Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Gun laws do not work, guns do work :o
http://www.google.com/
Or, even better:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+gun+laws+reduce+gun+crime
I don't care if gun laws work or don't. I want to own a gun, and F U if you want to take that right away. The only circumstance under which I would consider a ban on gun ownership is if the homicide rate was intolerable, which it isn't. Comparing 5 homicides per 100,000 people to 2 homicides per 100,000 people (numbers aren't factual, just intended to make a point) is lolz. Whether it is either statistic doesn't matter to me, as long as we have a reasonable chance to live.
Silly people getting lost in the numbers and forgetting the qualitative considerations...
why do you need a gun? A sense of danger or insecurity.
Why do you sense danger and what makes you insecure? In this situation, probably fear of people you do not trust.
Why do you not trust these people? You think they'll commit crimes on you. You are afraid of them. You have heard about crime rates being sky high or know people who have dealt with crime or have been traumatized by crime yourself, bringing you into a state of near-paranoia.
In a safe community you shouldn't have to be scared into owning a gun.
tbh gun ownership is fine, being able to shoot a loaded gun on the other hand... what reasons, other than self defense, do you have for that?
Because It's Cool - weak and makes you a sad, easily manipulated person.
Family Legacy (Because my Parents Owned Guns) - family traditions are cool, except traditions do not count as the best arguments.
Just For Hunting - only good argument I can find for gun ownership.
Target Shooting Only - this may be fun, challenging, and give you a rewarding feeling, but it's not hard to find yourself a less expensive hobby.
For Social Reasons - same as above.
Because the Founding Fathers Wanted me to - the situation your founding fathers were in has changed. face it, (almost) all of their arguments are now out of context.
As an Investment - right... put you in the same category as the action figure and stamp collectors. plus you don't need ammo for this and shooting would probably lower the actual value.
Historical Reasons - Same as above.
Interest in The Mechanics of Firearms - Do not necessarily need to shoot it, although it does help and may be quite interesting.
(reasons for owning guns taken from: http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun.htm)
So the only reasons left that justify having a loaded gun are:
Just For Hunting
Interest in The Mechanics of Firearms
now, do these 2 apply to you? well good on you. I doubt they do for most gun owners.
You're forgetting one other benefit mentioned before: Guns are a fundamental last resort check against tyrannical governments. It's an advantage which isn't easily claimed by other items, unless we're talking about weapons with no discrimination of targets, which is definitely worse than a simple firearm.
"Anything i can find, you can too. Instead of me seeking this information out, why
don't you just skip the middle man and do it yourself?"
Pretty simple, I'm not stating the argument. Maybe I don't have the same opinion, so I can't find your proof even if I was trying really hard. Also the fact you and I can't backup your statement proves its value. Better use your own manual!
"This forum has zero chance of an actual debate."
I'm sorry to put it this way, but you're making it that way. I have had good debates with both left and right wing and waste a lot of time with reading useless peoples trolls like you just did. Post in general if you just want to troll.
+1 to LP
I don't get how American's are so rabidly afraid of government that they feel they need to possess automatic weaponry but happily roll over and let shit like the Patriot Act pass 
That's an easy question to answer (whether they're right or wrong), because they are more afraid of terrorists and criminals still.
Cardboard,
For hunting and self-defense. Maybe the latter makes me insecure, but the probability of a break-in is legitimate. Although I don't care for the idea of everyone carrying a gun in public places to stop crimes, I think it's fair to defend your home with a firearm. Although I believe the law should go further by saying that one temporarily forfeits their right to life if they illegally breaking in to a place of residence.
Zarf,
If I were to become the autocrat, and provided I commanded the loyalty of the federal military, I would love to see Texas resist the might of my imperial legions with their... puny firearms.
> Justinian I wrote:
> Zarf,
If I were Emperor and fully commanded the loyalty of the military, I would love to see Texas resist the might of my imperial legions with their... puny firearms.
Afghanistan is laughing at you right now.
I would laugh as Texans owned you.
