Gun Control

[TorontoReign]

Most gun-lovers here seem to share the mindset of libertarian almost neo-liberal values.

Most detractors like to put gun supporters in a nice little identifiable box that they can strawman.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Most detractors like to put gun supporters in a nice little identifiable box that they can strawman.

Not sure if you've been reading the thread enough to not see that done in the other side of the argument.

 

[Hassknecht]

The National Guard is sort of like a hybrid between a state-level militia and a reserve unit for our national armed forces. They serve at the behest of our state Governors (the highest state-level executive authority) until they are activated and deployed by the US Military. They are commonly used as a peace-keeping force in civil emergency situations, and have a disaster relief role. They do not generally have law enforcement powers like the state level police force.

Apropos of nothing, I am realizing how confusing it can be when referring to the 'States' in the context of regional authorities within the US as a nation, and 'the State' as in the institution of governmental authority on a variety of levels.

Thanks for the explanation!
Anyway, yeah, the distinction between states and the federal thing in general is confusing, but it's somewhat familiar to us germans at least.

 

[TorontoReign]

Not sure if you've been reading the thread enough to not see that done in the other side of the argument.

Those double negatives confuse me. Please reword and yes I have been reading.

 

[TheGM]

I personaly find the idea that weapons could protect you from a tyranical regime a bit ... ridiculous,

Because that has never happened Before

ohwaitaminute.....

 

[TorontoReign]

Because that has never happened Before

ohwaitaminute.....

He thinks modern armies would stamp down any resistance but forgets the Iraq war.

 

[Jogre]

A lot of historical figures, including a lot of leftists would strongly disagree. But then, that is why we're having this discussion, aren't we?

I like what Orwell said:
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
― George Orwell

So lots of historical figures overstated and glorified the positions of guns in society.

What does this information demonstrate other than that you are willing to use arguments from authority?

What happens are gradual restrictions slowly choking gun owners. The evolution is quite simple, and has been the same across the vast majority of european countries:
You first have rather permissive gun laws in place. My country for instance allowed legal carry of handguns on your person with extremely little restriction up to the second world war. They were mostly used against wild dogs, not other people.
But then we started tightening those gun laws by making various arguments like "suppressors are only used by poachers and assassins". OK, so we ban those.
Since "our society has fairly little violence, concealed carry of guns is almost never legitimately needed". OK, so we restrict concealed carry to judges, politicians and the absurdly rich.
"Outdoor gun ranges are a fucking nuisance. They're so loud and it's only a tiny minority of people that actually do sportshooting." Surely, that has to be resolved (it's a shame there's not a thing that could suppress this noise, right?). OK, so let's tighten environmental rules on outdoor gun ranges.

You may as well be skiing, because that seems to be a slippery slope you are using.

Why not judge whether a certain gun control policy will be useful now, instead of dismissing every attempt because you assume it'll gradually go beyond it's usefulness.

Because that has never happened Before

ohwaitaminute.....

The revolutionary war was basically just the French bringing the British down a notch, by supporting some silly ungrateful colonists. Without french support, you guys would have still been part of that oh so terrible government that did a better job of abolishing slavery and introducing basic healthcare than you could have ever pulled off.

 

[TorontoReign]

The revolutionary war was basically just the French bringing the British down a notch, by supporting some silly ungrateful colonists. Without french support, you guys would have still been part of that oh so terrible government that did a better job of abolishing slavery and introducing basic healthcare than you could have ever pulled off.

Without French support the war would have been drawn out and more bloody and then we would have beat the British into submission eventually anyway years down the line.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Without french support

Yeah support in the form of...more guns.

No doubt the Texas Revolution against Mexico and the "War of Northern Aggression" were also examples of taking up arms against "tyranny". Plenty of examples considering America is not really that old.

 

[Crni Vuk]

He thinks modern armies would stamp down any resistance but forgets the Iraq war.

So you think the american population could fight the full force of the US military? In which Universe? Sure not ours ...

