What I really wonder is, would the outcome of this shooting incident have gone any differently at the 6pm showing on Saturday evening?
What I'm saying is, most people in the theater at 12am Friday morning were younger people who probably aren't carrying a firearm. I'd be interested to see how many people WERE carrying a firearm, and still nothing was done (no blame, just commenting). More likely older men and woman attending a Saturday viewing may have been packing compared to late Thursday evening.
Colleagues and I were discussing the major shooting events we've heard about in press from your side of the border/elsewhere that have been memorable. This is subjective reporting, obviously. This is also from a Canadian. I'm getting the biases out of the way, like a responsible person should.
1) Columbine High School Shooting.
2) Virginia Tech Shooting
3) Aurora Shooting recently
4) University of Texas shooting (1960's)
5) Anders Brevik in Norway
6) Fort Hood Shooting
7) Afghanistan Shootings
8) Australian Shooting years ago
9) Congresswoman Giffords shooting
These were the ones that came to us off the top of our heads.
Our first thing was, did they have easy access to weapons? In the States, this is true moreso than other countries, let's be fair. I'm not saying you can't get a gun if you REALLY want it, but there is a deterrent in making an automatic weapon more difficult to obtain.
If you're not a part of the criminal underworld or ties to a gun club, in most countries, it could prove difficult to go get an assault weapon, which would make a massacre much easier. Fair point?
In terms of easier accessibility, numbers 1,2,3,6,7,9 are cases where weapons are very easily obtained. 4,5 and 8 seem to be situations where guns, assault weapons or not, would have been harder to obtain, but as we can see, not impossible.
Cases 3, 6, 7, and in a way, 9, are all cases where an assault weapon was used to commit the crime, and there was easy access for most. if I recall correctly, gun control laws in Norway are probably similar to Canada's. The weapons were easily bought or acquired.
Now, I want to be very clear on this point: I do NOT blame anyone who, during any of these attacks, may have had a license (or not) to carry a firearm, but did not end up using it against the attack. It's a very hard thing to do to get up and attempt to stop someone who's bent on killing, especially if you're already in a safe position, or if there's no way to actually get in position to take out the shooter.
In how many of these cases were these shooters stopped by non-police?
Cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 were all stopped by the police (or military in the cases of 6 and 7). Only in the case of 9 did civilians have the ability/chance to take out the shooter (but also, apparently the guy fumbled a reload with a ton of people right near him).
If we remove cases 4, 6 and 7 due to circumstances beyond the normal (6 and 7 were military issues, of course there's going to be people with guns around, and #4 was the first major one. There was no police contingency for something like this), many of the cases are ended by the police, or the shooter commits suicide. I haven't yet heard of a time where a citizen, using a gun to protect themselves and others, has been able to take out a person bent on going on a rampage like this.
Now, for those arguing for a relaxation in gun laws to help citizens protect themselves from people going on rampages, I believe your logic is VERY flawed here. More likely than not, you're not going to be able to carry something to go toe-to-toe with a person committing one of these acts, so the point is basically moot. I think relaxing the law leads to nothing but problems (like the who Drug War in Mexico, because the guns never came from America, we swear).
For those arguing to not change anything, that's possibly a legitimate opinion.
For those arguing for stricter gun control, I'm slightly inclined to agree due to the following reasons.
1) Tighter gun control means it would be less likely that a deranged person can end up with an assault style weapon*
2) There's no actual legitimate need for an assault style weapon in modern, urban life in the 21st century in a Western country**
3) No one is taking your guns away, at least the ones that would make sense to have, so no one's telling you the Second Amendment means diddly.
* I'm not saying that a person cannot find a weapon if they want it, I'm saying perhaps those that are LESS determined may not be able to do it spur of the moment. It's the same reason why shooting someone on the spot versus driving home, getting your gun, and driving back and shooting someone is the difference between second and first degree murder. Intent and forethought. Being able to grab a gun quickly means the person may not have the time to perhaps think through all of the actions they're about to do, whereas the extra work necessary and difficulty may cause re-evaluation, or perhaps a less successful attempt at destruction.
** If someone who disagrees can actually bring up a legitimate reason for having to own an AK-47 or a Glock with a 33-round magazine living in a Western city in the current age, feel free to argue your point.
Now, gun control, at least, assault weapons gun control, doesn't truly detract from the criminal aspect of the weapons trade. Or, does it? The Mexican Drug War didn't start until the 21st century, I will agree. But, the primary source of Mexican armament comes from the American side of the border, where automatic weapons are easy to obtain. In Mexico, it's quite the opposite.
However, criminals may get a hold of automatic weapons, this is a fair point, but this will happen either way. The question is, as a private citizen, will you normally interact with this criminal with this automatic weapon? In most cases, no. If you do, what are the chances that you will also have yours with you? Less likely. Is a criminal with an AK-47 going to randomly rob your house? Probably not. Will it be used to commit a gangland hit at a restaurant you might be sitting at? Possibly. Will you be able to do anything in that case? Nope. Show me the cases where a private citizen carrying a gun intervened in a gangland assassination and saved the day.
Do I think private citizens have a right to defend themselves and their property from people intent on doing them harm? Yes.
Do I think you need the access to automatic weapons to do so? No. I think home defence could reasonably be handled with either a handgun, shotgun, or a call to the police.
What I propose is more gun regulation, and mandatory training along with background checks. Ideally, everyone who owns a gun would also be very experienced in using it, in case the need should arise.
I see a rebuttal where someone is saying that this training could turn an untrained madman into a trained one. True. But, how does that stop anyone now? We have untrained madmen and untrained citizens, and people are still shot. Perhaps with trained madmen and trained armed citizens, the results would be different.
If you do disagree, please tell me why you think so. I'm generally interested in any opinions that provide evidence in addition to their conclusion, not just "infringing on my rights set out by..." Sometimes, it's not about you. Sometimes, it's about everyone, and I feel like some people just don't get that.
In Canada, there are VERY few cases of massacres happening. Why? I don't have an answer, and I'm not going to turn a correlation into a causation, but citizens here do encounter background checks, there is a weapons ban on certain items, and I think just a different mentality.
If there's something you disagree with, let me know in the nicest way. I'll try to explain anything that's unclear.
-Matt
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm your Huckleberry." - Doc Holliday
"You're like the nicest person on the forum!" -Maicol
I hate when people infringe upon my God-given right to own a tank!
Anyone who believes the right to bear arms actually means we have recourse against the government is fooling themselves. Even if every single non-military citizen had a fully automatic firearm with full tactical body armor, any violent uprising would be CRUSHED by the military. The ONLY way an uprising/coup could ever be successful is if the US military fought against the government. There is zero percent chance of success otherwise. So get off your high horse about the (in)ability to protect us from tyranny.