More later
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
Afghanistan is laughing at you right now.>
Afghanistan rebels:
1. Have a lot better weaponry than Texas civilians
2. Enjoy mountainous terrain
3. Political organization is broadly distributed
4. Are funded by other states
5. The people are more intelligent than Texans
So it really doesn't count as a comparison. If they were to fight with legal firearms, they would get pwned. But they are fighting with military weapons, enjoy terrain advantages, and are fighting a guerrilla war.
> Einstein wrote:
> I would laugh as Texans owned you.
More later
If by some miracle they were successful with inflicting heavy casualties against my professional forces, then I would just carpet bomb it until they gave up. If that didn't work, I would nuke it.
That said, my point is this. A civilian force with legal firearms can not effectively fight a professional (as opposed to conscript) military.
> Justinian I wrote:
> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
Afghanistan is laughing at you right now.>
Afghanistan rebels:
1. Have a lot better weaponry than Texas civilians
2. Enjoy mountainous terrain
3. Political organization is broadly distributed
4. Are funded by other states
5. The people are more intelligent than Texans
So it really doesn't count as a comparison. If they were to fight with legal firearms, they would get pwned. But they are fighting with military weapons, enjoy terrain advantages, and are fighting a guerrilla war.
1: You're confusing the phases of the war. Afghanistan was fighting the Soviets with very low-tech weaponry, but when it gathered the credibility against the Soviets, it began to obtain those other weapons from foreign support.
2: Conceded here. That being said, this is a situation unique to Texas... it doesn't affect the argument as a whole. If we were talking about the Western states or Appalachian states, it would be different.
3: Considering the distributed political organization triggered years of infighting, that's not necessarily a good thing. But even if you don't want to buy that argument, local units can definitely develop within the larger political organization.
4: Not from day 1, as mentioned above.
5: Purely a matter of opinion... but still, this is only with regards to the Texas scenario, not necessarily an inictment of the gun argument as a whole.
@ Arfeh
like we say, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away"
btw I am opposed to concealed-carry. Concealed carry is like being a serial killer "oooooohahahah you didn't know! you didn't know I had a GUN hahahahahaha BLAM BLAM"
I think it better if we were all openly armed like a Mexican bandito, then we'd radiate law and order in 360 degrees...even to people we weren't looking at, they'd see our shotgun, bandoliers and hip pistols and give up crime. And impoliteness.
Doesn't matter about the gun laws. It's all about, if you need to kill a law abiding citizen, just pop a cap in his ass. That's what the rappers keep telling the children. Pop a cap in their ass.
And the only good law enforcement officer and peace abiding invididual, is a dead one. I mean, If I wanted to sell drugs and someone tried to arrest me, I mean wouldn't I demand my right to bear arms and put a slug in their head?
Seriously? Do I really care about gun enforcement and the arguement for or against, when clearly people will ARGUE about it, just for the fricken FUN of it?
Justinian,
This kind of fictive scenario is hard to predict, as we don't know the circumstances. If you had the power to brainwash people long before you had absolute power it would be a complete different scenario as a sudden coup d'etat. At this point in time, the biggest part of US citizens believes in democracy and is paranoid about the state intentions.
So I add a few points
1.) Your army would consist of people from US not wanting to shoot US people.
2.) Your army could consists of high officers believing in democracy or not wanting to shoot own people
3.) You can't nuke a place as big as Texas without having to go to the nuke shelter yourself. It would be economic suicide.
4.) the people would be armed by foreign powers.
5.) you need a temp replacement for the oil
6.) other states might revolt as well
7.) you have to maintain and pay your army, while your opponents don't
8.) You got hills in the middle of Texas, its not all desert
9.) you will be very unpopular outside of the states
An authoritarian hardly ever in history had full power. The successful few balanced and kept the initiative that's all. Stalin did it by paranoia and quick power changes.
> Einstein wrote:
> Ok I looked at England. Oh your fail there. Ok I looked elsewhere, fail there to. Sweden has almost universal guns, very low crime, more fail on you.