As far as I can tell Iraq was won. Two times. What you're talking about, is the occupation but that is an entirely different story. The US is a foreigner here, just as how it was in Vietnam and any other situation where they experience issues. In some cases like Vietnam they faced the Sovietunion and China and not the Vietnamese. But in this hypothetical scenario, the US army would actually know the terrain, it would be a fight inside the United States. A 'Civil War'.

Why don't you look for example at Spain under Francos regime, he for example won and installed a dictatorship that lasted for decades, or the many other civil wars, where the authocratic regimes won, or how about Colombia, that had a war between the government and some guerilla for like a whole generation going. And that without any clear victor even to this day, they simply settled their dispute, because each side was exhausted. A war in which the population is fighting their government and the military, is far from a 'sure' thing, just look at South America, full of dictatorships and guerilla fighting like for ever against each other. It would be simply put a second Civil War, and they are by nature messy.

let us be honest, if some kind of authocratic regime would ever take place in the US, it will come with a 'gun', in other words it will have the majority of gun owners on it's side, as those are the people that have to be convinced. A fascist regime in the US will come with gun rights, and I feel a lot of people will happily give up their 'liberties' if the governments leaves their guns alone. As long as the opression doesn't hit them directly. That's how dictatorships work, not so much trough opression, but trough conviction. The majority of people actually believe in the government and the actions of their leader(s), the people did so in Germany, and they did so under Stalin in the Sovietunion and it took WW2 to get that one out of the Germans and 2 generations for the Soviets to sing a different tune.

For example, 29% of the US military would, according to some poll, actually support a couple:

Almost a third of Americans could imagine supporting a military coup against their own government, according to a new poll.

The YouGov survey showed 29% of Americans could imagine supporting a coup. Yet, 41% said they could not imagine supporting such an event.

YouGov, which conducts internet polls about “politics, public affairs, products, brands and other topics of general interest”, surveyed 1,000 people online on the issue.

They found that 43% of Republicans would support a military coup in certain instances, while only 20% of Democrats and 29% of independents would.​

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/military-coup-some-americans-would-vote-yes

Make out of that, what ever you want.

What the government controlls here though in the case of an uprising, is more important than weapons. It's information. What ever small minority would take up arms hidding in the woods fighting abrams amd apache helicopters, would face a tremendious amount of propaganda. The majority would simply see them as terrorists.

So I am not so sure that this idea of an armed population is like a sure victory against their own government ... I mean I havn't seen people taking up arms when they opened Guantanamo, or when the Patriot Act was put in action, or when Snowden started his whistle blowing. Let us face the reality, the majority of Americans even the gun owners would be oportunistic and contemplating regarding authoritarian rule.

 

[TorontoReign]

So you think the american population could fight the full force of the US military? In which Universe? Sure not ours ...

So I am not so sure that this idea of an armed population is like a sure victory against their own government ... I mean I havn't seen people taking up arms when they opened Guantanamo, or when the Patriot Act was put in action, or when Snowden started his whistle blowing. Let us face the reality, the majority of Americans even the gun owners would be oportunistic and contemplating regarding authoritarian rule.

Poor Crni. Still thinking that our military would step all over us blindly like the other countries before us. Many would refuse in fact there are groups of service members dedicated to fighting against just such a thing. Even if they didn't they make up a fraction of the population of the US. I won't get too into discussing how you would fight a government like the US because I don't want to sound like a terrorist, but it could be done.

Yes, I am talking about Iraq as a whole not the meaningless war that won us the keys to all the shitty bases Saddam had. You cannot stamp out a cause as long as the people believe. You act like Guantanamo is supposed to mean anything to the average American. You think like the Brits did Crni. Sure, let us all stand in a line and shoot.

*shoots from the trees*

 

[TheGM]

He thinks modern armies would stamp down any resistance but forgets the Iraq war.

or the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

The revolutionary war was basically just the French bringing the British down a notch, by supporting some silly ungrateful colonists. Without french support, you guys would have still been part of that oh so terrible government that did a better job of abolishing slavery and introducing basic healthcare than you could have ever pulled off.