Ahh but you do own a tank. lol
Do you honestly believe that the military would turn on the general public? Or atleast all of it. If you need any proof as the the correct answer just look at syria where there are military defections left right and center. Or perhaps libia. Many people join the military to protect their loved ones. To protect their family, their community and their country. So when the country turns against its government its only natural that at least some of the military will turn with them. It is a lot harder to kill your neighbors then most people think.
The rights to bare arms is something which should always be protected, it is the check that keeps the government in balance (or at least it was supposed to be) and the statement that you need no one else to protect your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, your loved ones and brothers then yourself. You need never fear the oppression of others as long as you are allowed to defend your own life, defend your own freedoms with all those resources available to you. That is the very thing that america was founded on, the freedoms and independence, the very reason why we live the way we do today.
Gun control is one thing, keeping guns out of the hands of those who have proven themselves to be a danger to the community or who would obviously not be able to exercise better judgement, but eventually you have moved past the point of just gun control and instead have infringed on someone else's basic rights to protect themselves and their family. We should never reach a point where a normal, law abiding citizen is not able to procure a weapon if they so feel that it is necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Call the police? Yes. Shotgun and handgun? No way.
While theoretically I think that people should have the right to do that, in real life, it makes no sense.
None of my friends or family ever got people breaking into their house. And when a criminal does break into someones house, he does so when he is sure that noone is there.
Sorry to post twice so fast
Break ins while people are home do happen in real life, There is one 80 year old lady living in florida who was forced to defend herself in her own home twice in a few month time span. It was an amazing thing to hear on the news, this old lady pulling out a rather large hand gun on the obviously startled thieves who thought they would be able to pull something over on grandma. Break ins happen, sometimes crooks will do it while you are home if they think they will get away with it, either through shock and awe or just by doing it while they think you are asleep, when no one is looking. Its more then just thieves though, if you want proof you need look no further then the 5 year old girl who got abducted from her home in the middle of the night while her father was sleeping in the other room. If i remember correctly the man dragged her out to the middle of a field and was going to try and rape her when the father stepped in. These are the kind of scum bags for whom guns are made to stop.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Anyone who believes the right to bear arms actually means we have recourse against the government is fooling themselves. Even if every single non-military citizen had a fully automatic firearm with full tactical body armor, any violent uprising would be CRUSHED by the military. The ONLY way an uprising/coup could ever be successful is if the US military fought against the government. There is zero percent chance of success otherwise. So get off your high horse about the (in)ability to protect us from tyranny.
Sooo true.
Especially when you consider how the Russians subjugated Afghanistan in modern times. Oh wait, they didn't.
And especially when you consider the spectacular failure of the insurgency in Iraq...
Call the police? Yes. Shotgun and handgun? No way.
While theoretically I think that people should have the right to do that, in real life, it makes no sense.
It takes the average police force 7-10 minutes to respond to a call. When a person is in your home, and you don't know their intent, 7-10 minutes is a LONG time.
For perspective, the Aurora, CO shooter started shooting at 12:39 am. He was arrested at 12:45 am. The police, btw, arrived within two minutes of the 911 call.
It would be nice if the police could handle my intruder for me. But, in the event that my life or my family's life is jeopardized before they get there, I take security in knowing that my gun gives us a fighting chance.
Also, if you are unarmed and face a criminal, you are more likely to survive, than if you both point shotguns at each other. In one case the robber threatens you with a gun, you give him the crap, he runs off and he calls the police. If you have a weapon, you are more likely to die. Is the tiny chance of beeing a "hero" (though I don't think anyone killing other humans can be a hero) worth risking your life that way?
Whats your evidence for this claim? How do you know you're "only" dealing with a burglar, rather than someone with more malicious intent?
As for being a "hero": why do you paint it in that light? There is nothing glamorous about taking the life of another, this is about survival, nothing more. As for risks: The potential risk escalates from the unknown intent of an intruder. You could take the quoted paragraph, and replace all instances of "gun" for "knife", and it would still not make sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
I hate when people infringe upon my God-given right to own a tank!
Me too! I want my Abrams! If I vote in Obama again, with all this socialism going on maybe I can join some federal program to get one!
VOTE OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!
Anyone who believes the right to bear arms actually means we have recourse against the government is fooling themselves. Even if every single non-military citizen had a fully automatic firearm with full tactical body armor, any violent uprising would be CRUSHED by the military. The ONLY way an uprising/coup could ever be successful is if the US military fought against the government. There is zero percent chance of success otherwise. So get off your high horse about the (in)ability to protect us from tyranny.
One of the biggest flaws in this argument is that when it comes right down to it, the military has never been good where they can't get stuff like tanks and planes into an area. As we saw in Iraq, guerillas fighting in enclosed spaces where they can dictate the elements is a much more common weakness of conventional forces. Sure, you have groups like the Navy SEALs and Marine Force Recon who make up for such a weakness, but on the whole the government can not count on people like them. Special Operations troopers are come of the smartest people I have ever known, and they take their oaths seriously.
If the government turned on the people, their biggest supporters would be the younger, more impressionable troops, usually E1 to E3, though you might have the odd 2LT in there as well. As you get higher in the ranks, you start to look at yourself, and you look at what you are doing. You look at what that uniform and that oath mean. And you begin to take it seriously.
I could, of course, be wrong. But whatever.
Back on track: I don't think anyone has ever made the argument that we should be able to have access to backpack nukes and other such devices because the second amendment guarantees it. When people say "military-grade", they mean access to rifles such as the M16 and such. I do, however, love it when the left attempts to use that excuse when trying to make the argument that all of us are "whackos" and "gun nuts" like they're cool and new.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
It's my understanding that that is not Colorado law, but it a rule implemented by the company that runs the Century 16 theater.
I guess we'll have to confirm this by looking it up.
I am pro-2nd Amendment, but I do support some common sense restrictions (such as background checks and preventing people with violent mental illnesses like paranoia and schizophrenia from owning guns).
That's fair.
And owning a 100 round drum magazine for a semiautomatic rifle strikes me as unnecessary. That is not to say that I wouldn't want one myself - eventually I do plan on building my own AR-15 and certainly would not mind have a drum magazine. But I don't feel it is something a civilian truly needs - not that we "need" a lot of the things we have access to.