Gun crime in England (and the rest of the UK for that matter) is much lower than in the USA.
simply because our strict gun laws mean that there are very few guns around. In some cases police have seized flintlock and percussion cap era weapons guns are that hard to get a hold of.
Of course American history is far different and you guys have sooo many guns it'll be near impossible to get rid of them.
In the UK we've had gun control laws since just after WW1 and even before then when laws were no existent gun ownership was very small.
gun culture in us is very different then uk.
Zarf,
True enough. On a more serious note, since my Texas scenario combined a vague argument with my contempt for that socially conservative cesspool, I am not arguing that determined partisans can not raise an effective resistance. I am arguing that an effective resistance requires weaponry that is illegal in the United States. So although an 'army' of Texans with hunting rifles and shotguns would inflict pathetic casualties on a professional army, I acknowledge that the determined among them could cheaply acquire the kinds of weapons needed to carry on an effective guerrilla war.
So if the argument that gun ownership keeps the government in check is to be valid, then a broader range of weapons need to be available.
My argument in favor of gun ownership is that I (and many others), want to own guns to protect our residences and/or hunt etc. If a valid case can be made that guns increase homicides, then I still don't care. The reason is that the risk of being a victim of gun-related homicide is so low, and the difference of homicides with other countries that ban guns so insignificant, that I fail to see why it's deserving of my attention. The fact is that the probability is at least 99% in my favor that I will die from a cause other than homicide or a gun-related accident, and I fail to understand why it's worth trading this right for another fraction of a percent of avoiding death.
LP,
True, it depends on the scenario. I don't want to derail the thread more than I have, but I feel compelled to give a short answer to your reply. If you want to discuss it more, then you are welcome to create a relevant thread. The short answer is that I am confident I could persuade the American people that their "Democracy' has always been a sham, that the elite have lost any sense of stewardship, and that I could deliver public services and protect their citizen rights better than the elite. And although I may be initially unpopular in the West, I'm convinced I could gain their confidence because they need me and I would rule as a liberal autocrat (Liberal as in Liberal Democracy).
@Justinian
I agree that, long term, illegal weapons would be required to mount a resistance. However, the legal weapons still have an importance in a military scenario:
1: Small arms are still effective for some combat situations (hunting rifles are probably the best example, but there's a good reason why soldiers generally keep a simple pistol with them along with their regular weapon).
2: More importantly, though... as you explained, the small arms would be impossible to sustain a long term war. That being said, the smuggling of weapons to a rebel organization doesn't occur automatically. Look at Libya. Everyone liked the rebels... yet it took us a month after their rebellion started to begin distributing weapons. Until then, the rebels had to use whatever they have on hand. Consider this phase 1 in a rebellion.
During phase 1, the rebel unit's purpose is simply to gain credibility in order to obtain international support. Sure, illegally purchased weapons will always be part of this equation, and they're a damn important part. However, those are really expensive. There's no way a rebel organization could fully fund its rebels through military-grade weapons, without huge funding (probably unlikely nowadays). When illegally purchased weapons can only make up a small fraction of a rebellion's initial arms supply, the legal portion has a purpose.
well if you look at Chechnya. Following the collapse of the USSR in Chechnya you had thousands of Russian-speaking Chechens with Red Army training and many of who'm were veterans of Afghanistan. These Chechens came equipped with Soviet Army Uniforms and a huge variety of weapons from AK74 to to Surface to Air Missiles. heck Chechen rebels even had their own tanks and artillery. The Chechens managed to mount a major rebellion against Russia but eventually were beaten.
the fact is had the Chechens just been armed with small arms they would not have been able to do anything near what they had achieved.
As it has already been pointed out, in resisting a totalitarian government the weapons that are legally available in the USA are not suitable.
we can make rockets and the ny times archives tell you how to make nitrocellulose
as to guns, tanks and artillery, we'd get it the same way the Chechens did, by calling on the Army to surrender them
chechens captured 5000 Ruskis in the 1990s
Not all weapons need be labeled a weapon right now either.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Gun laws do not work, guns do work :o
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.