You seem angry.... Anyway that is the battle of lexington and concord. The English Government thought it would be in their best interest if their fellow Englishmen were disarmed. no Frenchmen around for that one I'm afraid.

So you think the american population could fight the full force of the US military?

Implying Americans are all Mindless Murder Zombies who are "just following Orders" I mean its not Germany, friendo.

Poor Crni. Still thinking that our military would step all over us blindly like the other countries before us.

Wait until the Drone Strike card is played. besides the only people who get drone strike'd are those in wedding processions and the people who are going to the funereal for the people who got drone strike'd in the wedding processions.

 

[TorontoReign]

or the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

You seem angry.... Anyway that is the battle of lexington and concord. The English Government thought it would be in their best interest if their fellow Englishmen were disarmed. no Frenchmen around for that one I'm afraid.

Implying Americans are all Mindless Murder Zombies who are "just following Orders" I mean its not Germany, friendo.

Wait until the Drone Strike card is played. besides the only people who get drone strike'd are those in wedding processions and the people who are going to the funereal for the people who got drone strike'd in the wedding processions.

Right. Drone strikes are so accurate we had to send in the fucking grunts to do the work to kill Bin Laden.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Irrespective of gun control, there is some profound misunderstanding of American culture in this thread. I blame Hollywood. Only half joking about the Hollywood part.

There are a few non-Americans in the thread who do seem to have a more nuanced understanding of the fundamental differences and commonalities between our respective cultures, but not many.

My core read of lots of folks here is that the real solution to the 'American' problem is 'Why can't we just make them all think like us'. Or, 'If they had our rules, regulations, and values, like the fine rational folk we are, all these problems would go away.' Which is ironic on many levels, given the number of times America's tried that exact same approach, and then been called out on it. One would think the more enlightened would take it as a cautionary tale.

At any rate, I think I've ridden the merry-go-round on this ticket enough this time out, so I am going to step off for a while and leave it to those who haven't yet become tired of the repeating scenery. My appreciation to those of you with whom I've had a real conversation, and thanks for the different perspective. And regardless of how anyone may feel about firearms, I hope none of you find yourself in a situation where you might have the need of one.

 

[TorontoReign]

Gotta love the irony. Straight from a Codex debate just now:

Whatever your argumentation is, I'm really curious to see it put to test. Methinks the military will wipe most of you faggots out without batting an eye, just like the police does whenever you make a suspicious move. They wouldn't take double chances with the more guns per capita than capita semi-sapient crowd. I'm actually curious to see how a modern American civil war would look like, probably like the most clusterfucky autistic shit the world would ever witness.
----------------------------



To begin with, in your scenario, it's blatantly obvious that you imagine a handful of redneck caricatures holed up in some tin-roofed compound having a standoff with the gubmint. That's happening already, and it's not a civil war or a revolution; those are just pockets of people who are a little too enthusiastic about survivalism, the trappings of private militia, and vague notions of separatism.

In a genuine civil war or revolution scenario, there are many complicated factors to consider. Let's start with numbers: 60 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. That's not just a few thousand dudes on 4chan or a few hundred redneck survivalists out in the back forty. (A civil war or revolution could be waged by either political pole, mind you, but since voting for Donald Trump is viewed by idiots as beyond the pale and yucky, since right-wingers overwhelmingly support the right to bear arms, and since a great majority of military and police voted for him, Trump voters are a good example.) If even 1% of Trump voters not already in military service were willing to fight for or otherwise materially support a cause, that would amount to 600,000 people. To put this in perspective, there are about 1.8 million people in the entire US military, including the National Guard and Reserves. Of these, only a minority are actually trained in combat. If one-third of the US military joined the civilian fighters (presumably taking some installations, materiel, and leaders with them), then each side would have 1.2 million fighting and support personnel.

The most important factor here is that not all of the military and police will remain loyal to the Federal government. This may come as a great surprise, but prior to the first Civil War, there actually weren't any Confederate soldiers, military bases, or territories. Probably it would have seemed incredible to people even back then that such a force could be raised virtually overnight, at least until the penultimate months leading up to the war. On the one hand, it was indeed a different time back then; on the other hand, The Art of War is still a core subject at war colleges, because all of it is still relevant.