Yeah, I don't know what "a civilian truly needs" means in this case.
using the second amendment as a reason to own and give out guns is plain BS. Everyone knows this is a misinterpretation
Really now?
those weapons are causing a climate of fear. Here in Germany, I know that most people do not own a weapon. Actually, I've myself never ever seen a firearm outside the hands of specifically trained people (such as police). I have no single friend owning one, and I never saw anywhere else a guy with one. And that makes me feel safe. Sure, when I walk home late at night, and some guys behind me "seem" to follow me, then I might get nervous. But at the same time I know: even IF they'd try to rob me, which is extremely unlikely, it's even more unlikely they got guns. Because of the strict gun laws in Germany. If everyone got a gun, boy I'd be scared...
You are less concerned with the government taking full control of the weapons in the country than you are with individual citizens taking their own responsibility for their own safety?
For me, I always judge the risks and effort to what's best. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't sit all day in a faraday cage to be safe from lightning, because the slim risk of lightnings out of clear sky exists.
Same with weapons and intruders. With the difference, that a weapon is by itself already a constant threat and source of danger. Which you bring willingly into your home, increasing the risk of yourself or your friends and visitors of being hurt. A danger that you bring there on purpose, and that persists as long as the weapon is there.
And, as said before, burglars are usually after easy money without too much risk. That involves: breaking into an empty house, stealing stuff, and leaving.
Sometimes there is someone in the house and then they don't notice that. Normally, when they notice that someone is there while they thought there ain't, they leave right then, because, as said, they do neither want to get into jail either, but simply have easy money.
And even IF that burglar doesn't run away in that moment, if you are unarmed, and you decide to confront him, it's unlikely that he will kill you. Simply because it makes absolutely no sense. But if you show up with a shotgun, he might shoot because he assumes he has to do that to survive. You turn a burglary into murder.
According to what you say, it seems that it's quite a normal everydays thing in your neighborhood, that people run into random houses to randomly murder people. Which makes absolutely no sense, since someone would have to be completly insane to do that. I'm not saying that there ain't insane murderers out there. But I do say that the risk you put to yourself and your family and visitors, by keeping devices in your house whichs only purpose is to kill people, is much higher, than the risk of being the victim of an insane murderer.
And yes, I do think that a lot of people would consider themselves to be a hero, if they kill a burglar.
Again, why do you assume a home intrusion is a burglar? How do you ascertain that? Do you ask nicely? This makes no sense to me. If I wake up in the middle of the night, and hear an intruder, I'm not going to sit there and think, "Oh, its probably just a burglar. This sucks, but we're pretty much safe."
Is a gun dangerous? Sure, it can be. But, part of what is being discussed in this thread by gun proponents is responsible ownership. Just because something carries the potential for danger doesn't it mean it shouldn't come into the home. Cleaning agents, medicines, cooking knives, chainsaws...all are in my house. All are potential threats, especially to kids. All are responsibly handled though, by being properly secured...just like my guns.
As for your "faraday cage" argument: it really boils down, I guess, to a difference in opinion of preparedness. I'm not "scared", as you say, of someone breaking into my house (for any purpose). That's different than not wanting to be prepared. I'm not scared or paranoid about a fire breaking out either, but I still keep a fire extinguisher around.
I'm not sure what your mental image of American gun owners is, but we typically don't sit, huddled in our basement, hugging our arsenals, waiting for the baddies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
For me, I always judge the risks and effort to what's best. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't sit all day in a faraday cage to be safe from lightning, because the slim risk of lightnings out of clear sky exists.
That's because the risk of being struck by lightning is so low as to be damn-near non-existent. Unless you were actually struck.
Same with weapons and intruders. With the difference, that a weapon is by itself already a constant threat and source of danger. Which you bring willingly into your home, increasing the risk of yourself or your friends and visitors of being hurt. A danger that you bring there on purpose, and that persists as long as the weapon is there.
Citation seriously needed. And I mean it.
I own a M16-variant, a P90(C), two handguns, and one rifle with an effective range of over 1,000m on a good day. The rifle is 7.62 caliber, at best. All my weapons are in a locked area save one handgun, that I keep hidden in a secured location. Okay, it's under my pillow at night, with a lock on the trigger. It is still secured.
If you are dumb and play the stereotypical redneck, leaving your guns unlocked and on the friggin' table, then yeah someone may get hurt. It may very well be a kid. But I don't know of anyone who does such a thing. In many instances, those that legally own the gun are pretty solid people, able to at least think about if something like that would be a good idea or not.
And speaking as someone who has stopped TWO burglaries in his own house - both of which were in a suburb area - I can safely say that the only person risking injury in that type of scenario is the bastard with the red dot on his chest. No one else (unless he, too, has a gun).
And, as said before, burglars are usually after easy money without too much risk. That involves: breaking into an empty house, stealing stuff, and leaving.
Around where I live -where there are a LOT of elderly people - that's not even remotely the case. I watched one guy, in the middle of the day, break into our neighbor's house because she was elderly and couldn't do anything. At the time, I was getting ready to go with my uncle and his Senior Chief to the range to practice a bit of marksmanship. I will tell you, the guy came out with the woman's jewelry and was pissing himself when he saw four of us (there's a Statie that lives up the street) aiming three rifles and a shotgun at him. People stop what they're doing when that happens.
And I know there was at least one killing during a home invasion near my house where the elderly man didn't move fast enough. The bastards shot him.
Sometimes there is someone in the house and then they don't notice that. Normally, when they notice that someone is there while they thought there ain't, they leave right then, because, as said, they do neither want to get into jail either, but simply have easy money.
No, when the burglar notices someone is in the house, they will usually try to stop the person from reporting them. This usually ends with some type of hostage situation, where the family is tied up while the burglars ransack the house. This is becoming more common around the world according to DOJ and DOD statistics, because of the unemployment. The burglars show up for a reason, they are going to do the job they came to do.
And even IF that burglar doesn't run away in that moment, if you are unarmed, and you decide to confront him, it's unlikely that he will kill you. Simply because it makes absolutely no sense. But if you show up with a shotgun, he might shoot because he assumes he has to do that to survive. You turn a burglary into murder.
So, where'd he get that gun? There is already plenty of testimony out there by criminals that say they don't care about gun laws. They are going to get them anyways, so removing the right for the ordinary citizen to carry just makes their life a little easier. They don't have to worry about getting shot do they?
According to what you say, it seems that it's quite a normal everydays thing in your neighborhood, that people run into random houses to randomly murder people. Which makes absolutely no sense, since someone would have to be completly insane to do that. I'm not saying that there ain't insane murderers out there. But I do say that the risk you put to yourself and your family and visitors, by keeping devices in your house whichs only purpose is to kill people, is much higher, than the risk of being the victim of an insane murderer.
It might also be that it is a rather commonplace thing where he lives. Several large cities in the United States have had gang violence for decades. Chicago, right now, has seen more deaths in the first half of the year than we have had losses in Afghanistan. I'd rather be able to protect myself and give myself a fighting chance from the psychopath than lay down and take the bullet.
