Gun Control

Well, an AR 15 is more harmful than a bolt-action rifle by design; there's a reason no military uses bolt-action rifles as their main infantry weapon anymore. Yes, I know an AR15 is not strictly a military weapon and not an "assault rifle" per se since it's not select-fire, but even a semi-automatic AR 15 is more dangerous in the wrong hands than, say, a KAR98K.
Does one need a semi-automatic, high capacity, intermediate cartridge rifle for home defense? No. You need it for three purposes: Hunting certain small game (and there you don't need something like an AR 15), having fun at the gun range (legitimate reason), and forming a militia to protect yourself against a corrupt government (one could argue that this is the National Guard).
So one could argue that a ban of "assault weapons" would not really affect anyone except those who like to shoot them at the range. But on the other hand such a ban wouldn't really do anything about the violent crime statistics since most of those are done with handguns (which undoubtedly serve a purpose in home defense), and removing "assault weapons" might make some mass shootings slightly less severe, but the overall impact would be minimal.
So an "assault weapon" ban would basically do nothing but take some fun out of the lives of some people.
 
Pariah Dog said:
>a military branch under the auspices of the US Gov't is a militia to protect yourself against a corrupt government

You... you're joking right?
Click to expand...
It was formed as a militia and it is under control of the state's governor. I said that one could argue this point, not that it is unambiguously so. The National Guards were formed to fullfill the 2nd Amendment and did so until 1916 and the National Defense Act, when the National Guard was put under US Army command.
I guess a proper reform on all things concerning 2nd Amendment would also require a reform of the National Defense Act, removing the National Guard from US Army Reserve service and putting them back into action as the well-regulated militia they were originally formed to be, only to be used as US Army reserve in special cases and under orders from the governor or something like that.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Alright lets talk Vietnam!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I would rather say we don't since this isn't a Vietnam discussion, I think I made my point very clear anyway that it's a bit more than just rice famers with hand guns winning conflicts.

Are there cases where militias and guerilla win against larger foes? Sure. But there are also enough historical events where they well, loost. Weapons alone to say it that simply, are not a guarantee for a victory.

Besides we would be comparing apples and oranges here since a situation where a foreign force is occuping uknown teritory fighting a proxy-war is something different to an population trying to get rid of their own government.

In the case of the United States we would be talking about a minority trying to get rid of a dictatorship, even in the unlikely event that someone would change the democracy in the US into a dictatorship it would most probably happen under the approval of the majority of the citizens since a coup is very unlikely to happen, so a change to a dictatorship would most probably include also the approval of many gun owners. Any dictatorship would emmidiately denounce a resistance movement as terrorists and enemies of the people/state and calling them criminals and they would not just have to face the government but a large part of the population as well, depending on the approval the government has among the people. For example some east european countries had resistance fighters which fought the nazis continuing a war against their own governments which turned in to socialist dictatorships for decades, none of them succeded. There are honestly not many examples where civilians overthrew their government, without the help of their own military forces. Hungary comes to my mind and the riots in east Germany in the 1950s which got very close to it, but once the Soviets stepped in, it was basically over. Turns out, fighting tanks isn't as heroic as it seems, if you don't have the weapons for it, the Soviets in particular managed pretty well to squash any armed resistance for nearly 60-70 years and they didn't even had always the approval of the population. And even if we take in to account that many americans own a weapon, we're really talking about hand guns mostly here, not even close to any military equipment really and even less of those people are proficiently trained in military tactics and the use of fire arms in a combat situation, seriously most people are not born to be resistance fighters or die hard soldiers. Just beacuse you have a 9mm pistol in your home, doesn't mean you're ready to leave your family, home and job to wander into the woods fighting your own military.

So again, about how likely is a scenario anyway that people will take up arms against their own government? I can't remember any situation where they really did. Like defending the rights of citizens with Japanese heritage when they loost all their rights and got thrown in internment camps. You know, it's always easy to imagine how everyone would fight heroically against some tyrannt, but doing it is a whole differet matter.

Pariah Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not so much 'straw-manning' as rather beeing hyperbolic, which I admit. The point was though that in coversations the lethality of weapons is often somewhat dowplayed which changes suddenly when it comes to their use against the 'government' in some highly hypothetical scenario where people would take up arms to defend their constitution. Hell, I often get in arguments where people tell me that a 6-shooter has the same 'effect' like a machine gun ... I am not saying this is the case here though. Just to show how irrational the discussion sometimes can be as there seems to be even a problem among gun-enthusiasts to admit that their 'weapons' aren't just objects like spoons or screw drivers.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
So again, about how likely is a scenario anyway that people will take up arms against their own government? I can't remember any situation where they really did. Like defending the rights of citizens with Japanese heritage when they loost all their rights and got thrown in internment camps. You know, it's always easy to imagine how everyone would fight heroically against some tyrannt, but doing it is a whole differet matter.
Click to expand...

I would rather it be in the realm of possibility even if remote rather than entirely out of the question.
 
MutantScalper said:
https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk
Click to expand...
Hey did you know that if you have a pool you are 100% more likely to drown in a pool?
MutantScalper said:
https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/guns-domestic-violence-united-states-risk
Click to expand...
This study used in the article has too small of a sample size to get much from this. All interviews were in 67 battered women's shelters in California (417 respondents). Resulting in 36.7% who reported that a firearm had been used against them (About 153). That is very low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Recruitment and Data Collection
Structured in-person interviews were sought with women staying in 84 emergency shelters for battered women across California. The 84 shelters constituted the population of emergency shelters then funded by the California Department of Health Services. Permission to conduct interviews with residents of emergency shelters was first sought from each agency’s executive director and then sought from shelter residents themselves. Shelters that agreed to participate were given a $125 certificate for domestic violence prevention training materials, regardless of whether residents of the shelter participated. Participating residents were offered a $25 grocery store certificate for their time.

Executive directors of 72 agencies (86%) gave permission for residents of their emergency shelters to be interviewed. Residents of 67 of the 72 shelters (93%) were eligible (i.e., were aged at least 18 years and spoke English or Spanish) and agreed to participate in the study. RoperASW (Princeton, NJ), a national survey research firm, conducted the 417 interviews during May through August 2001. Most (77.8%) were conducted in English, 18.1% were in Spanish, and 4.2% used a combination of both; interviews averaged 19 minutes each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 1—
Objects Used by an Intimate Partner to Hurt, Scare, or Intimidate or in Self-Defense: 417 Residents of 67 California Battered Women’s Shelters

Used by Respondent
Used by Partner to Hurt Respondent, % to Hurt Partner, % to Defend Self, %
Weapon Type
    Hands or fists 96.9 19.2 79.3
    Feet 65.7 7.7 54.2
    Words 98.3 49.9 82.2
    Door or wall 71.5 3.5 28.5
    Belt 25.2 0.5 2.9
    Kitchen knife 34.4 4.1 15.4
    Other household object (e.g., telephone, pan, ashtray) 56.8 6.2 25.0
    Machete 9.4 0.2 0.5
    Tool (e.g., hammer, screwdriver) 22.8 0.7 5.1
    Car, pickup truck, or other vehicle 37.4 4.6 18.2
    Long gun 15.9 1.0 1.4
    Handgun 32.1 1.2 3.1
    Other 21.8 3.1 5.5
No. of types of weapons
    Mean ±SD 5.9 ±2.6 1.0 ±1.4 3.2 ±1.9
    Range 1–13 0–11 0–11
Note. Objects are listed in the order that respondents were asked about them. Missing data were rare (< 0.01% on each question).
 
Boston, MA –

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Paramilitary extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons. Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

GG-3-page-1.png

PunisherTA.jpg

naziyouth1_wide-69e32cecb0561f605a11812517ad2f939f31743d-s800-c85.jpg

91983abb8e415576a974a8fba8b3f300.jpg

18kzpdz4lkrzejpg.jpg


15y17q.jpg
 
Haas

YEESH

The military uses assault rifles because of the SELECTIVE FIRE, AKA burst and full auto. Military style rifles such as the AR-15 DO NOT have this function. I repeat, military style rifles ARE NOT more dangerous than any other rifle.

The reason for the switch is because soldiers realized the rifles' superior range was not needed in most engagements. Also, they realized a weapon that bridges the gap between semi-auto long rifles and selective fire sub machine guns, is far superior.

Case in point, the flexibility of an ACTUAL assault rifle, is what made it so attractive to military forces. People are trying to ban military rifles because they LOOK scary, plain and simple, which is FUCKING STUPID.

Also, military style rifles do not have an inherently larger magazine capacity. We have already discussed this in length as pistols can also have lengthened magazine, AKA Beta C.

Every single discussion I have had with people in favor of banning military style rifles have always revolved around the same bullet points and I have always shut them down.

As you said, banning military style rifles ruins peoples fun and is completely pointless.
 
Last edited:
MutantScalper said:
I think I'll take Vox's word over yours. But here's more.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/

And,

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...icide_accidents_suicide.html?via=gdpr-consent

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...icide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

etc.
Click to expand...

And lets pull a wonderful quote right out of one of your articles that about sums up everything in them.

“I would argue that there’s not nearly enough research in the firearm area,” Hemenway said. “But if there is one thing we know, that’s it.”

The researchers point out the analysis is only as reliable as the studies themselves, and some could have been flawed in the way they collected information on deaths and gun ownership.

Anglemyer said the review is about understanding the risk of owning a gun - just like people should know the risks when buying alcohol or cigarettes.
 
Gonzo,

oh so you're going for the "Look! A squirrel!" -defence.

Toront,

do you think the federal government did the right thing with the Waco standoff or the Ruby Ridge - thing etc. other similar things? I mean, US blacks don't trust US cops but if a black person would arm themselves against cops that would not be as socially accepted over there as when some fringe right-wing whitey packs heat "against the gubment".
 
MutantScalper said:
Gonzo,

oh so you're going for the "Look! A squirrel!" -defence.

Toront,

do you think the federal government did the right thing with the Waco standoff or the Ruby Ridge - thing etc. other similar things? I mean, US blacks don't trust US cops but if a black person would arm themselves against cops that would not be as socially accepted over there as when some fringe right-wing whitey packs heat "against the gubment".
Click to expand...

Come on, hit the reply button when replying to someone.

As for the squirrel defense, well sorry I read all your articles and found them to be short of evidence, some of them don't post links to the "reports" and pretty much all are based on limited evidence. The link I posted was for a Canadian one as first you were talking entire continents, second we keep better stats on this stuff in Canada, third it is better researched and links to the direct stats from a government page. Also Aurelius said "Hey did you know that if you have a pool you are 100% more likely to drown in a pool?".

The continuing problem from the control side is bad use of evidence. Canada has a good example of this in our newly introduced gun control bill C-71. Just look into some of this to see why we detest the control side.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-goodale-canada-1.4585097

They picked the absolutely lowest record year in Canada to use as a base line for there stats (2013) and claimed there has been a huge increase but the local government propaganda in Canada is the CBC usually toting up our Liberal governments, and even they had to point out the hypocrisy.

By the way newest favorite line from the American Media "An assault revolver with high capacity magazines".
 
Crni

A dictatorship doesn't have to be APPROVED. Apathy can also be responsible. Anyways, like I said, given the situation in AMERICA, the whole point of citizens being armed is good enough to deter a coup.

The whole Japanese Internment thing is a completely different situation, different time, and peoples attitudes were different. 1940s America was still racist as fuck, there was a war, and the Japanese did take a cheap ass shot at the U.S.

Super liberal America now? Shit like that happens and ANTIFA, ACLU, all the Alex Jones militia guys, anti-govt militia guys, are going to go ape shit. I mean, look at what happened because Rodney King got a justified ass whooping. LA was fucking up in flames. Look at the rioting shit with BLM?
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Crni

A dictatorship doesn't have to be APPROVED. Apathy can also be responsible. Anyways, like I said, given the situation in AMERICA, the whole point of citizens being armed is good enough to deter a coup.

The whole Japanese Internment thing is a completely different situation, different time, and peoples attitudes were different. 1940s America was still racist as fuck, there was a war, and the Japanese did take a cheap ass shot at the U.S.

Super liberal America now? Shit like that happens and ANTIFA, ACLU, is going to go ape shit. I mean, look at what happened because Rodney King got a justified ass whooping. LA was fucking up in flames. Look at the rioting shit with BLM?
Click to expand...

I remember watching the LA Riots that year on TV. That was really something. My grandfather was a cop during the Watts riots, he told me about them too. Shit was crazy.
 
DarkCorp said:
Crni

A dictatorship doesn't have to be APPROVED. Apathy can also be responsible. Anyways, like I said, given the situation in AMERICA, the whole point of citizens being armed is good enough to deter a coup.

The whole Japanese Internment thing is a completely different situation, different time, and peoples attitudes were different. 1940s America was still racist as fuck, there was a war, and the Japanese did take a cheap ass shot at the U.S.
Click to expand...
*Shrugs*



Any moral or ethical standard we have today can be undone and a civiliced society can fall back in barbarism returning to dictatorships or autocracy. Technoloy can't be undone, once a certain technology has been developed and spread around the world, it's nigh to impossible to do something.
 
Last edited:
Crni

That is a VERY far cry from internment camps. Also, the courts shut that shit down the whole travel ban thing.
 
I will say it again, any ethical or moral standard we have in our society can be undone hence why we have to be carefull after all. The point is, the United States as unlikely as it might seem could go down like the Weimar Republic, if the majority is aparthic about it or even approves of it. My point was, that any right, regardless which one is a privilige granted to the people and any privilige can be taken away unless you have people willing to stand up to defend them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top