It's one thing to fight a foreign war, but being asked to storm towns and cities in your homeland is another thing entirely. The families, friends, and acquaintances of military personnel all live here. It would be a real morale-buster.

Yeah, the military has aircraft carriers, attack choppers, drones, tanks, the GPS system, missiles, and many other high-tech advantages. Yet we're still having trouble out in those desert shitholes versus a bunch of apes armed with AK-47s, aren't we? We had a bit of trouble versus those little yellow people in pajamas and sandals, too, as I recall. The point is that modern warfare isn't actually a simple chessboard whereupon you just put your tanks and shit in neat little grid squares, and then your enemies go in the opposite squares, and then you neatly and spectacularly blow them up by pressing a button. You have all the cool stuff, after all, and semi-automatic rifles can't dent a tank.

Semi-automatic rifles CAN dent a tank's supply line, though, especially when that line snakes through various towns and cities where it's not clear who is the enemy and where they are. Semi-automatic rifles can also dent the depot or small base where the tank is stored. I've been to a fair few military bases, mostly Air Force but also a few Navy and Army installations, and I assure you that a few thousand men with rifles (or a few hundred, in the Air Force's case) could take any of them over quite easily. They aren't built or organized to repel attacks by any serious land force, because the idea is ludicrous, right? Couldn't possibly happen. Probably they would be organized and prepared in very short order if a civil war or revolution gave some warning of the necessity, but the smaller ones simply don't have the numbers or infrastructure. Most of them aren't bunkers. They're practically college campuses with a very nice fence and more professional, better-armed and -trained security guards. Some don't even bother to fence the entire base; they just have military police shoo away any deer hunters who wander too close through the woods out back.

Deploying powerful military assets like drones and tanks Stateside would be problematic in so many ways that I can hardly hope to list them all. Just use your imagination, and try to remember that real life isn't a grid battle from a computer game.

Basically, if you think that really nice tanks and cool drones instantly win conflicts, then you're a simpleminded goofball. Overall, rifles in the hands of individuals are the most potent ground force, and they're what does the heavy lifting in modern conflicts taking place right now, as we speak. Furthermore, the Army doesn't even issue fully automatic assault rifles, because grunts waste lots of ammunition when they spray automatic fire and don't hit anything. Three- and four-round burst modes are used, but even then, firing one bullet at a time can be extremely effective. Automatic weapons are generally effective only when in an emplacement and operated by a trained machine gunner.

 

[SuAside]

Since Belgium actually has a monarchy, they are actually reasonable in their fear that the king comes and hits them with his cane until they pay their taxes.

Our king has a symbolic function though.
It's the prime minister that has real power.

Btw., the 2nd Amendment talks about forming well-organized militias, isn't that what the National Guard basically is? I vaguely remember something like that, could someone clarify that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The problem is that a lot of people read is as "A well regulated Militia, with the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." taking it to mean that is merely gives the militia the right to keep and bear arms.

While linguistic experts constantly point out that it's "A well regulated Militia (necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep & bear Arms shall not be infringed." meaning that both are necessary. One being necessary for the security of the free State, while the other is necessary for the freedom of the individual.

That said, even in the first interpretation, it should be pointed out that "militia" referred to every able bodied man of fighting age. Not necessarily something like the National Guard.

Yes, Hass but that's not what I meant, of course it would suck for current gun owners, but gun restriction by it self isn't the same like let us say the NSA sniffing around in your Facebook account due to the Patriot Act while you can't do anything about it. I just think 'Opression' is a word that is overused today. Everyones opressed! You, me, everyone! And everyone for a different reason. Which in my opinion makes a mockery out of REAL opression. If you're living in Germany or the US than you're not opressed, but that's my opinion. Yes, you can experience difficulties and injustice, but that is an entirely different thing. And saying gun restrictions would lead to orpression ... well yeah, not really.