And yes, I do think that a lot of people would consider themselves to be a hero, if they kill a burglar.
Nah, I'd just be taking out the trash. Nothing glamorous about that job.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
I am completely against any firearms ban, because such a thing is unquestionably unconstitutional and flat-out insanity. The Right to Bear Arms has one purpose: to provide a final recourse against anyone infringing against a person's rights, specifically the government. To ask the government to remove the recourse against a corrupt government is insanity.
I agree with regarding the ban being a bad and unconstitutional idea, but that doesn't mean that every gun should be readily available to the public. Let me give an example, the gun used in the Aurora Springs shooting was banned under the Clinton gun bans that expired in 2004, meaning that the shooter would have likely used to use a different (likely less potent) gun for his crime (I saw the citation yesterday, but I can't find it today :(). This intrigues me because I've wondered since the shooting exactly how many bullets does an individual need to protect themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
How about we just set a requirement that if you have a clear background (no felonies at all, select misdemeanors okay, no history of mental illness such as paranoia or schizophrenia) and pass a basic gun safety and use course, you can purchase a firearm?
If you are only going to prevent people who have a history of those things, you're going to increase the number of people who shouldn't have guns who have guns. You also create an incentive for people to never seek help with their medical problems, for fear that they are going to become permanent targets. And you still haven't solved the problem of them no longer being allowed to defend themselves.
People seem to forget part of the historical reasoning behind gun rights.
1. So society can protect itself from the government. It gives people the ability to fight back if the government over steps it's bounds. This is also one of the arguments for allowing high powered weapons. The army has tanks and M-16s. If the government goes whack job and locks down the country the population doesnt stand much chance with baseball bats, or Remington shot guns. This is a real concern that just cant be dismissed because "the government could never do that". It happens in other countries there is nothing saying it cant happen here.
2. It makes the USA impossibly hard to occupy in a war. Citizens having the right to bear arms means that the USA has a huge standing militia. If there was ever a situation where the country was occupied instead of hiding in homes and running away hoping that we are saved, we would be able to fight back.
also you cant tell me that you would feel safe and fight back with your gun if an entire army of high armed soldiers walk down your street....you will mostlike hide somewhere and surrender the moment they find you (you in this case doesnt mean you per se but the majority of gunholders as i doubt that they all have some kind of military training to handle such situations)
This backdoor accusation of cowardice is not only uncalled for, it's refuted by the empirical evidence. Take a cursory look at the history of modern warfare. What usually happens when one country is occupied by another country's military?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Fixed it for you. There is no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle, because the defining characteristic of an assault rifle is that it has either a burst mode of fire (3 to 5 rounds per trigger pull typically) or an automatic mode of fire (rounds fire for as long as the trigger is pulled) in addition to the typical "Safe" and "Semi" modes.
Rifles like the AR-15 have only "Safe" and "Semi" selection choices, meaning they do not meet the technical defining characteristic of an assault rifle. Of course, that doesn't stop politicians from lying to scare people.
Actually it was the The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, not "semi-automatic Assault-styled Rifles" ban as your fix describes. Yes, the federal government used this term to describe exactly what you are describing. You are correct in that regard.
----------------------- tangent
At any rate, in regard to banning so called assult weapons, the ban didn't cause any statistical decrease in crime, and these weapons are rarely used in gun related murders regardless
they fight back and die or surrender and live...the outcome wont change anyway. and yes, the guys you fight against in iraq (or whichever country it was, i always confuse those) arent just normal citizens guns, most of them are in some kind of organisation
try to occupy china, france or some other idustrial state right now and i promise you, it wont be the common folk with some weapons which will stop you
The act of civilians fighting an occupying force is guerilla warfare. Fight and Die? Hardly.
And Al Qaeda and their fore-runners in Afghanistan: How/why do you think such organization comes to exist? Think it over...
Quote from wikipedia »
The tactics of guerrilla warfare were used successfully in the 20th century by—among others— the Soviet partisans and the Polish Home Army[11] and the OSS in Burma[23] in World War II; Mao Zedong and the People's Liberation Army in the Second Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War. Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and the 26th of July Movement in the Cuban Revolution. Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Viet Cong and select members of the Green Berets in the Vietnam War (and the First Indochina War before that). The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Afghan Mujahideen in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, George Grivas and Nikos Sampson's Greek guerrilla group EOKA in Cyprus, Aris Velouchiotis and Stefanos Sarafis and the EAM against the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and the German Schutztruppe in World War I, Josip Broz Tito and the Yugoslav Partisans in World War II, and the antifrancoist guerrilla in Spain during the Franco dictatorship,[24] the Kosovo Liberation Army in the Kosovo War, and the Irish Republican Army led by Michael Collins during the Irish War of Independence.[25] Most factions of the Taliban, Iraqi insurgency, Colombia's FARC, and the Communist Party of India (Maoist) are said to be engaged in some form of guerrilla warfare—as was, until recently, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). In India, Marathas under leadership of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj used it to overthrow of the Mughals. It was also effectively used by Tatya Tope and Rani Laxmibai in the Indian Rebellion of 1857, as well as by Pazhassi Raja of Kerala to fight the British.
1. Mandatory background checks for all gun purchases anywhere in the USA.
Who is going to pay for this. The amount of man hours it would take to do a background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US will alone make this a unpractical solution.
2. Mandatory mental health evaluations for all gun purchases.
Again who is going to pay for this. Therapist do not come cheap and again the man hours it would take makes it again a unpractical solution.
3. Reinstate the assault weapons ban. And probably expand it to other firearms with unnecessary firepower.
yet what you are posting is differant from just everyone having a gun
if every gunowner would be in a guerilla-warfare-organisation (lets call it that for now) then you would have a point that guns protect the country from beeing occupied....yet thats not the reason right now
just because someone has a gun to feel safe at home, its unlikely he will use it against heavy armed forces walking through his city...unless he is insane or stupid ofc but then he shouldnt own a gun in the first place
they fight back and die or surrender and live...the outcome wont change anyway. and yes, the guys you fight against in iraq (or whichever country it was, i always confuse those) arent just normal citizens guns, most of them are in some kind of organisation
And Al Qaeda and their fore-runners in Afghanistan: How/why do you think such organization comes to exist? Think it over...
Which apparently, you decided not to do, so let me spell it out for you.
Al Qaeda began as a resistance movement, which utilized guerilla tactics, in response to the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Prior to the invasion, there was no resistance movement, because there was nothing to resist. Resistance movements form in response to an outside force.
Yeah, you're right: there is no organized guerilla force in the US. Why? Because we aren't occupied. Rest assured, if this were ever the case, the US, just like every occupied country in history, would form a resistance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
yet what you are posting is differant from just everyone having a gun
if every gunowner would be in a guerilla-warfare-organisation (lets call it that for now) then you would have a point that guns protect the country from beeing occupied....yet thats not the reason right now
The point is that were we to be invaded and occupied, you can be sure that groups of people would organize and conduct guerrilla warfare.
just because someone has a gun to feel safe at home, its unlikely he will use it against heavy armed forces walking through his city...unless he is insane or stupid ofc but then he shouldnt own a gun in the first place
Not everyone is as big of a coward as you seem to think they are. The whole idea of guerrilla warfare is to not fight a military force on its own terms. I can tell you that a group of experienced hunters with rifles could pose extremely deadly threats to patrols of armed soldiers.
Actually it was the The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, not "semi-automatic Assault-styled Rifles" ban as your fix describes. Yes, the federal government used this term to describe exactly what you are describing. You are correct in that regard.
----------------------- tangent
At any rate, in regard to banning so called assult weapons, the ban didn't cause any statistical decrease in crime, and these weapons are rarely used in gun related murders regardless
For the 1994 "ban," the government created the term "assault weapon" (it was never used prior to 1994) to describe semiautomatic weapons that looked like assault rifles or met a minimum criteria of requirements that were common on automatic weapons. The "Assault Weapons" Ban didn't ban a single assault rifle, it just banned the weapons that looked like them.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
For the 1994 "ban," the government created the term "assault weapon" (it was never used prior to 1994) to describe semiautomatic weapons that looked like assault rifles or met a minimum criteria of requirements that were common on automatic weapons. The "Assault Weapons" Ban didn't ban a single assault rifle, it just banned the weapons that looked like them.
I was adjusting your terminology; it was indeed the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban, not the "1994 ban on semi-automatic Assault-styled Rifles." Your linking me the same page I looked at before I posted and corrected it your statement.
I even said
Quote from "Yamahar1" »
Yes, the federal government used this term to describe exactly what you are describing. You are correct in that regard.
then why is it better for everyone have his own gun rather then storing the guns at a central place which you can gain access to if someone is invading?
those 2 or more days you have as foresight are more then enough to get everyone a gun, yet all the accidents happening by private guns are taken away
I'm not sure about Germany (I assume it's true as well), but here in America a lot more people are killed every year by cars than by guns. Perhaps we should take away everyone's car as well, then all those accidents would stop.
yet the common citizen isnt an expierenced hunter, he is a banker, a lawer or a dog**** collector
Not in America. Hunting is a very popular sport. A large percentage of Americans are experienced hunters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
thats just a bad argument and has nothing to do with guns as cars are needed to get from A to B, yet a personal gun is totally unneeded right now
Not true. A gun is needed for three things (at least in America): Hunting, recreational sport shooting, and personal protection. To which you will probably respond "You don't need to do any of those." To which I will respond "Well you don't need cars to get from A to B either. You can take public transportation."
well, if that true, i give you that
€: or not, see Timothys post
I was going to address Timmy's point in another line, but I can address them both here.
As I've been told countless times by Timmy and others on his side of the aisle - Wikipedia is a terrible source because anyone can edit it.
Hunting and recreational shooting/plinking are very popular past times in America. Especially in the more rural areas.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
People seem to forget part of the historical reasoning behind gun rights.
1. So society can protect itself from the government. It gives people the ability to fight back if the government over steps it's bounds. This is also one of the arguments for allowing high powered weapons. The army has tanks and M-16s. If the government goes whack job and locks down the country the population doesnt stand much chance with baseball bats, or Remington shot guns. This is a real concern that just cant be dismissed because "the government could never do that". It happens in other countries there is nothing saying it cant happen here.
2. It makes the USA impossibly hard to occupy in a war. Citizens having the right to bear arms means that the USA has a huge standing militia. If there was ever a situation where the country was occupied instead of hiding in homes and running away hoping that we are saved, we would be able to fight back.
The second amendment doesn't exist so people could protect themselves from the government. And every single time the British Army fought the Colonial army, the Colonial army got its ass kicked by the better trained, better equipped, and more disciplined British regulars until those soldiers ran out of supplies. As they should, given they were an amateur militia fighting against professional soldiers.
The Colonial armies strategy was equivalent to the Syrian rebels today - we don't need to win, we need to not lose and wear down the desire of the enemy to fight. Make the situation unprofitable to be in.
The second amendment was passed with the following understandings:
The Militia is the responsibility of the State, and the highest authority it responds to is the Governor. The decentralized pattern of militia management only ended with the Civil War. The US did not have a professional army until then, which is why it got its ass kicked so badly during the War of 1812, among other reasons.
The 'well regulated militia' bit of the second amendment is referring to organizations that didn't exist and would have been inconceivable then - specifically, a national, professional military whose loyalties lay with the country, not the state. It's a nod to 18th century military doctrine, the decentralized state run militias.
Due to the dangers of life on the frontier - Indian raids, bandits, bears, and the need to hunt - weapons were required for general safety and that safety was to be secured by local means. This ties in to the well regulated militia being necessary.
If people are going to talk about the Second Amendment and original intent, there it is. That's the original intent. Interpret it as you will, but the guns weren't meant to be a hedge against tyranny. They were a hedge against colonial frontier dangers, and the amendment was designed to prevent federal authority from taking away the protections against dangers to civil society. The second amendment is being violated if the right to own weaponry is perfect - it's illegal to own nerve gas, grenades, and radioactive materials.
I don't particularly care about this discussion one way or another. We won't have gun control in this country until firefights start sawing through steel I-beams. Our problems come from broader economic malaise and a disconnect growing between people. Gun control won't fix that.
Comparison of Crimes Between US and Germany:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime
- Their specific numbers:
Germany: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime
US: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime
**For some awful reason they don't compare murders side by side.
The best I can find for that is this:
Comparison of International Murder Rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison
Comparision of US and Canada: (Not the same, but very detailed)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uwindsor.ca%2Fusers%2Fm%2Fmfc%2F41-240.nsf%2F0%2F10ff8b04ff3a317885256d88005720f6%2F%24FILE%2FATT8BNDV%2F0110185-002-XIE.pdf
Map of Violent Crimes:
http://chartsbin.com/view/1206
- (Could be useful to quickly compare states with/without gun control)
Detailed US Crime Statistics from FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911
- (Can't find similar for Germany right now)
After looking through this it seems like Germany has a lower violent crime rate. Fairly difficult to find a solid comparison though.
