Questions about American gun control debates

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by mihapiha, Jun 15, 2013.

  1. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    hello everyone.

    As you may notice, I'm not American and I was trying to keep up in the gun debate, yet I fully don't understand the debate. I hope people here will be able to enlighten me in these matters. I was only in contact with weapons when I was a child. I was 6 years old when the war in Yugoslavia started and all of the sudden most people had mean weapons at home. And we kids had nothing to do, so I'd get a real baretta to play with - empty magazine obviously.

    Since my war experience I've become a real pacifist and I cannot even handle guns in computer games. I couldn't even hold a fake gun in my hands anymore, so my side of the debate is rather obvious. But I keep hearing of new massacres and people going mental with weapons in America and there is such a massive opposition to baning firearms I don't understand.

    The second amendment says:

    "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."

    So my first question: Why is it legal to buy firearms outside of a well "regulated militia"? How come the 2nd amendment protects the purchase of average Joe buying himself a rifle if he's not a hunter, policemen or part of a militia?

    And the arguments for weapons seem to be cornered around 3 major arguments which don't seem rational to me.

    1st argument: "If something bad happens I can prevent that with my gun." This doesn't seem rational to me as any police force trains for years and years to correctly behave in crisis situations, and even then the shock and adrenalin of an incident makes trained police make mistakes. Why the average gun owner thinks they'd act perfectly in a highly dynamic situation they are not trained for is beyond me.

    2nd argument: "We can defeat a tyrant if he would come to power in the US." I have the strong feeling that this would be obvious, yet it does come up. A 100 million guys with semi-automatic (as fully automatic weapons are illegal) weapons have a very hard time defending the US navy and the US air force. Even organized fully trained troops in other countries with heavy weaponry are defeated in a short amount of time with a fraction of what the US army is capable of.

    3rd argument: "I need it to defend my family." This argument to me is rather strange if you don't live somewhere in the middle of the woods. If you live in outside cities in Alaska, Montana, Utah, etc. I understand. Then an animal truly may threaten your family. If however you live in LA or Chicago the argument somehow doesn't work for me since you're protecting your family from other people. And the other "people" in this case is not a criminal mastermind after your woman, but usually some junkie kid who's after alcohol and money.

    Murder is usually committed by someone who knows the victim. That's why police question family and friends first. So if someone came to your house to kill you, it's very likely that you'll open the door and invite them in before they kill you. The FBI classifies a serial killer as someone who killed at least 3 people spread over a 2 month period, meaning it's rare that someone kills more than 2 people over a long period of time. Most murders come out rage committed by usually people who under 30 years old.

    And one more thing which is a mystery to me: Most massacres are really hard to pull off if you don't have a gun. Especially in such a short amount of time. The fatality rate just increases with guns, compared to knifes.

    We have a pretty hard gun laws in all 3 countries I live in, so feel free to ask questions of your own about that. I'm pretty sure you will come up with a question I never even would have come up with
     
  2. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since the 2nd A has absolutely NO impact on you, you have no Rights written in blood, so it might be real tough trying to explain this portion of your query. That gives you nothing to protect and preserve.
    The police are not here to protect us. SCOTUS has ruled thus....that leaves us to defend ourselves.
    You are Right about murder and guns....ask Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin , Stalin, Mao.....they never could have murdered hundreds of millions without their guns.
     
  3. Jahnny B

    Jahnny B Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/,[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility

    Since the average joe would be the militia, he may have to supply himself with his own arms.

    Arguement 1- many police officers have not been in situations where they would be in a fire fight where as many gun owners are military veterans. We are battle hardened and train for mote adverse conditions than local PD. also for protecting our home, we would not be going up against proffessional soldiers.police also do not arrive the instant someone kicks in your door. Myself, like many other gun owners, refuse tostand by and let ourselves be victimized.

    2nd arguement- fully automatic weapons are not illegal to own but they do require a tax stamp. Our military, though it takes direction from POTUS, has the power and authority to disobey POTUS, if POTUS, becomes a tyrant. As a veteran i wwore to protect the people of my country and our constitution fromenemies both foriegn and domestic. My oathe said nothing about only following the orders of POTUS. no military member will ever strike the citizenry of this country without just cause laid out by our co stitution, ergo due process of law.