Oppression literally means: "to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power"

If you think current gun control is unjust, then you are by definition oppressed. Society as a whole does not need to agree with you, but you are still able to say you're being oppressed. It is a subjective state of being.

I personaly find the idea that weapons could protect you from a tyranical regime a bit ... ridiculous, particularly as it's more evident than ever that the digital age will be the biggest problem in our future. Digital informations will be the new thing and who and what collects those, not opression with weapons or necessarily even force. I am not sure how guns are supposed to help here, when you consider that it's already taking place, at least in the US, which ironically has at least in some states very open gun laws. And we havn't even talked about corporations like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and the like doing all kinds of stuff with your information ...

One has little to do with the other. Firearms attempt to ensure personal safety (note: attempt) and may give pause to some who would encroach on your personal freedoms with physical means of oppression. It also gives you the option to take up arms when you feel you have been sufficiently wronged to rebel against your government.

Things like the patriot act however are not things which can be fought with firearms (unless suddenly the entire country decides enough is enough and goes to shoot up NSA bases ). It is something which needs to be fought on the political battle field. This however doesn't diminish the value of firearms.

- Doesn't seem like by the attitude of most pro-gun, though. The ultimate objective of the police forces is to protect the citiziens. They aren't a strike force. It's not called "peacekeeping" because it sounds cool. Would only make sense to stand down, vault and take cover before shooting him face blank. Or y'know, reduce them if you feel brave enough.

So a cop approaches someone that has tried to illegally buy a drug often (ab)used to create a high. The cop issues orders to the person to stand down. The person ignores said orders. The cop draws his firearm because he feels threatened by the erratic movements of the person. Because said person fails to freeze when told to, the cop retreats multiple meters but the person keeps approaching. The person then fake draws a gun from his belt and is shot.

Is your comment really "the cop should have run away"? Why have cops if they have no authority to enforce the fucking law and protect themselves as well as other citizens?

Not sure what's so hard to understand. One is an actual & immediate call for violence in a specific instance, while the other is leaving the option to resort to it when it becomes necessary.

I'm glad that armed citiziens were completely out of the equation for this one, and will for the future.

After all the shit you guys have had with ETA, you truly believe that the Catalans are unable to arm themselves? How fucking naive are you?

Yes. Gun sport, gun recreation, gun history, gun engineering, gun chemistry. By that logic, having Ikea plastic bowls on your home makes you a Materials expert, and a smartphone makes you a systems expert.

You don't NEED to be any of these things, but they all come into play if you're really into it all.
The fact that you immediately wipe it aside as irrelevant is as if you're saying that air resistance has nothing to do with motorsports.

Also, as pest control (Good luck with that though lol)

You clearly have no fucking clue how important hunters are at maintaining the balance in our current environment. We have disrupted our environment to the point that we need to keep balance by hunting or what remains of our biodiversity will come crashing down.

Indeed. Not hobbies, though.

Are you being dense on purpose?

Everything we do, including our hobbies has a cost in human lives.
The computer you play your games on was made using heavy metals mined in countries with far less environmental laws than we have, resulting in pollution.
The smartphone you have has components likely mined by underaged Africans, some of which will die for our toys.
Bikers die daily in traffic for what is largely a hobby.
Countless athletes drop dead from heart failure while sporting.
Car sports physically endanger drivers (and sometimes spectators) in potential crashes while constantly pump CO2 and fine dust into the air, reducing air quality to the point that we can prove they lower longevity for the entire population.
People smoke cigarettes and cigars for recreation and lower their own lifespan as well as that of all the people around them.

I can keep going for a few more hours. How can you say that our hobbies have no human cost? EVERYTHING we do has a cost.

You may as well be skiing, because that seems to be a slippery slope you are using.

Why not judge whether a certain gun control policy will be useful now, instead of dismissing every attempt because you assume it'll gradually go beyond it's usefulness.

Slippery slope is usually a logical fallacy, yes, but in this case you can demonstrate with actual examples throughout the entire western world that it is true.

Banning bumpfire stocks will have little to no actual effect on how deadly shootings will be in the future. Next time it will be a trigger crank used. And after we ban that, it will be a binary trigger.
Humans are extremely skilled at finding solutions to go around badly thought out laws like this.