What I'm saying is, most people in the theater at 12am Friday morning were younger people who probably aren't carrying a firearm. I'd be interested to see how many people WERE carrying a firearm, and still nothing was done (no blame, just commenting). More likely older men and woman attending a Saturday viewing may have been packing compared to late Thursday evening.
Colleagues and I were discussing the major shooting events we've heard about in press from your side of the border/elsewhere that have been memorable. This is subjective reporting, obviously. This is also from a Canadian. I'm getting the biases out of the way, like a responsible person should.
1) Columbine High School Shooting.
2) Virginia Tech Shooting
3) Aurora Shooting recently
4) University of Texas shooting (1960's)
5) Anders Brevik in Norway
6) Fort Hood Shooting
7) Afghanistan Shootings
8) Australian Shooting years ago
9) Congresswoman Giffords shooting
These were the ones that came to us off the top of our heads.
Our first thing was, did they have easy access to weapons? In the States, this is true moreso than other countries, let's be fair. I'm not saying you can't get a gun if you REALLY want it, but there is a deterrent in making an automatic weapon more difficult to obtain.
If you're not a part of the criminal underworld or ties to a gun club, in most countries, it could prove difficult to go get an assault weapon, which would make a massacre much easier. Fair point?
In terms of easier accessibility, numbers 1,2,3,6,7,9 are cases where weapons are very easily obtained. 4,5 and 8 seem to be situations where guns, assault weapons or not, would have been harder to obtain, but as we can see, not impossible.
Cases 3, 6, 7, and in a way, 9, are all cases where an assault weapon was used to commit the crime, and there was easy access for most. if I recall correctly, gun control laws in Norway are probably similar to Canada's. The weapons were easily bought or acquired.
Now, I want to be very clear on this point: I do NOT blame anyone who, during any of these attacks, may have had a license (or not) to carry a firearm, but did not end up using it against the attack. It's a very hard thing to do to get up and attempt to stop someone who's bent on killing, especially if you're already in a safe position, or if there's no way to actually get in position to take out the shooter.
In how many of these cases were these shooters stopped by non-police?
Cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 were all stopped by the police (or military in the cases of 6 and 7). Only in the case of 9 did civilians have the ability/chance to take out the shooter (but also, apparently the guy fumbled a reload with a ton of people right near him).
If we remove cases 4, 6 and 7 due to circumstances beyond the normal (6 and 7 were military issues, of course there's going to be people with guns around, and #4 was the first major one. There was no police contingency for something like this), many of the cases are ended by the police, or the shooter commits suicide. I haven't yet heard of a time where a citizen, using a gun to protect themselves and others, has been able to take out a person bent on going on a rampage like this.
Now, for those arguing for a relaxation in gun laws to help citizens protect themselves from people going on rampages, I believe your logic is VERY flawed here. More likely than not, you're not going to be able to carry something to go toe-to-toe with a person committing one of these acts, so the point is basically moot. I think relaxing the law leads to nothing but problems (like the who Drug War in Mexico, because the guns never came from America, we swear).
For those arguing to not change anything, that's possibly a legitimate opinion.
For those arguing for stricter gun control, I'm slightly inclined to agree due to the following reasons.
1) Tighter gun control means it would be less likely that a deranged person can end up with an assault style weapon*
2) There's no actual legitimate need for an assault style weapon in modern, urban life in the 21st century in a Western country**
3) No one is taking your guns away, at least the ones that would make sense to have, so no one's telling you the Second Amendment means diddly.
* I'm not saying that a person cannot find a weapon if they want it, I'm saying perhaps those that are LESS determined may not be able to do it spur of the moment. It's the same reason why shooting someone on the spot versus driving home, getting your gun, and driving back and shooting someone is the difference between second and first degree murder. Intent and forethought. Being able to grab a gun quickly means the person may not have the time to perhaps think through all of the actions they're about to do, whereas the extra work necessary and difficulty may cause re-evaluation, or perhaps a less successful attempt at destruction.
** If someone who disagrees can actually bring up a legitimate reason for having to own an AK-47 or a Glock with a 33-round magazine living in a Western city in the current age, feel free to argue your point.
Now, gun control, at least, assault weapons gun control, doesn't truly detract from the criminal aspect of the weapons trade. Or, does it? The Mexican Drug War didn't start until the 21st century, I will agree. But, the primary source of Mexican armament comes from the American side of the border, where automatic weapons are easy to obtain. In Mexico, it's quite the opposite.
However, criminals may get a hold of automatic weapons, this is a fair point, but this will happen either way. The question is, as a private citizen, will you normally interact with this criminal with this automatic weapon? In most cases, no. If you do, what are the chances that you will also have yours with you? Less likely. Is a criminal with an AK-47 going to randomly rob your house? Probably not. Will it be used to commit a gangland hit at a restaurant you might be sitting at? Possibly. Will you be able to do anything in that case? Nope. Show me the cases where a private citizen carrying a gun intervened in a gangland assassination and saved the day.
Do I think private citizens have a right to defend themselves and their property from people intent on doing them harm? Yes.
Do I think you need the access to automatic weapons to do so? No. I think home defence could reasonably be handled with either a handgun, shotgun, or a call to the police.
What I propose is more gun regulation, and mandatory training along with background checks. Ideally, everyone who owns a gun would also be very experienced in using it, in case the need should arise.
I see a rebuttal where someone is saying that this training could turn an untrained madman into a trained one. True. But, how does that stop anyone now? We have untrained madmen and untrained citizens, and people are still shot. Perhaps with trained madmen and trained armed citizens, the results would be different.
If you do disagree, please tell me why you think so. I'm generally interested in any opinions that provide evidence in addition to their conclusion, not just "infringing on my rights set out by..." Sometimes, it's not about you. Sometimes, it's about everyone, and I feel like some people just don't get that.
In Canada, there are VERY few cases of massacres happening. Why? I don't have an answer, and I'm not going to turn a correlation into a causation, but citizens here do encounter background checks, there is a weapons ban on certain items, and I think just a different mentality.
If there's something you disagree with, let me know in the nicest way. I'll try to explain anything that's unclear.
-Matt
Legacy:
Thanks to SGT Chubbs for the sig
Ahh but you do own a tank. lol
Do you honestly believe that the military would turn on the general public? Or atleast all of it. If you need any proof as the the correct answer just look at syria where there are military defections left right and center. Or perhaps libia. Many people join the military to protect their loved ones. To protect their family, their community and their country. So when the country turns against its government its only natural that at least some of the military will turn with them. It is a lot harder to kill your neighbors then most people think.
The rights to bare arms is something which should always be protected, it is the check that keeps the government in balance (or at least it was supposed to be) and the statement that you need no one else to protect your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, your loved ones and brothers then yourself. You need never fear the oppression of others as long as you are allowed to defend your own life, defend your own freedoms with all those resources available to you. That is the very thing that america was founded on, the freedoms and independence, the very reason why we live the way we do today.
