|
Anybody delusional enough to believe hunting rifles and the level of firearm technology a civilian can legally acquire (without being crazy rich with tons of disposable income, since the only barrier to full auto weaponry is the dollar amount required for the current licensing and the firearm itself) can stand up to an actual organized government SHTF takeover is a lunatic. That said, I own guns myself, but it's more like collecting really expensive stamps as they're all pre-WWII designs or otherwise antiques related to firearm companies (still keeping an eye out for vintage typewriters by Remington and Mauser factories). I have no illusions about self-defense from the government or roving bands of criminals. Guns aren't necessary, but they are interesting to study. I'd love for there to be higher standards of training requirements to own guns, too. But then you get into the whole "economics being a barrier to owning guns" thing as if that has ever not been a problem. Remember when Gun Control was a Racism issue and the NRA had ads about being supported by Louis Farrakhan?
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:There would need to be some kind of data showing that firearms influence the overall homicide rate. Consider the possibility that the premise that "that there are millions of poorly-regulated and untracked tools floating around whose sole purpose is to make violence easier and deadlier has a zero impact on homicide" is simply what you want to believe, and not the actual reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
In a very perverse way I almost wish for a complete destruction of civilization as we know it and a return to 'barbaric' times because survivalists will soon find out that ammo is limited and you can only live off body fat reserves for so long. After three or so years after they finish going through that deposit round the cankles it will turn into an I Am Legend style scenario where those who realized co-operation and practical skills like agriculture and medicine are more valuable than paranoia and hatred will hunt down people like them as the very real threat to the stability of civilization they are. This is how the apocalyptic scenario they secretly lust for would actually go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:In a very perverse way I almost wish for a complete destruction of civilization as we know it and a return to 'barbaric' times because survivalists will soon find out that ammo is limited and you can only live off body fat reserves for so long. After three or so years after they finish going through that deposit round the cankles it will turn into an I Am Legend style scenario where those who realized co-operation and practical skills like agriculture and medicine are more valuable than paranoia and hatred will hunt down people like them as the very real threat to the stability of civilization they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
His Purple Majesty posted:Yes I unironically do. I honestly believe that an armed populace that is very involved with what goes on in their local and national governments would prevent alot of the awful things we have now. i fail to see how an armed populace would prevent first world welfare states from whatever it is you think they do that's awful
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:In a very perverse way I almost wish for a complete destruction of civilization as we know it and a return to 'barbaric' times because survivalists will soon find out that ammo is limited and you can only live off body fat reserves for so long. After three or so years after they finish going through that deposit round the cankles it will turn into an I Am Legend style scenario where those who realized co-operation and practical skills like agriculture and medicine are more valuable than paranoia and hatred will hunt down people like them as the very real threat to the stability of civilization they are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOog45llUU
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:
Can we avoid devolving into this sort of thing? I don't think this is productive. Tezzor posted:Consider the possibility that the premise that "that there are millions of poorly-regulated and untracked tools floating around whose sole purpose is to make violence easier and deadlier has a zero impact on homicide" is simply what you want to believe, and not the actual reality. There are so many issues and loaded parts to your premise. From your previous posts in this thread and others I'm not sure if you're going to have anything productive to contribute. Wade Wilson posted:
What do we mean by necessary? I've personally had to use firearms to keep my family safe from other animals, also to protect lifestock, to feed my sisters, and once to protect myself from getting seriously bashed. potentially even killed. Maybe if you're a wealthy, privileged individual they aren't necessary, but in my mind I feel that they are on the whole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:What do we mean by necessary? I've personally had to use firearms to keep my family safe from other animals are you an anthropomorphic talking rabbit or something
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