So you think the american population could fight the full force of the US military? In which Universe? Sure not ours ...

Except that you fail to understand that the US military and police forces are also US citizens. A real violent uprising would give these people serious pause. It's highly likely that many would refuse to fight fellow americans if they feel the cause is even remotely justified.

A war in which the population is fighting their government and the military, is far from a 'sure' thing, just look at South America, full of dictatorships and guerilla fighting like for ever against each other. It would be simply put a second Civil War, and they are by nature messy.

Guns are not an "i win" button. No one says it is. But the question is: what chance do you have without them?

So I am not so sure that this idea of an armed population is like a sure victory against their own government ...

No pro-gun person in this entire thread has EVER said that any of this ensures victory. Please stop repeating this over & over.

 

[TheWesDude]

So you think the american population could fight the full force of the US military? In which Universe? Sure not ours ...

this argument is a strawman or ad absurdium. take your pick.

the full force of the US military could not be brought against the american population. do not believe what you see in movies.


some random thoughts:

i hear a lot of people say they believe that the police are too brutal and too quick to use force. then i see those same people saying we need to get guns out of the hands of people and into those tasked with our protection like the police. i cannot be the only one to see the contradiction in those statements.

severe gun control if not outright banning is akin to the position that you do not trust yourself or your neighbor to have a gun, only someone else.

even in france with all their strict gun control laws, somehow a group of people were able to get fully automatic weapons and ammunition and use them against the people in i think it was 2015.

there was a video a few years ago i saw from an alaskan sheriff who was talking about how they would refuse to enforce any gun bans or prohibitions or any substantive change to gun laws. during the i think it was a 20-25 minute video, he turns the camera to a park out his back door showing a little kids park with swing sets and a jungle gym and says that his daughter plays there several times a week. there was a full grown bear walking through it and says something about how guns are not a luxury, they are required for them to live. not everyone lives in an urban city.

 

[Crni Vuk]

this argument is a strawman or ad absurdium. take your pick.

the full force of the US military could not be brought against the american population. do not believe what you see in movies.

And the population can bring all the existing gun owners to fight the military? How's that not a straw-man ... so many people here throw the word straw-man around without actually knowing what it really means. What is this? The new Buzzword on the block, like a button with the describtion "automatically win this debate"?

Anyway. All I am saying is, that you have no chance to say who will be victorious in such a hypothetical scenario - The US popuplation fighting their own government and the military.

But again, that issue is pretty much irrelevant. The future won't be about the danger of a fascist military regime:

The Chinese government plans to launch its Social Credit System in 2020. The aim? To judge the trustworthiness – or otherwise – of its 1.3 billion residents

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion

 

[Deleted member 93956]

You haven't seen enough succesful coups and risings of totalitarian regimes from the last century and some more, I see. It's not even about if people COULD repel such a thing, but about if they'll even actually resist at all. At ñeast, enough to make a difference.

 

[TheWesDude]

And the population can bring all the existing gun owners to fight the military? How's that not a straw-man ... so many people here throw the word straw-man around without actually knowing what it really means. What is this? The new Buzzword on the block, like a button with the describtion "automatically win this debate"?

Anyway. All I am saying is, that you have no chance to say who will be victorious in such a hypothetical scenario - The US popuplation fighting their own government and the military.

my family has a large history with the military. i work on a military base. my neighborhood is 80% military if not more. i know a lot of people who have served in the military.

you want to talk about the theoretical? sure, there would be some places the military would have it real easy if they were ignoring casualties or methods. there would be lots of places they would find it difficult.

you want to talk about the reality? not going to happen on anything other than a very small and limited scale and under dire situations.

did you know that if a president ordered the military to say take over and control even say detroit, it would constitute an illegal order, and in highest probability violate the constitution? it would violate a fair number of laws. it is actually very difficult for the US military to be used against the american population, and that is on purpose. in fact, the de-facto rule is that it is illegal to do so and any soldier ordered to do so is required to ignore any such order.