Gun control is one thing, keeping guns out of the hands of those who have proven themselves to be a danger to the community or who would obviously not be able to exercise better judgement, but eventually you have moved past the point of just gun control and instead have infringed on someone else's basic rights to protect themselves and their family. We should never reach a point where a normal, law abiding citizen is not able to procure a weapon if they so feel that it is necessary.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Sorry to post twice so fast
Break ins while people are home do happen in real life, There is one 80 year old lady living in florida who was forced to defend herself in her own home twice in a few month time span. It was an amazing thing to hear on the news, this old lady pulling out a rather large hand gun on the obviously startled thieves who thought they would be able to pull something over on grandma. Break ins happen, sometimes crooks will do it while you are home if they think they will get away with it, either through shock and awe or just by doing it while they think you are asleep, when no one is looking. Its more then just thieves though, if you want proof you need look no further then the 5 year old girl who got abducted from her home in the middle of the night while her father was sleeping in the other room. If i remember correctly the man dragged her out to the middle of a field and was going to try and rape her when the father stepped in. These are the kind of scum bags for whom guns are made to stop.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Sooo true.
Especially when you consider how the Russians subjugated Afghanistan in modern times. Oh wait, they didn't.
And especially when you consider the spectacular failure of the insurgency in Iraq...
And the ongoing war in Afghanistan...
It takes the average police force 7-10 minutes to respond to a call. When a person is in your home, and you don't know their intent, 7-10 minutes is a LONG time.
For perspective, the Aurora, CO shooter started shooting at 12:39 am. He was arrested at 12:45 am. The police, btw, arrived within two minutes of the 911 call.
It would be nice if the police could handle my intruder for me. But, in the event that my life or my family's life is jeopardized before they get there, I take security in knowing that my gun gives us a fighting chance.
Whats your evidence for this claim? How do you know you're "only" dealing with a burglar, rather than someone with more malicious intent?
As for being a "hero": why do you paint it in that light? There is nothing glamorous about taking the life of another, this is about survival, nothing more. As for risks: The potential risk escalates from the unknown intent of an intruder. You could take the quoted paragraph, and replace all instances of "gun" for "knife", and it would still not make sense.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
Me too! I want my Abrams! If I vote in Obama again, with all this socialism going on maybe I can join some federal program to get one!
VOTE OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!
One of the biggest flaws in this argument is that when it comes right down to it, the military has never been good where they can't get stuff like tanks and planes into an area. As we saw in Iraq, guerillas fighting in enclosed spaces where they can dictate the elements is a much more common weakness of conventional forces. Sure, you have groups like the Navy SEALs and Marine Force Recon who make up for such a weakness, but on the whole the government can not count on people like them. Special Operations troopers are come of the smartest people I have ever known, and they take their oaths seriously.
If the government turned on the people, their biggest supporters would be the younger, more impressionable troops, usually E1 to E3, though you might have the odd 2LT in there as well. As you get higher in the ranks, you start to look at yourself, and you look at what you are doing. You look at what that uniform and that oath mean. And you begin to take it seriously.
I could, of course, be wrong. But whatever.
Back on track: I don't think anyone has ever made the argument that we should be able to have access to backpack nukes and other such devices because the second amendment guarantees it. When people say "military-grade", they mean access to rifles such as the M16 and such. I do, however, love it when the left attempts to use that excuse when trying to make the argument that all of us are "whackos" and "gun nuts" like they're cool and new.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I guess we'll have to confirm this by looking it up.
That's fair.
Yeah, I don't know what "a civilian truly needs" means in this case.
Really now?
You are less concerned with the government taking full control of the weapons in the country than you are with individual citizens taking their own responsibility for their own safety?
I posit to you that an unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a paperweight.
Again, why do you assume a home intrusion is a burglar? How do you ascertain that? Do you ask nicely? This makes no sense to me. If I wake up in the middle of the night, and hear an intruder, I'm not going to sit there and think, "Oh, its probably just a burglar. This sucks, but we're pretty much safe."
Is a gun dangerous? Sure, it can be. But, part of what is being discussed in this thread by gun proponents is responsible ownership. Just because something carries the potential for danger doesn't it mean it shouldn't come into the home. Cleaning agents, medicines, cooking knives, chainsaws...all are in my house. All are potential threats, especially to kids. All are responsibly handled though, by being properly secured...just like my guns.
As for your "faraday cage" argument: it really boils down, I guess, to a difference in opinion of preparedness. I'm not "scared", as you say, of someone breaking into my house (for any purpose). That's different than not wanting to be prepared. I'm not scared or paranoid about a fire breaking out either, but I still keep a fire extinguisher around.
I'm not sure what your mental image of American gun owners is, but we typically don't sit, huddled in our basement, hugging our arsenals, waiting for the baddies.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
That's because the risk of being struck by lightning is so low as to be damn-near non-existent. Unless you were actually struck.
Citation seriously needed. And I mean it.
I own a M16-variant, a P90(C), two handguns, and one rifle with an effective range of over 1,000m on a good day. The rifle is 7.62 caliber, at best. All my weapons are in a locked area save one handgun, that I keep hidden in a secured location. Okay, it's under my pillow at night, with a lock on the trigger. It is still secured.
If you are dumb and play the stereotypical redneck, leaving your guns unlocked and on the friggin' table, then yeah someone may get hurt. It may very well be a kid. But I don't know of anyone who does such a thing. In many instances, those that legally own the gun are pretty solid people, able to at least think about if something like that would be a good idea or not.
And speaking as someone who has stopped TWO burglaries in his own house - both of which were in a suburb area - I can safely say that the only person risking injury in that type of scenario is the bastard with the red dot on his chest. No one else (unless he, too, has a gun).
Around where I live -where there are a LOT of elderly people - that's not even remotely the case. I watched one guy, in the middle of the day, break into our neighbor's house because she was elderly and couldn't do anything. At the time, I was getting ready to go with my uncle and his Senior Chief to the range to practice a bit of marksmanship. I will tell you, the guy came out with the woman's jewelry and was pissing himself when he saw four of us (there's a Statie that lives up the street) aiming three rifles and a shotgun at him. People stop what they're doing when that happens.
And I know there was at least one killing during a home invasion near my house where the elderly man didn't move fast enough. The bastards shot him.
No, when the burglar notices someone is in the house, they will usually try to stop the person from reporting them. This usually ends with some type of hostage situation, where the family is tied up while the burglars ransack the house. This is becoming more common around the world according to DOJ and DOD statistics, because of the unemployment. The burglars show up for a reason, they are going to do the job they came to do.
