Guns good or bad

[Club Sandwich]

Spoiler: long and boring

Ah, yes, you need guns for self defense, the most trod out argument I have ever seen. Which is why the rapist has a gun. Which is why the mugger has a gun, which is why the criminals have guns. Carrying guns just removes any statistical advantage of superior physicality, while drastically upping the death toll of common crimes.

you cannot seriously be making the assumption that by removing the ability for the law-abiding to be armed as they please, you are somehow also removing the criminals from being armed? while the likelihood of encountering a gun-toting criminal might lessen over time, it will not altogether be removed.

i would rather have the option of arming myself to the best of my ability than not. because my life is more valuable than someone who wishes me harm.

Number 2: Absolutely not. The government has far better trained and equipped men than civilian Joe can muster. An insurrection will end with air strikes and an armored push supported by well trained infantry within three days. Any fantasies of fighting the government are futile, because the government has more and better guns and men as it is, anyway. Honestly tell me that a couple of hicks can seriously withstand the most overfunded military force in the world. Tell me a shotgun can breach tank armor, with total honesty. You can't. Tank can and will hold streets against nothing but infantry with rifles. Explosives are needed to crack them, and civilians don't have access to explosives the same way they do guns.

i've served 8 years in infantry combat, and 4 years in reserve service with 3 years as active duty police. you have very little idea that a government willing to use air strikes and armor against it's own citizens is one in which a well-armed insurgent force is absolutely required to make any sort of meaningful stand against it. you don't need to fight an armored vehicle with small arms simply because the tools of insurgency would involve SUIT against infantry patrols sent to control a sector, sabotage of infrastructure to destabilize and stretch forces, and the use of IEDs to deny easy traverse and keep vehicles and foot mobiles on their toes. explosives are quite easy to make - i make them professionally and deal with them now and then for clients. i've worked with them while in the military and know how insurgents manufacture them from common ingredients from farms, hardware stores, and garages.

likewise a situation in which, unlike an invasive enemy, the people you are fighting against were your own countrymen, sharing a culture and language, and more importantly, are likely to have friends and family they would need to worry about - such a fantasy as you imagine would never come to pass.

a conflict involving an insurgency fighting a corrupt US government would drag out for decades given the size of the country vs the number of armed insurgents spread throughout and the very small numbers of combat troops able to take and hold territory.

please tell me that you are somehow imaging a stand-up fight between random people and armor and planes, when such a thing will never come to pass should push come to shove during an insurgency war between a rogue government and the people it used to govern?

because i'll happily tell you that a government that is willing to use artillery and nuclear weapons against insurgents in their own territory will "win" a decrepit wasteland of bodies and no resources.

Number 3: Cars let people go faster and further than people without, and my opinion on public transit has little to do with firearms. Fast food doesn't fly into people's mouths, they have to eat it themselves. Fertilizers and plastic making chemicals are bulky and difficult to refine at home, and have somewhat low yield as it is, and higher education is linked to lower crime rates as it is.

and guns do nothing but rust and collect dust until it is used. it is the shooter, not the gun, that determines when it fires and who or what it is shot at.

Guns aren't going to save you from a home invader, when he's armed. He shows up with a loaded gun in his hand, you have your underwear and a gun safe halfway across the house. Think Mr. Mugger's going to be polite and let you unlock your safe, load your gun, aim, and fire before he blows your head off? It's ludicrous.

i have been in three situations where i had to use a weapon to defend myself, once in the home, and obviously i'm here to tell the tale none the worse for wear. twice it was on the street, once in my home. people who own a gun tend to keep one available for immediate use - there's no requirement to keep it unloaded, in 10 pieces, in a safe, and partially buried in the yard or whatever it is you imagine the situation to be. most home invasions have no owners home at all, and being a crime of opportunity, things that are easy to grab and light weight are often grabbed and stolen vs a thief trying to break into a safe.

The mental health system, the prison system, and the law enforcement system of the US are in shambles, and curbing rampant access to civilian firearms may, at least, slow the rate of deaths so that overpaid, old white men can do nothing in Congress.

you are flatly wrong here. people commonly use their firearms against home invasions now and again with success. often the opportunistic invader isn't looking for a fight and is wanting to not enter any property that has risk associated with it. risk of arrest or risk of death.

the mental health system in the US is voluntary, as larger mental health facilities were shut down due to massive abuses back in the 70's and 80's. funding instead went into the drug war among other things.

the prison system is focused on punishment and could definitely use an overhaul but the answer there isn't to release criminals, but to decriminalize victimless crimes and focus on a combination of rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. much of that is from a criminal culture for which there is no easy or obvious way out. the massive gang culture and the war on drugs super-saturated the justice system and there's no end in sight.