LeJackal do you feel we should mandate gun ownership in foreign countries How about here? What about if the government issues you a strap and a yearly ammo allowance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:are you an anthropomorphic talking rabbit or something Are you some kind of fungus? Nessus posted:LeJackal do you feel we should mandate gun ownership in foreign countries Every person should be afforded basic human rights like self defense. No one should be compelled to exercise that right, though. If you don't wish to bear arms or act in your own defense, thats okay. Look up the Janists, you might like them. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:and once to protect myself from getting seriously bashed. potentially even killed. So you shot someone with your gun? Did you kill them? If not, you didn't use your gun to protect yourself the way you're pretending to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Every person should be afforded basic human rights like self defense. No one should be compelled to exercise that right, though. If you don't wish to bear arms or act in your own defense, thats okay. Look up the Janists, you might like them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What penalty or sanction should be visited upon foreign nations not heeding this standard Same ones that you'd apply for restricting religious freedom, speech freedom, take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
I have a compromise solution that I think will satisfy all parties. I propose that guns are to be made legal except for white, able-bodied dudes, who should have no such privileges except if they can prove before a competent tribunal that they're hella scrawny. And I mean really scrawny, not just goonishly flabby and weak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:are you an anthropomorphic talking rabbit or something Are you saying that humans aren't animals or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
THE BOMBINATRIX posted:Are you saying that humans aren't animals or something? While it's common knowledge that humans are, yes, another animal it's not often the type of thing that a person would use to refer to either themselves or another person so it's an odd turn of phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
treeboy posted:The number of justifiable homicides by citizens is not far removed from the number by police over the last 30 years. The two most common situations where citizens are justified in taking a life are in fact "Disrupting a crime" (i.e. came home and found someone burgling my house) or "Attacked Citizen" These situations are not common in a general sense (they are unlikely to happen to a given person on a given day) but they are legitimate reasons to be concerned about self-defense. That's all true, and I would say that there are some people who genuinely benefit from gun ownership. Targets of abuse, convenience store clerks etc. However this has little to do with the elaborate fantasy scenarios propagated by the gun industry. People who need guns for self-defense would be well-served by purchasing a reliable pistol or AR-15 and practicing putting rounds in a small group at 7 yards. Anything beyond that is purely hobby territory (a territory I occupy happily).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I don't know how anyone could honestly believe that America's gun violence problem is primarily due to gun availability and not a cultural issue. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world; you have to keep your government-issued militia machine gun at home, and you can freely buy ammunition for it. Somehow they still manage to have 1/8th the homicide rate of the United States, and I doubt it's because Jim Bob American has 3 average guns instead of 2. Washington Post article on how hilariously wrong the idea of Swiss gun ownership in American minds is You can't walk around with loaded weapons until you arrive to where you intend to use them. You most definitely can not freely buy ammunition in Switzerland like you can here, or even guns for that matter. Rifles are issued, but ammunition is not anymore. You need a permit for both and the government recently collected a ton of ammunition from civilians. They are HIGHLY regulated compared to here and most gun control advocates would cum at the chance to enact their standards. You can actually be required to justify carrying a firearm in public. Here's a breakdown of the requirements both to own weapons and buy ammunition: quote:In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 8 WG). Swiss citizens over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitely excluded from the right to posses of a weapon: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania (Art. 12, WV). The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form: quote:In order to purchase munition the buyer must follows the same legal rules like for buying guns. The buyer can only buy munition for guns he/she is legally owning and must provide the following information to the seller (Art. 15, 16 WG; Art 24 WV):[8][9] quote:Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.[4][8] tldr: If you tell me "Lets have our gun laws look more like the swiss!" I'll say "yes please" in an instant. mugrim fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
mugrim posted:tldr: If you tell me "Lets have our gun laws look more like the swiss!" I'll say "yes please" in an instant. Can we have a functional health and social infrastructure instead?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Can we have a functional health and social infrastructure instead? Absolutely. Or all three. I'm pretty much good with whatever I can get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Poverty is of course a major contributing factor to crime but you can look at the HDI and even the inequality adjusted HDI of the US and our standard of living is not so far out of line with other wealthy countries to explain our vastly higher violent crime rates, especially murder
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I have a compromise solution that I think will satisfy all parties. I propose that guns are to be made legal except for white, able-bodied dudes, who should have no such privileges except if they can prove before a competent tribunal that they're hella scrawny. And I mean really scrawny, not just goonishly flabby and weak. Statistically, I think you'll find this isn't the demographic killing people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Don't bans on weapons violate the basic human right to kill in self defense? That's a basic human right? I mean, a right to defend yourself yes, understandable. Or more properly a right to have your other rights preserved, preferably without having to defend yourself but conceivably including that. But a right explicitly to kill people if you can claim self defence, why? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:All examples gun fanboys use as to successful "liberal" firearms states such as NZ, Czech Republic, and Switzerland have gun laws vastly more restrictive than any state in the US, they simply don't go so far as full bans like most of the civilized world. I have no idea if the statistic of home invasions being higher in the UK than the US is accurate, but I do know that the rate is lower in Australia than in the US. You don't want the government to restrict your rights and seize your property, so you cast around looking for any reasoning to support your pre-existing beliefs. It's fairly common. That's all entirely irrelevant to what you posted though. Your argument was that strict gun control was either good or did nothing. This is a non-argument, because loosening gun laws also apparently does nothing, because you decided that anything you don't care about doesn't count as a harm, and because if the "good" of lower homicide rates you espouse was caused by strict gun control, there should be a strong correlation between lower access to legal firearms and homicide rate even within "wealthy countries."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Actually you would grumble on the internet about it. The right to bear arms is pretty much the only thing I'm prepared to die for. I paid American dollars for my firearms, and I've committed no crime. I'm not handing them over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Volcott posted:The right to bear arms is pretty much the only thing I'm prepared to die for. I paid American dollars for my firearms, and I've committed no crime. I'm not handing them over. Jeez don't you think that's kind of, I don't know, empty? I mean the whole point of bearing arms is to defend your other political rights. What's the point of dying to protect your gun rights if you won't die for any of the others?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jeez don't you think that's kind of, I don't know, empty? I mean the whole point of bearing arms is to defend your other political rights. What's the point of dying to protect your gun rights if you won't die for any of the others? I'm sure if I sat down and thought about it, there's a bunch of things I'd die for. But it's late, and I'm tired, and I really can't think of anything other than the first and second amendments right now. Good point, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Gun control is one of those democratic canards to try to avoid dealing with socioeconomic status because they know their donors will be able to have guns anyway if they want them no matter what the gun laws are. When your "left wing" political party is that far right it's their only offered solution to anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:Statistically, I think you'll find this isn't the demographic killing people. Counterpoint: Police forces around the country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Out of 2,596,993 people who died in 2013 in the U.S. only 11,208 of them were from firearms. That's 00.4% of all deaths in the U.S., seems like a really insignificant problem when you look at the whole of American society. A better question would be: is gun control necessary in today's America?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
If anything we need swimming pool control. You'd be surprised at the number of deaths a year from accidents involving them!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Are you seriously trying to take the tack that 11,208 people dying of one preventable cause in a single year isn't a big deal? I guess murder in general also isn't a big deal if you want to use that logic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Are you seriously trying to take the tack that 11,208 people dying of one preventable cause in a single year isn't a big deal? Yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Yes Then you are either psychotic or very stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Are murder laws really necessary in today's America?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Are you seriously trying to take the tack that 11,208 people dying of one preventable cause in a single year isn't a big deal? Statistically, people who are gonna murder just do it, regardless of available weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Then you are either psychotic or very stupid. To be fair, obesity kills over 120k people every year in the US and that is far more easily preventable than violent gun deaths. In context for how we react to that, yeah, 12k deaths per year isn't too big a deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Are you seriously trying to take the tack that 11,208 people dying of one preventable cause in a single year isn't a big deal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:Banning booze would have a better theoretical outcome and a similar practical one. Except for the part where we did that and things got a great deal worse. I hope you aren't going to try to argue that owning guns is an addiction like drinking booze.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:28
|
|