    Arguement 3- someone does not need to be a murderer for you to protect yourself with a gun. In my state you may use deadly force if it means saving your life or someone elses. You may also use it if someone is in your house and you honestly believe they are there to steal, rape, kidnap,assualt, kill, or destroy your property, as long as they are not trying to leave before attempting one ofbthe aforementioned.

    Your last point- our constitution grants our amendments to law abiding ciizens, when you become a felon, some of these rights are removed. So until you become a felon, you have rights. Murder is a felony thar will strip these rights from you. Also, if you plan on murdering someone, you obviously do not care about the law, so why would you follow that would prohibit guns?
     
  4. sailorman126

    sailorman126 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    First I was part of SFOR and from what I was told from the people that did the fighting most of the weapons used in that war was from the army they did not start out as privately owned.
    now to start answering your questions.
    1) the militia is made up of the avg joe. when in time of need people would get together and help each other. an example from our history is the idea of the minuteman, the farmer would have his musket with him at all times and when called they would be able to respond in a minute.
    2) tens of thousands of crimes are stopped with guns every year the vast majority of them never being shot. in much of the us the closest police can be 20 or 30 min away, you are making a assumption that the police train on their weapons all the time, reality is most have to qualify one or twice a year and for many that is the only time they shoot.
    who would you trust more a cop that shoots once or twice a year or the retired navy seal? he is one of the avg Joe's that you are asking about.
    3) You are making a assumption that the entire military would join with the tyrannical gov. being in the military i know this is not the case, it would be anarchy just like your country some joined some did not.
    4) during the LA riots one of the few areas that did not have a lot of looting was Korean town because they had guns and patrolled the area.
    the statement about most murders know each other is not factual. unless you mean in passing like i went school with x a couple years ago, most murders are gang related.
    and you last statement about mass murders are hard without a gun is also wrong but they just get the most press because the press is ant gun, the biggest mass murders in history did not use a gun.
     
  5. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
  6. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Regulated in 18th century English means equipped. By U.S. law all men age 17-45 are members of the militia. The Supreme Court interprets the above to mean that we have a right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.

    You greatly overestimate the amount of training that policemen get. Ordinary people have a lot more ability than you give credit for.

    Afghanistan defeated the USSR beginning with bolt-action weapons. Yes, they obtained better weapons over time, but the start was the equivalent of today's sporting weapons.

    How long does it take a policeman to get to your house if you call them? In the U.S., on a good day, 10-15 minutes. Do you realize how much damage a violent person can do to you in 10-15 minutes. Also, at least where I live, it is easily possible to go from living in a society with all niceties, to not, due to a hurricane. After hurricanes, there is no electricity, little phone service (including mobile), and no way to quickly call the police. I need a gun for those times.

    Gang members and drug dealers know each other. I'm not worried about serial killers. I'm worried about junky kids who want money, and aren't afraid to hurt me to get it. I'm worred about the predators who roam neighborhoods after hurricanes.

    Massacres are rare. They are an abberation upon which we shouldn't base major laws. They are a problem with the mental health system. Most of the recent massacre guys should have been in a mental institution.
     
  7. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently, you or your family fled to Austria, and elsewhere, sometime after the Balkan Wars. I don't know if you are a Serb, Bosnian, Croat, Christian, Muslim, or whatever. I have some background on the war, as I have gone to this Coat Selco's website: SHTFschool.com. He said the most important thing to have first to survive such places are guns and ammo. Lots of them. Since you don't like, or fear guns, why do you also blame them for a nation's problems, when places where citizens have many guns, like Switzerland also have very few crimes? Since anti-gun socialists have absolute control of the media in Austria and most of Europe, I can't blame you for your anti-gun views.

    To answer some questions:

    #1) The police can't arrive in seconds during the few seconds that most crimes take place in. Unless the police are right next to you---like a bodyguard---you are on your own. The rich and powerful have the police and armed guards, and you don't. You are more worthless. You are expendable. In almost all cases, just showing the gun will frighten away all but the most hardcore criminals. If a person does not want to train with their gun, they can suffer the consequences. Remember, Austrians like you are not free to defend themselves in a proper manner. The rights of individuals are not as developed there. Your power elite in Europe don't hate guns, they don't want them in the hands of the public they control.

