Gun Control

[irony meter explodes]
Postmodernism was a mistake.
Do you actually have a anything useful to contribute or will you just continue to meme your heart out?
Seriously, you're just attacking a ton of strawmen all the time. Calm down, or get out.
That goes for everyone else, too. Calm down, discuss the points, and don't go for strawmen.
 
Do you actually have a anything useful to contribute or will you just continue to meme your heart out?
Seriously, you're just attacking a ton of strawmen all the time. Calm down, or get out.
That goes for everyone else, too. Calm down, discuss the points, and don't go for strawmen.
Alright, I have to ask, what do you think strawman means? Because you've used that word wrong too many times in this thread.
 
Alright, I have to ask, what do you think strawman means? Because you've used that word wrong too many times in this thread.

Straw Man

A fallacy is an argument or belief based on erroneous reasoning. Straw man is one type of logical fallacy. Straw man occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes. So, instead of attacking the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version that is attacked.


Examples of Straw Man:


1. Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless.

2. Caroline says that she thinks her friends should not be so rude to the new girl. Jenna says that she cannot believe that Caroline is choosing to be better friends with the new girl than the girls who have always known her.

3. Pamela is the class secretary. She says that she thinks that the class should do more service projects. Mark says he can't believe that Pamela doesn't support the annual school dance.

4. Biology teacher begins teaching evolution by stating that all things evolve. Student says she just can't accept that humans came from bugs.

5. Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Donald Trump's positions have merit. Professor says he can't believe that the student believes in support racism.

6. Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Hillary Clinton's positions have merit. Professor says he can't believe that the student supports giving access to classified documents to foreign countries.

http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/straw_man_examples/496/
 
While y'all are talkin' smack here stuff like this keeps happening.

https://eu.delawareonline.com/story...s-corner-multiple-victims-possible/770135002/

"Police were called at about 8 p.m. to a home in the 2700 block of Ferris Road, Sgt. Richard Bratz of Delaware State Police said. Once inside, they found five people with apparent gunshot wounds, all of them dead: a man, 42; a woman, 41; and three children, all younger than 8 years old."

I would bet good money this comes out as a murder-suicide, please feel free to inform me how taking guns away will stop a family murder/suicide that is a problem everywhere no matter the level of gun control. Once again your argument (like most of the gun control supporters) is about stopping gun deaths. Weather those deaths would still happen with/without a firearm never seems to cross your mind.
 
I would bet good money this comes out as a murder-suicide, please feel free to inform me how taking guns away will stop a family murder/suicide that is a problem everywhere no matter the level of gun control. Once again your argument (like most of the gun control supporters) is about stopping gun deaths. Weather those deaths would still happen with/without a firearm never seems to cross your mind.

You're the ones with the problem. Me and my continent is fine.
 
Alright, I have to ask, what do you think strawman means? Because you've used that word wrong too many times in this thread.
So when you repeatedly misrepresent points or just rail on about how evil lurrals want to take your guns, you are not constructing an easily attackable straw man of a point that nobody really disagrees with?
 
When they try to ban military style rifles for stupid ass reasons, yes, they are trying to take away a type of gun.

It is America, we are different than Europe. We didn't slaughter each other over 1000 years, culminating in two global conflagrations taking MILLIONS of lives. This is probably why we don't have such fear of weapons like you euros do.

And yes, Euro force 2018. If Trump bails on foreign policy, everyone is fucked, except China and Russia that is. Too bad they are going to have to cut back social spending to do so. I can see all the riots and bitching because people are going to lose their 30 hour work week and benefits.
 
When they try to ban military style rifles for stupid ass reasons, yes, they are trying to take away a type of gun.

It is America, we are different than Europe. We didn't slaughter each other over 1000 years, culminating in two global conflagrations taking MILLIONS of lives. This is probably why we don't have such fear of weapons like you euros do.

And yes, Euro force 2018. If Trump bails on foreign policy, everyone is fucked, except China and Russia that is. Too bad they are going to have to cut back social spending to do so. I can see all the riots and bitching because people are going to lose their 30 hour work week and benefits.

I think it's pretty funny that Euros are supposedly so petrified of firearms. Heavens forfend you be able to resist a top-down oligarchic jackbooted borderline-tyranny like the EU with deadly force or anything like that. Oh well, that's their prerogative I guess.
 
Yeah, because we all know a few civilians with guns and no military training can destroy the US army.