So, where'd he get that gun? There is already plenty of testimony out there by criminals that say they don't care about gun laws. They are going to get them anyways, so removing the right for the ordinary citizen to carry just makes their life a little easier. They don't have to worry about getting shot do they?
It might also be that it is a rather commonplace thing where he lives. Several large cities in the United States have had gang violence for decades. Chicago, right now, has seen more deaths in the first half of the year than we have had losses in Afghanistan. I'd rather be able to protect myself and give myself a fighting chance from the psychopath than lay down and take the bullet.
Nah, I'd just be taking out the trash. Nothing glamorous about that job.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I agree with regarding the ban being a bad and unconstitutional idea, but that doesn't mean that every gun should be readily available to the public. Let me give an example, the gun used in the Aurora Springs shooting was banned under the Clinton gun bans that expired in 2004, meaning that the shooter would have likely used to use a different (likely less potent) gun for his crime (I saw the citation yesterday, but I can't find it today :(). This intrigues me because I've wondered since the shooting exactly how many bullets does an individual need to protect themselves.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
1. So society can protect itself from the government. It gives people the ability to fight back if the government over steps it's bounds. This is also one of the arguments for allowing high powered weapons. The army has tanks and M-16s. If the government goes whack job and locks down the country the population doesnt stand much chance with baseball bats, or Remington shot guns. This is a real concern that just cant be dismissed because "the government could never do that". It happens in other countries there is nothing saying it cant happen here.
2. It makes the USA impossibly hard to occupy in a war. Citizens having the right to bear arms means that the USA has a huge standing militia. If there was ever a situation where the country was occupied instead of hiding in homes and running away hoping that we are saved, we would be able to fight back.
This backdoor accusation of cowardice is not only uncalled for, it's refuted by the empirical evidence. Take a cursory look at the history of modern warfare. What usually happens when one country is occupied by another country's military?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually it was the The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, not "semi-automatic Assault-styled Rifles" ban as your fix describes. Yes, the federal government used this term to describe exactly what you are describing. You are correct in that regard.
----------------------- tangent
At any rate, in regard to banning so called assult weapons, the ban didn't cause any statistical decrease in crime, and these weapons are rarely used in gun related murders regardless
My Buying Thread
The act of civilians fighting an occupying force is guerilla warfare. Fight and Die? Hardly.
And Al Qaeda and their fore-runners in Afghanistan: How/why do you think such organization comes to exist? Think it over...
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
Who is going to pay for this. The amount of man hours it would take to do a background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US will alone make this a unpractical solution.
Again who is going to pay for this. Therapist do not come cheap and again the man hours it would take makes it again a unpractical solution.
What you can buy a assault rifle???
Is this really true?
Earlier, you said this:
To which I asked you to do this:
Which apparently, you decided not to do, so let me spell it out for you.
Al Qaeda began as a resistance movement, which utilized guerilla tactics, in response to the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Prior to the invasion, there was no resistance movement, because there was nothing to resist. Resistance movements form in response to an outside force.
Yeah, you're right: there is no organized guerilla force in the US. Why? Because we aren't occupied. Rest assured, if this were ever the case, the US, just like every occupied country in history, would form a resistance.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
The point is that were we to be invaded and occupied, you can be sure that groups of people would organize and conduct guerrilla warfare.
Not everyone is as big of a coward as you seem to think they are. The whole idea of guerrilla warfare is to not fight a military force on its own terms. I can tell you that a group of experienced hunters with rifles could pose extremely deadly threats to patrols of armed soldiers.
For the 1994 "ban," the government created the term "assault weapon" (it was never used prior to 1994) to describe semiautomatic weapons that looked like assault rifles or met a minimum criteria of requirements that were common on automatic weapons. The "Assault Weapons" Ban didn't ban a single assault rifle, it just banned the weapons that looked like them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Yes I very much know that
I was adjusting your terminology; it was indeed the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban, not the "1994 ban on semi-automatic Assault-styled Rifles." Your linking me the same page I looked at before I posted and corrected
ityour statement.I even said
My Buying Thread
I'm not sure about Germany (I assume it's true as well), but here in America a lot more people are killed every year by cars than by guns. Perhaps we should take away everyone's car as well, then all those accidents would stop.
Not in America. Hunting is a very popular sport. A large percentage of Americans are experienced hunters.
That's still 18 million hunters in the US, and plenty of guns to teach others. It doesn't take long to learn to be proficient in the use of a rifle.
Not true. A gun is needed for three things (at least in America): Hunting, recreational sport shooting, and personal protection. To which you will probably respond "You don't need to do any of those." To which I will respond "Well you don't need cars to get from A to B either. You can take public transportation."
I was going to address Timmy's point in another line, but I can address them both here.
As I've been told countless times by Timmy and others on his side of the aisle - Wikipedia is a terrible source because anyone can edit it.
Hunting and recreational shooting/plinking are very popular past times in America. Especially in the more rural areas.
The second amendment doesn't exist so people could protect themselves from the government. And every single time the British Army fought the Colonial army, the Colonial army got its ass kicked by the better trained, better equipped, and more disciplined British regulars until those soldiers ran out of supplies. As they should, given they were an amateur militia fighting against professional soldiers.
The Colonial armies strategy was equivalent to the Syrian rebels today - we don't need to win, we need to not lose and wear down the desire of the enemy to fight. Make the situation unprofitable to be in.
The second amendment was passed with the following understandings:
The Militia is the responsibility of the State, and the highest authority it responds to is the Governor. The decentralized pattern of militia management only ended with the Civil War. The US did not have a professional army until then, which is why it got its ass kicked so badly during the War of 1812, among other reasons.
The 'well regulated militia' bit of the second amendment is referring to organizations that didn't exist and would have been inconceivable then - specifically, a national, professional military whose loyalties lay with the country, not the state. It's a nod to 18th century military doctrine, the decentralized state run militias.
Due to the dangers of life on the frontier - Indian raids, bandits, bears, and the need to hunt - weapons were required for general safety and that safety was to be secured by local means. This ties in to the well regulated militia being necessary.
If people are going to talk about the Second Amendment and original intent, there it is. That's the original intent. Interpret it as you will, but the guns weren't meant to be a hedge against tyranny. They were a hedge against colonial frontier dangers, and the amendment was designed to prevent federal authority from taking away the protections against dangers to civil society. The second amendment is being violated if the right to own weaponry is perfect - it's illegal to own nerve gas, grenades, and radioactive materials.
I don't particularly care about this discussion one way or another. We won't have gun control in this country until firefights start sawing through steel I-beams. Our problems come from broader economic malaise and a disconnect growing between people. Gun control won't fix that.