    #2) Look what the Commie partisans did in Yugoslavia and the Eastern Front against the Germans during WW2. They maily had small arms, and put a serious hurt on an army of combined arms. A modern army requires huge amont of fuel and supplies to keep their planes and machines running. If the county is in civil war, air power will be very reduced.

    #3) Your ideas about living in America are about 300 years out of date. Only in the few places with large Bears and Mountain Lions would you need a gun---and even then, chemical mace would even be better. Dog attacks are going to be the most common "animal" attack and urban areas with sinister breeds like Pit Bulls are going to be more of a threat than being in the countryside. Your media sources in Europe refuse to tell the sad truth that it is the many multicultural urban areas that you would face the most risk of being a crime victim. In the worst neighborhoods, those "junkie kids" are usually gang members who kill hunderds of people every year, just in one city. There have been more murders in Chicago, 500+ in 2012, than ALL of the so-called mass shootings over the last 20 years in America. It's big news when one person kills many people with guns that hold more than a few rounds. But the important news of thousands of gang members killing thousands of their rivals, one or two at a time every year, is suppressed. Most of the time, simple shotguns and handguns are used that are never legal for these gangs members to have.
     
  8. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That explains a lot in my opinion, so thank you for that information. Still might be obvious, but I still have to ask: Would you agree with that ruling? The homicide rate in the USA is higher than it is in western countries. On the media they will always say it's so much worse in Mexico or Columbia, but they don't really compare it to Germany, Japan, Britain or any country which can be considered on the same level in terms of economic advancements and laws.

    I think in Germany they have 350 people getting killed annually in Britain it's merely 40 in Japan also under 100 people while in America it's 11,000 people. Now even if you adjust the numbers to per capita rates, the numbers are just higher for the US. The Germans have the same access to video games, violent history, or what ever else you wanna look at but they still kill each other in a much lower rate. And if you could decrease that number by reducing the amount of weapons in private hands, why not try at least? Strict laws and regulations might be necessary to secure the people. Because the only difference between Britain and the US is the homicide rate, if you look at it from a cultural standpoint.

    The "patriot act" basically in the name of security did change the liberties of the individual.

    So this is not a new notion that in order to protect a few people many have to give up their liberties. And I'd argue that less people in America were threatened by terrorists over the last 15 years than people seeing themselves on the wrong side of the gun. And yet in order to protect a few hundred people, who may have been targeted by terrorists in America, laws were changed quite quickly.


    To all examples about how the local guys with guns defeated some major military force: UdSSR crashed economically on the inside and they retreated. It wasn't that the Afghan forces even remotely really defeated that army. Tyrants come to power by force, they don't get elected with a majority. Hitler the only example so far had at least an election which he won with 33.1% of the vote. A wide misconception is that he was so beloved. His popularity went up toward 1938 and started falling again because he used up all the money Germany had. The country was broke and would have declared bankruptcy if they hadn't taken over Austria, which in 1938 had more gold reserves than Germany. Any other of the people mentioned won in come civil war or coup d'état the power.

    Keep in mind even with a low approval rating people still govern just fine. Look at Georg Bush the last year of his presidency. A record low approval rating yet the troops are where he says. Just because 50 or 60% of your own people hate you, doesn't mean that the "war machine" collapses. So even if for some odd (unrealistic) reason the US had a tyrant leader going to war with his countrymen most of the troops and military personal would fight on the "wrong" side from your point of view. The civil war did prove that an American president is prepared to kill a couple 100,000 of his own countrymen to preserve the status of the country. So if you expect another civil war scenario, your private weapons will have to shoot down F-22s and sink Destroyers.

    As to the Yugoslav war. True, private arms are illegal before and after the war, but in a war scenario everybody gets armed real quick. I hope as SFOR you got to prevent some of the killing of the 150.000 people who died. I have really bad memories of the 4 years I was there...
     
  9. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We are a wilder country. Our population is composed of the risktakers (and criminals) from western Europe. We are on the high side for an advanced country in terms of murder rate. We are nowhere near what most developing countries have. Our non-gun murder rate is higher than most Western countries total murder rate. It's just the way we are. Taking away guns won't do a thing to change that.

    There are a lot of differences between Britain and the U.S., the only thing we share is our language, and even that is slightly different. Also, before Britain had their strict gun laws their murder rate was much lower than ours. It didn't change much. Per capita is the only thing worth talking about. I only talk about rates (per capita). I feel anyone who talks about this issue in numbers vs. rate is either uneducated, or thinks that I'm a fool.

    In terms of Japan, our combined murder and suicide rate is lower than Japan's suicide rate. I'll risk murder over living in a pressure cooker society.


    And it should never have passed, and it should be repealed.


    Our murder rate has actually almost halved in the last 20 years. In 1993, it was almost 10 per 100k population, now it is down to 4.7 per 100k, despite the fact (or possibly because) we have looser gun laws now than in 1993.


    Regardless, a widespread guerilla movement can keep a government at bay.
     
  10. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    In my opinion you have hand full of things which increase the murder rate substantially. First and I think most important is I believe that the media primarily news media create the notion and belief in society that you are personally constantly in danger. Security is the first human demand. And since this is not provided people are afraid and act impulsive. Fear and impulsive behavior is not a good combination if you're a gun owner. Second I think that the social services your government provides are not sufficient. The mentality of the country to "take care of your self" and not to "take care of us" makes it easy to fail in life and have severe financial problems. That means you're more likely to commit a crime out of desperation and I think the number of people in jail reflect that as there are more people in jail in the US (with 320 million inhabitants) than in China (with 1.33 billion). And another factor I believe which enhances homicide is the codeine consumption. 80% of the worlds codeine consumption is in the US. So people who are scared, nerves, financially desperate are now even on various drugs. Not a good combination for being armed.

    As I think the other problems would take longer to solve than getting rid of guns, I would be for the reduction of weapons in private hands. If guns insured security America would be practically crime free.

    I live in three countries myself the homicide rates is 0.6, 0.7 and 1.4 in 100.000 according to wikipedia.
    The suicide rate were as expected very high in the three countries I live. 15.3, 21.5, 19.7 in 100.000.

    Looking at the suicide rate of 11 for America I think your point of view is fair. Judging by the rates combined the over all rate would be smaller in the US. Still I must admit that I prefer a vast majority of people killing themselves rather than people killing other people. I think your point about Japan is fair, as we look down upon the pressure in Japan too. But look at the numbers for suicide and homicide in countries like Britain I may have a point too. Their suicide rate is at 6.8 and homicide is at 1.2 in 100.000. So what is so different in Britain? Any of the points I mentioned?

    Guerrilla movements are outdated. They don't work in the age of heat-seeking missiles, satellite and drone attacks. Do you really think that the US army is pulling most of it's resources into Afghanistan or that the UdSSR did. If you conquer a country the Guerilla movement might work because no country likes to conquered and the overwhelming majority tries to get the foreigners out of their land. Remember that there are 100.000 troops in Afghanistan which has a population of 30 million. So one International Security Assistance Force-soldier is in charge of 300 people and it still works somehow. If the private arsenal is supposed to protect you from a tyrant and a guerrilla war is supposed to be successful the tyrant would have to have power but less than 1% of the people supporting him. This in a home-scenario is just not really possible. Meaning the private arsenal would have to defeat the US airforce, US navy and US army somehow. Because no matter what, the tyrant will have a higher support than 1% of the people. Most likely in the 10-20% neighborhood if we look at some of the previous tyrant leaders. And keep in mind most people prefer to shut up and do nothing than fight. Hence the low participation numbers in elections. You can't even get 80 or 90% of the people to vote never mind fight against some president. It's always a minority vs. a minority conflict
     
  11. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No sale. Just because you have been brainwashed into conformance doesn't mean that I will (i.e. a USA citizen). Your wars are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-wars. The number of dead in the average war with formal declaration in the last 50 years has paled in comparison to the crime rate in the USA in urban areas since the "genius" Lyndon Johnson. No way am I going to bend over. Shoot me first.
     
  12. JohnConstantine

    JohnConstantine Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I traditionally used to argue for gun control in America.

    Now I've changed my mind. Keep your guns, and shoot some high ranking guys; get 'em scared. Blow the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the next Bilderberg meeting. Put a few holes in Henry Kissinger. Assassinate as many Rothschild's and Rockefellers as you can find. Monsanto and Du Pon bosses. Conglomerate CEO's.

    I know, this is all the stuff of fantasy, and it won't be much good for the 'economy' but it's the only way they'll ever listen. As Mao said: political power comes out the barrel of a gun.

    Yes, I quoted Mao... shoot me (too).

    Start acting like the crazy gun toting Americans you are, viva la revolution!
     
  13. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ahhhhhhhhhhhh. Now here's another kind of crazy, folks..............I'm just going to assume you aren't from the US.......As such, you have absolutely no idea what's really going on over here, just what the Lib mantra in your head tells you. pahhhhhhhhhhhhh.................. go away Mr. Anti-Bill of Rights.
     
  14. JohnConstantine

    JohnConstantine Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'm not Liberal. Liberals are dangerous compromisers.

    But you're right, my post is crazy (I am in fact quite psychotic sometimes, but notice how I framed it under fantasy and calm down matey). The fact remains though that one of the main arguments propagated by the gun lobby is that the right to bare arms is the bulwark against an oppressive government.

    So it just depends on whether you see the American regime as oppressive or not.
     
  15. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The U.S. crime rate predates the modern media. I think your "take care of your self" vs "take care of us" is bull. Americans are much more generous in their private giving than those in most other countries. The whole thing is the U.S. has a different culture and population characteristics than most other countries. We have a much higher number of immigrants from a wider swath of the world than most other countries.

    Guns are irrelevant to violence. 80% of violent crimes in the U.S. involve no weapons at all.

    Not sure why Britain is that way. That said, looking at your three countries, your combined murder/suicide rate is higher than our combined murder/suicide rate. Why is that? Is it that miserable in your countries?

    Guerilla movements do work. They start simply, and they obtain the higher grade weapons by theft. You ignore history, and I'm not sure why. Only about 40-45% of the American colonists supported the American Revolution against Great Britain.

    Also, you are assuming that the American military would turn arms against the U.S. people in high numbers. Very doubtful, IMHO. Most military men I know are very supportive of the Constitution (i.e. they are mostly right wing).
     
  16. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    We had one really long time in our history were people just took care of themselves and their families, it's called the middle-ages. In this time you have the development of "modern" socialism. You see the king would give a city usually to aristocracy to govern, but starting in the 12 century something happened, cities were given their "freedom" and they could govern themselves in exchange for taxes. Now everybody was liable for making the city run - before it was the local landlord. Most people can't pay for a private priest, a private home schooled education, have men looking out for their safety. So what we as a society decided, that we're pool our money through a tax (as everybody has make the same contributions) and provide basic needs at that point in time.

    Now the cities would be now the "socialist" liberal societies you seem to dislike. The opposite would be the conservative farmer living somewhere in the middle of Europe trying to protect his own farm. If you do some reading on the middle ages, you'll find out that the people in the free (socialist) cities were better off. To my knowledge this in time was the most "taking care of your self" time period in our history. The more you get into the future the more "socialistic" it gets as the government provides more and more services for their people.

    No human can really survive by himself. We know that. You constantly need the help of someone else and in return you provide services for these people. And maybe 1% of the society could possibly afford to live in our todays economy without any government help. Whether it's paying for a private fire marshal, private doctors who are around, a private teacher who's educating your kids, a private police force, you're own satellite for your cellphone telecommunication, your private roads to drive on, private power plant, etc. Even in the things you consider "corporate America" government intervenes to help them out. No company has enough money to send that many satellites into space to cover your cell phone network, no company has the money to build all the roads, rail roads and airports they'd need. The basic infrastructure as soon as you live in any modern day country was provided through the institution which represents "us".

    With the "miserable living"-logic you basically point out that the best to live is in the middle east. The suicide rates in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan and Pakistan are all under 2 people in 100.000. By this logic there's not a greater place to live than Egypt basically, because the homicide rate there is 1.2 in 100.000 suicide rate is 0.1 in 100.000. Now you tell me, according to this logic, why is it 100 times more miserable to live in the US than Egypt? As you pointed out the suicide rate is an indication if people are miserable. They seem to be really happy in Egypt.

    As you may see with this example the suicide numbers probably don't reflect where people are happy and where they are miserable. But locally most suicides are alcohol and teen related. In puberty oddly enough kids think this is the only solution. Alcohol related means in this case that people who kill themselves here are mostly alcoholics.

    I seem to ignore history just as much as you seem ignore reading what I said. Again: Guerrilla movements are outdated! They may have worked 60 or even 30 years ago where man power really meant something. But in todays world the guy who kills most people in a war is sitting behind a computer and holding the keyboard instead of an assault rifle. The number of people with muskets has been greatly reduced. Before most people in the military service saw the enemy at close range. In this day and age shooting with a guns in first hand to hand combat is just outdated. Small specialized forces, yes. Massive infantry armies like in the revolutionary war just don't clash anymore.

    Even in WW1 most soldiers got killed with artillery fire and not in first hand combat. And that is now nearly 100 years ago. Now the drone operatives sit in America when they target someone in the middle east. If POTUS were a tyrant most of the US forces would still be operational. In the civil war 30% of the population of America split off, and the rest kinda continued to support POTUS. With todays hardcore right and left wing. Do you really think that POTUS would have a worse scenario on their hand than Lincoln did back then?
     
  17. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is my point. Americans don't live in this "every man for himself" type world. We don't live in a total 'take care of yourself, forget about everybody else' world. You are making a strawman out of what you THINK Americans believe. That is what I meant by bull. Yes, a society needs some amount of "socialism" to survive and thrive. Our founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution) say so.

    Where have I, in this thread, criticized socialists? I haven't. That is irrelevant to this discussion. You seem to be hung up on this strawman.


    They probably are.

    same thing. Do you have such a miserable society that requires alcohol and suicide?


    McNamara thought that bombers and helicopters could dominate guerilla forces about 50 yrs ago. He was wrong. So are you. Drones and aircraft and people sitting behind a keyboard can't occupy territory.

    To me it doesn't really matter. I see the right to bear arms primarily as does the SCOTUS--as part of an individual right for self-defense. You never responded about the scenarios that I pose for reasons I have to need a gun--the slow police response, and the probability of natural disaster. That is the crux to the right to bear arms. The ability of self-defense (and defense of neighbors) when the police cannot be there.
     
  18. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it didn't and never has - It's Latin root means to control
     
  19. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Great arguments. I see you spend a lot of time looking for numbers to prove your points. :)

    According to the HDI Egypt is 115th in the world, a Gini coefficient of 30.8, and a GDP of under $7,000 per capita. I'm sure the people love it there. Especially as history shows that dictatorships usually bring happiness to people (careful: IRONY). We also never hear people complain who live in Egypt. Oh, except the last two years they protested Mubarak.

    Why would suicide rates have to do anything with happiness? Why can 0.0001 - 0.0002% of the people show if the 99,9998% of the remaining society are miserable?

    Afghanistan has nearly 250,000 square miles. One ISAF soldier therefore is occupying 2.5 square miles. If you needed that many for the US, you'd need about 1.5 million troops to hold the US territory against threat. And by some coincidence that's the size of the US armed forces without the 850,000 which are reserve troops. 1 in 160 servers in the US army. Hence the "tyrant" POTUS needs 0.8% of the society to fight for him to remain in power. And you can bet that the number will be higher than .8%. As I said guerrilla tactics work in areas where 99% of the society is against an enemy. It doesn't work on your own land as always 20% support the "tyrant" leader. It wasn't different in Russia, China, Germany or any other country.
     
  20. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the above, the numbers are used to obfuscate. As Samuel Clemens said, "There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

    I note that you keep ignoring my major argument about why have (and need) the right to keep and bear arms.

     
  21. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because the amendment is a restriction on the government, not the people.

    Because his right to bear arms is a natural consequence of his unalienable right to life, and his consequent right to defend it.

    Obviously they don't do so in every case, but that's of no moment in those many situations where police are unable to respond in a timely manner.

    I suggest you look into the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, wherein ~1000 poorly armed Jews were able to hold off ~2000 Nazi troops for nearly a month, and then imagine what they could have done with better armaments.

    There are more places than you think where LE officers are just too far away to do any good when lives are at stake.

    What difference does it make?

    Actually, for high volume massacres, handheld weapons are not terribly efficient.

    Why compare them with knives rather than explosives?
     
  22. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am thinking that I was right. this is a non-debate for you because you do not understand Rights. You are out of your league in this debate.
     
  23. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Statistics have a well know liberal bias. :D The problem with anything without numbers is, that every individual can interpret it differently. Think of the bible and all the various beliefs. 2+2 will always be 4, that's the benefit of math. But if you choose ignore all the numbers I put out there. I just want you to answering the number you brought up: suicide rates showing if people are "miserable". Why can 0.0001 to 0.0002% of the people with suicides show whether the remaining 99.9998% of the people are happy or miserable?


    I questioned the legality of the average Joe, but that was answered with the supreme court ruling on the first page rather quickly. I said, that I understand that point now and I never got into that argument.

    Since I've not questioned it's legality but rather questioned it's "pro-gun" arguments, which I feel so far have not been based on anything as convincing as the supreme court ruling. Most arguments were based around the 3 points I pointed out from the start, which are all "what if" or "in the unlikely even that"-scenarios which I feel didn't justify anything so far.
     
  24. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I question why there is such a lack of faith in police. We (as in my family) got robbed once when we were not home. Because the robbers knew us, they waited for us to leave before robbing our house. This is the only time I recall we called the police as we needed their assistance. Once more when I hit a dear driving. I thought it might have died and remained on the road on a blind bend. I think we were visited by the fire-department as often. Needing the police really seems like a once in 10 to 20 year occurrence for me. The rest of the time the police basically just enforces laws and regulations. Is it really so different here that you'd need the help of police more often in America?

    I would love to know where you got your informations for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The uprising was from April 19th to April 22nd 1943. Later the remains of the Uprising hid for a hand full of days just to attack a few troops ever so often. What could they have done with better arms? I don't know. It is a guerrilla-example again which has the bases I pointed out multiple times: Strong opposition in the country due to a foreign invasion. I don't know of any example where the partisan/guerrilla tactics worked in their own countries against their own governments. If you can think of an example I'm glad to look it up and admit that I was wrong.

    Handheld weapons indeed may not be efficient but they kill more people than nuclear weapons - maybe because of the access. Now I can recall only a hand full of massacrer shootings myself but most I recall from the media were in the US. The ones which are not from the US and I remember from media coverage were Norway, one in Australia, one in Scotland I believe and one in Germany over the last 20 years. If I think back now over the last nearly two decades there were so many examples in US it's just depressing. Never mind Columbine, Virgina Tech or the older ones. Think of only the ones since Obama has been president. California just a few weeks ago, Connecticut, Aurora, then the another one Colorado were the congresswomen or senator or what ever she was got shot, the veteran in Milwaukee, etc. etc.

    There just so many of these. If guns were less accessible maybe these mentally sick people couldn't get their hands on them weapons so easily... I know it's not law but you'd think that this was a good idea. With twice the population in the EU we just don't seem to have that problem that often.
     
  25. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is the problem. Extremists allow the debate to be framed in a moronic context. If the whole concept of the second amendment is to prevent government tyranny (which it is), the question should be why are there impediments to owning nuclear weapons, predator drones, tanks, ICBM's and stinger missiles? THAT IS THE QUESTION, not should the gubment deny me a pea-shooter. There are no intellectuals in the anti-gun movement. Yes, the blacks and hispanics will retard the rate of their demise until they start learning how to use machetes again like they did in Rwanda, but that AIN'T a good sales pitch for gun control.
     

Share This Page