The situation here in the US is a bit more nuanced than that, but let's just say if we end up with a civilian revolt here things actually look REALLY BAD for the US Government. Unless you think European troops are completely mindless jackbooted thugs, something roughly similar could happen in the EU. Soldiers going AWOL, disobeying orders to attack civilians, crossing over to help train civvies even against the gov't. Lots of weird shit would probably happen. Not to mention the terrible press the US Gov't would get for actually doing much of ANYTHING against a civilian revolt.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, because we all know a few civilians with guns and no military training can destroy the US army.

Hmmm for an educated person you don't seem to know much history,

Vietnamese civilians with guns through the French out, then they through the Americans out, and these were outside armies that didn't have to deal with attacking there own people.
The American Rebellion against the British only consisted of 3% of people living in those colonies fighting.

Hell its well known a Guerilla campaign is very hard to fight against, and when you are going to be fighting your own family or neighbors it would really put some change in your mind that you may not want to support your government.
 
It isn't even about having to fight. The idea that you have a massive population, that is mostly armed, is enough of a deterrent, for any psycho that would be crazy enough to try some fascist bullshit. Add in defecting military personnel that will no doubt side with the civilians. It is the IMPLICATION that is so important.

We have an estimated gun ownership of 40 percent. Think about it for a second, that is 1,280,000 armed civilians.

It would be so much easier, if the worst was to happen, for a government to take over a populace that is unarmed.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and can you tell me how many of those weapons are actaully military grade weaponry? On one side you guys never get tired of mentioning how 'harmles' those things are, oh it's just an AR15! It's not an 'assault' rifle ... but when it comes to defending against the military it suddenly turns everyone into a super soldier ...

Hmmm for an educated person you don't seem to know much history,

Vietnamese civilians with guns through the French out, then they through the Americans out, and these were outside armies that didn't have to deal with attacking there own people.
The American Rebellion against the British only consisted of 3% of people living in those colonies fighting.

Hell its well known a Guerilla campaign is very hard to fight against, and when you are going to be fighting your own family or neighbors it would really put some change in your mind that you may not want to support your government.
The cases you mentioned had at least military personal and militias with similar or at least comparable equpment to the forces they fought against.

I'am talking about a very specific type of scenario here, which is not a situation where a foreign force is trying to occupy your territory, I am not even talking about a civil war here, but a situation where the own population is supposed to overthrow a tyranical regime, and 'historically' speaking cases where that happend, are extremly rare. And even if we would take the Vietnam war or similar conflicts as example you usually always had a situation where they had extensive support from the outside, North Vietnam and the Vietcong saw some very crucial help by the Soviet Union and China in training and equipment. To think about the Vietcong as nothing more but 'civilians' with Kalashinkovs runing around in sandals trough the jungle is exactly one of the mistakes many made when they got into Vietnam - it's like thinking about the Taliban as nothing more but goat herders with machine guns fighting in the hills. Their motivation alone to defend their country wasn't the key to their success, but they also saw extensive training and support by military advicors giving them some knowledge in tactical maners, building explosives, shooting machineguns and laying traps isn't something that you pick up on the rice field, now combine that with the incompetent South Vietnamese regime which was hated by its own people and which was completey infiltrated by the VC and it becomes a lot more clear what the issue was. We should also not forget that the Vietcong wasn't the only force the US and South Vietnam was dealing with in the Vietnam Conflict, since there was always the NVA as well, short for People's Army of Vietnam which in the end overthrew the Regime in Saigon once the US left, South Vietnam didn't necessarily loose because their enemy was so extremly cuning and powerfull, but because they actually had a very incompetent leadership which was hated by its own people.

You're having a way to simplistic view on those historic events here if you think people with guns are all it needs.

Honestly, if we would be talking about a case where a force like China or Russia would trough some miracle beat the United States military without ending in a nuclear war and started to occupy US mainland, yeah, they would be pretty much fucked because they would have to fight a battle they probably couldn't win. Holding territory though is something completely different to conquereing it. Besides, we still shouldn't believe that beeing the underdog from a military point of view, is like a sure road to victory.

Anyway, the idea that an untrained group of civilians with rifles could simply overthrow their government, which has access to one of the largest, best equiped and trained military forces in the world, without the training and right equipment, is ludicrous.
 
Alright lets talk Vietnam!!!!!!!

The cases you mentioned had at least military personal and militias with similar or at least comparable equpment to the forces they fought against.


No they did not. While the Viet Mien fought France they were still using some black powder rifles and bolt actions. The French at this time were well supplied by the Americans and had vastly more training and better equipment.

While the Viet Cong fought the Americans they were once again vastly outgunned by the Americans having tanks, jets, helicopters, and full-auto rifles as well as body armour no where near the same level of fire power being brought in. Even as China and Russia supplied them with some anti-tank weaponry they had no where near the level as the Americans.

The NVA (not to be confused with the Viet Cong) had better training and more modern rifles then the Viet Cong still had no where near what the Americans had in level of technology or arms to bring to the fight. Hell pretty much the only way to tell the 2 forces apart were by the fact that the NVA had a nice belt.

I'am talking about a very specific type of scenario here, which is not a situation where a foreign force is trying to occupy your territory, I am not even talking about a civil war here, but a situation where the own population is supposed to overthrow a tyranical regime, and 'historically' speaking cases where that happend, are extremly rare. And even if we would take the Vietnam war or similar conflicts as example you usually always had a situation where they had extensive support from the outside, North Vietnam and the Vietcong saw some very crucial help by the Soviet Union and China in training and equipment. To think about the Vietcong as nothing more but 'civilians' with Kalashinkovs runing around in sandals trough the jungle is exactly one of the mistakes many made when they got into Vietnam (no the Viet Cong have been proven to have been farmers with sandals and ak's running around with effective tactics learnt fighting the French, any outside training was minor and only given to very few)- it's like thinking about the Taliban as nothing more but goat herders with machine guns fighting in the hills (this is essentially what they are and are not now being trained by outside forces they aee being trained by there elders who were trained by the Americans to fight Russians). Their motivation alone to defend their country wasn't the key to their success (very arguable here as this is generally seen as the biggest thing needed to have success), but they also saw extensive training and support by military advicors giving them some knowledge in tactical maners, building explosives, shooting machineguns and laying traps isn't something that you pick up on the rice field (no they picked it up fighting the French who were fully unprepared to fight to hold another country only 10-20 years after getting their's back.), now combine that with the incompetent South Vietnamese regime which was hated by its own people and which was completey infiltrated by the VC and it becomes a lot more clear what the issue was. We should also not forget that the Vietcong wasn't the only force the US and South Vietnam was dealing with in the Vietnam Conflict, since there was always the NVA as well, short for People's Army of Vietnam which in the end overthrew the Regime in Saigon once the US left, South Vietnam didn't necessarily loose because their enemy was so extremly cuning and powerfull, but because they actually had a very incompetent leadership which was hated by its own people. (yes the south was incompetent).

You're having a way to simplistic view on those historic events here if you think people with guns are all it needs.


I added a few points in brackets above) Honestly the guns are the second thing I think the need, and a drive or will of the populace to through the Dictator out. And this actually happens quite often in history only it usually ends in just another dictator. Curious how many tyrannical dictators were not overthrown due to an armed intervention of some sort as it appears to me the number is small.

Honestly, if we would be talking about a case where a force like China or Russia would trough some miracle beat the United States military without ending in a nuclear war and started to occupy US mainland, yeah, they would be pretty much fucked because they would have to fight a battle they probably couldn't win. Holding territory though is something completely different to conquereing it. Besides, we still shouldn't believe that beeing the underdog from a military point of view, is like a sure road to victory.

Anyway, the idea that an untrained group of civilians with rifles could simply overthrow their government, which has access to one of the largest, best equiped and trained military forces in the world, without the training and right equipment, is ludicrous.

And here comes the big one. You keep saying a bunch of un-trained civilians. I am pretty sure if you poll the firearms owners in the US to see how many have backgrounds in the service I am sure you will find at least 10% of them are vets. Now with US gun owners making up 33% of the population that would make 3.3%, and as its been shown in America 3% is all that is needed.
 
The whole point of a guerrilla warfare is not to win but to BLEED, your opponent and make him much more amiable to negotiation. In the U.S. example, the large amount of gun owners, along with our culture, makes any coup attempt practically pointless. It is our very culture and armament that makes a coup pretty tough to pull off in the states, well, along with bread and circuses.
 
Yeah, and can you tell me how many of those weapons are actaully military grade weaponry? On one side you guys never get tired of mentioning how 'harmles' those things are, oh it's just an AR15! It's not an 'assault' rifle ... but when it comes to defending against the military it suddenly turns everyone into a super soldier ...

You're strawmanning a bit here, or perhaps talking past us. Our point is that they don't HAVE to BE a super soldier. Nor has anyone ever said the AR15 is harmless. Firearms are not "harmless" per se. They're not harmFUL either. They're tools. It's all about the person wielding them.
 
Back
Top