cartels would suddenly go from terrorizing mexico to giving heavy weapons to U.s rebels, that makes perfect sense. And since when have the cartels had an abundance of heavy arms?
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="thegerg"]
"Or because it is insanely difficult and leads to useless weapons because of supply and maintenance needs for the captured weapons."
Nope. Yeah logistics and supply lines are just a government conspiracy
"Well that would mean the military siding with the rebels which would mean victory for the rebels, otherwise those weapons will break, run out of ammo or gas pretty fast and be useless. Also random people with no weapons training vs trained professionals that will work out well."
Numerous civilians have training as well. Not a many or as well trained as the military who also would have things like air support and cyber warfare support.
"....wtf?" Get a map and a dictionary. Look up the word "cartel" and find the country labeled "Mexico" on the map. That should help. Yes the mexican drug cartels would suddenly go from terrorizing mexico to giving heavy weapons to U.s rebels, that makes perfect sense. And since when have the cartels had an abundance of heavy arms?
thegerg
"Not a many or as well trained as the military who also would have things like air support and cyber warfare support." Actually there are more civilians with military training than members of the military. We don't execute our sevicemembers when they retire, you know? They become civilians. Don't be so naive. And many of those people would probably side with the government or sit out of the conflict, anyways 70 year old guys who fought in vietnam don't count.
"Yes the mexican drug cartels would suddenly go from terrorizing mexico to giving heavy weapons to U.s rebels, that makes perfect sense. And since when have the cartels had an abundance of heavy arms?" No one said that they'd give anyone anything, you seem to be very confused. They don't have an abundance of weapons. Remember, though, we're talking about a world where things have changed quite a bit. Simply because they don't have something now doesn't mean they never will, remember that.
So in this greatly changed world, Mexican drug cartels will save 'Merica sounds realistic.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment