Gun Control

Mak said:
Many guns are weapons of war, yes. I don't see this as an argument AGAINST civilian gun ownership. I see it as an argument FOR civilian gun ownership. If a population does not have the tools of warfare, are they truly free or sovereign at all? If the state has a monopoly on violence, who can stop them aside from other states? Private citizens should have access to killing machines. To kill. To kill threats, be they foreign invaders, or domestic threats. Domestic threats such as criminals, terrorists, animals, or potentially, corrupt/tyrannical governments.

TLDR; Yeah, guns are intended to kill. That's why they're so fucking rad.
Click to expand...

So, anti-aircraft missiles into grocery stores, with under 30 minutes waiting time? Maybe no background check at all? Landmines? Tanks? Anti-tank rockets? ABC-weapons?
 
GonZo_626 said:
(...)
Click to expand...
I get the feeling like we are talking past each other now ... I get all your points. Just to make this clear, I am not against the 5.56mm or .223 or what ever.

All I am saying is, that the 5.56mm and the .223 which was inspired by it, have their roots as military round, and that it is still a very popular choice for the military - I am aware about the difference in 5.56mm and .223. Considering the history of the round it was an evolution based on strict military requirements which have been born from the idea of assault rifles and assault weapons, which makes it simply very effective in military terms, which is the idea of quickly neutralising targets. I don't see why that is a problem to accept. Because those are the facts. The 5.56 and the .223 are very efficient for self defence. Would you not agree? And if that is true, then you have to ask your self why. And that is because they are relatively light weight - compared to 7.62 and bigger rounds, fairly accurate and still have decent enough power.

And I am also saying, that the .223 and the 5.56 are NOT the most popular rounds in either hunting or sport. I never said that it was NEVER used for those cases.

Again! I AM NOT OPPOSING THE ROUND OR THE (some) WEAPONS THAT USE IT!

Mak said:
Many guns are weapons of war, yes. I don't see this as an argument AGAINST civilian gun ownership. I see it as an argument FOR civilian gun ownership. If a population does not have the tools of warfare, are they truly free or sovereign at all? If the state has a monopoly on violence, who can stop them aside from other states? Private citizens should have access to killing machines. To kill. To kill threats, be they foreign invaders, or domestic threats. Domestic threats such as criminals, terrorists, animals, or potentially, corrupt/tyrannical governments.

TLDR; Yeah, guns are intended to kill. That's why they're so fucking rad.
Click to expand...
I would argue yes, because there are many nations where the population has access to many weapons, but no one would consider those nations as free societies for their citizens. Take Somalia as example. Citizens might use weapons to protect their sovereignity, but a sovereign citizen needs more then 'just' weapons. For example, a legislation and government that actually supports his cause.

Guns alone, can't make you more soverign or free, just as the constitution alone can't. Only people can do that. Because it is people that use weapons, constitutions or laws, and it is people that give those things power.

And you also don't want the monoply of violence in the hands of citizens, or you will end up with mob rule. You always need some control on a higher level, one way or another. Even a militia will have SOME chain of command, where people decide to have someone in charge.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
I get the feeling like we are talking past each other now ... I get all your points. Just to make this clear, I am not against the 5.56mm or .223 or what ever.

All I am saying is, that the 5.56mm and the .223 which was inspired by it, have their roots as military round, and that it is still a very popular choice for the military - I am aware about the difference in 5.56mm and .223. Considering the history of the round it was an evolution based on strict military requirements which have been born from the idea of assault rifles and assault weapons, which makes it simply very effective in military terms, which is the idea of quickly neutralising targets. I don't see why that is a problem to accept. Because those are the facts. The 5.56 and the .223 are very efficient for self defence. Would you not agree? And if that is true, then you have to ask your self why. And that is because they are relatively light weight - compared to 7.62 and bigger rounds, fairly accurate and still have decent enough power.

And I am also saying, that the .223 and the 5.56 are NOT the most popular rounds in either hunting or sport. I never said that it was NEVER used for those cases.

Again! I AM NOT OPPOSING THE ROUND OR THE (some) WEAPONS THAT USE IT!
Click to expand...

Actually as I stated I think the round would be great for combat but is horrible for practical civilian self-defence due to its penetrating power. Like I said for home defense it may just punch through whomever or whatever(animal) you are firing at and would travel through the wall behind them. From a safety stand point this is horrible as you should always know what is behind and where the round will go. You cant account for that with any center fire rifle round in a home defense situation. Pretty much any civilian available non-slug shotgun round is far more practical for home defense and a handgun for personal defense.

Now if you are defending your house from zombies outside go rifle hahaha.

You know what I don't really understand about self defense in the states though is concealed carry. You hide the fact you have a gun until somebody tries to do something to you. This makes no sense to me, I understand open carry and think that is far more reasonable as this way someone can see you have a gun making them never even approach you as they know it would be a bad time, you know like the nuclear deterrent option.
 
Mutually Assured Destruction shouldn't be limited to just countries! What if my neighbour's dog shits on my lawn again? Without nuclear deterrent, there's nothing I can do!
 
Hassknecht said:
Mutually Assured Destruction shouldn't be limited to just countries! What if my neighbour's dog shits on my lawn again? Without nuclear deterrent, there's nothing I can do!
Click to expand...
Exactly! Finally someone gets it.
 
Hassknecht said:
Mutually Assured Destruction shouldn't be limited to just countries! What if my neighbour's dog shits on my lawn again? Without nuclear deterrent, there's nothing I can do!
Click to expand...

Oh oh go take a shit on his lawn, and I do mean you or another human you choose. Guarantee after he sees someone dropping a log in his front yard he may watch out for his dogs shit then. Nothing like escalation.
 
This does seem to be recycled arguments, with neither side doing much new.

Why don't we just leave America to have a high gun murder rate and go home relax. It's their god forsaken country after all.
 
Dr Fallout said:
This does seem to be recycled arguments, with neither side doing much new.

Why don't we just leave America to have a high gun murder rate and go home relax. It's their god forsaken country after all.
Click to expand...
They should just not bother with the next election, abandon all forms of government and finally embrace their inner Somalia.
 
Hassknecht said:
They should just not bother with the next election, abandon all forms of government and finally embrace their inner Somalia.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the Bible Belt should lead a glorious revolution where a theocratic government is put in, led by a mixture of fundamentalist Christians and hardcore Mormons. Gays are shot, transgenders hanged and anyone who isn't part of the leading Mistians are drowned. The US embraces their inner Saudi Arabia.... but without the economic growth.
 
I could come up with new arguments, or points that go further but why bother? IMO it would only be "pearls before the swine" - type situation.

Some seem to be joking around about the pro-gun side. Unfortunately it ain' t no joke. NRA and the other smaller pro-gun organisations in the US (there are quite a few) have a lot of power in US. They can sway elections etc. The death toll is mostly felt in the poor communities. If a rich person is shot it's a big deal and cops pursue it etc. You can't even walk in the street in a rich neighbourhood without cops stopping you etc. On the other hand cops don't even bother to go into the poor neighbourhoods.
 
MutantScalper said:
I could come up with new arguments, or points that go further but why bother? IMO it would only be "pearls before the swine" - type situation.

Some seem to be joking around about the pro-gun side. Unfortunately it ain' t no joke. NRA and the other smaller pro-gun organisations in the US (there are quite a few) have a lot of power in US. They can sway elections etc. The death toll is mostly felt in the poor communities. If a rich person is shot it's a big deal and cops pursue it etc. You can't even walk in the street in a rich neighbourhood without cops stopping you etc. On the other hand cops don't even bother to go into the poor neighbourhoods.
Click to expand...

I'm being sarcastic because it's clear you've already got your minds set on this subject. Of course just because I believe the civilian population should have access to small arms, doesn't mean by the same logic they should have access to surface-to-air missiles, armed aircraft, nukes, etc.

This issue tends to be extremely polarizing, there's little in-between ground. Guns are cool. Guns are also a good tool against government tyranny. But a lot of people will think you're just a wacky conspiracy nut for even theorizing that at some point within the next thousand years, there is even a small chance our governments may turn a little bit tyrannical. On the other hand, some people think Guns are scary. Guns are only used to kill, and people shouldn't be able to kill. There's no good reason whatsoever for normal folk to have them.

So I choose to just say fuck it and embrace the idea that I want to go full Somalia. I mean shit, I do play Fallout religiously. Maybe I sub-consciously really do want to go full Somalia?
 
I'm conflicted on this issue in some ways. I went to mandatory military service in my country, got to shoot a lot of guns and I guess it's fun in a way. Takes a lot of practice to be a good shooter. I saw gun accidents, up close. Nobody got seriously hurt. I was a, suprisingly, a good shot, or more likely the others were really crappy. Had the chance to go to a sharpshooter course but I chose to become a medic, haven't regretted that choice. I have relatives who are in competetive shooting as trainers etc.

Still I see the negatives of a highly gun-saturated society to be so horrific that it's very easy for me to be anti-gun.
 
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed sheep. - Ben Franklin

And seriously when the bombs fall in 2077, America will need all those guns for the next 200+ years of Fallout Combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top