as for law enforcement, for the most part, they are people that are trained to use their best judgement in enforcing the laws passed by the legislature. please opine in what ways it is in shambles? i worked as a sheriff's deputy for a short time and other than a few bad apples that were fired, it's largely a boring job involving paperwork and talking to people.

reducing the number of firearms in circulation will largely take them more immediately out of the hands of people who would buy them legally, it would possibly over a number of decades reduce the amount in circulation as people die or they are found and destroyed (assuming a complete ban is in effect), and over this same time period, the firearms in use by criminals will likely be slowly reduced as they are arrested over time. this assumes they do not build their own, acquire them from overseas or other means.

this illustrates the point that attempts at confiscation would have results take too long and you will wind up creating a massive market for which you have no control over and no insight into and no ability to work within; vs what we have now, which is a largely self-regulating gun culture marred by criminals, negligent owners, and the crazies.

Rich people don't live in Boston? You ever heard of Beacon Hill? Or, I don't know, all of the massively expensive condos they've been putting up for the last ten years, making it one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country? I think it's time to stop watching The Boondock Saints.

honestly, i meant to say Baltimore, which has a murder rate 11 times greater than Boston. i think you realize that some of the most violent crime in the US is done in the communities with the toughest gun laws. there are outliers like Kansas City; but why would gun crime be so incredible in a place like MD or CA if gun laws were so very effective? hint: they aren't very effective without a complete and utter ban, and many people would be extremely strongly against that because it's considered a fundamental human right to able to bear arms.

 

[Antipathy]

Spoiler: long and boring

you cannot seriously be making the assumption that by removing the ability for the law-abiding to be armed as they please, you are somehow also removing the criminals from being armed? while the likelihood of encountering a gun-toting criminal might lessen over time, it will not altogether be removed.

i would rather have the option of arming myself to the best of my ability than not. because my life is more valuable than someone who wishes me harm.


i've served 8 years in infantry combat, and 4 years in reserve service with 3 years as active duty police. you have very little idea that a government willing to use air strikes and armor against it's own citizens is one in which a well-armed insurgent force is absolutely required to make any sort of meaningful stand against it. you don't need to fight an armored vehicle with small arms simply because the tools of insurgency would involve SUIT against infantry patrols sent to control a sector, sabotage of infrastructure to destabilize and stretch forces, and the use of IEDs to deny easy traverse and keep vehicles and foot mobiles on their toes. explosives are quite easy to make - i make them professionally and deal with them now and then for clients. i've worked with them while in the military and know how insurgents manufacture them from common ingredients from farms, hardware stores, and garages.

likewise a situation in which, unlike an invasive enemy, the people you are fighting against were your own countrymen, sharing a culture and language, and more importantly, are likely to have friends and family they would need to worry about - such a fantasy as you imagine would never come to pass.

a conflict involving an insurgency fighting a corrupt US government would drag out for decades given the size of the country vs the number of armed insurgents spread throughout and the very small numbers of combat troops able to take and hold territory.

please tell me that you are somehow imaging a stand-up fight between random people and armor and planes, when such a thing will never come to pass should push come to shove during an insurgency war between a rogue government and the people it used to govern?

because i'll happily tell you that a government that is willing to use artillery and nuclear weapons against insurgents in their own territory will "win" a decrepit wasteland of bodies and no resources.


and guns do nothing but rust and collect dust until it is used. it is the shooter, not the gun, that determines when it fires and who or what it is shot at.


i have been in three situations where i had to use a weapon to defend myself, once in the home, and obviously i'm here to tell the tale none the worse for wear. twice it was on the street, once in my home. people who own a gun tend to keep one available for immediate use - there's no requirement to keep it unloaded, in 10 pieces, in a safe, and partially buried in the yard or whatever it is you imagine the situation to be. most home invasions have no owners home at all, and being a crime of opportunity, things that are easy to grab and light weight are often grabbed and stolen vs a thief trying to break into a safe.


you are flatly wrong here. people commonly use their firearms against home invasions now and again with success. often the opportunistic invader isn't looking for a fight and is wanting to not enter any property that has risk associated with it. risk of arrest or risk of death.

the mental health system in the US is voluntary, as larger mental health facilities were shut down due to massive abuses back in the 70's and 80's. funding instead went into the drug war among other things.

the prison system is focused on punishment and could definitely use an overhaul but the answer there isn't to release criminals, but to decriminalize victimless crimes and focus on a combination of rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. much of that is from a criminal culture for which there is no easy or obvious way out. the massive gang culture and the war on drugs super-saturated the justice system and there's no end in sight.

as for law enforcement, for the most part, they are people that are trained to use their best judgement in enforcing the laws passed by the legislature. please opine in what ways it is in shambles? i worked as a sheriff's deputy for a short time and other than a few bad apples that were fired, it's largely a boring job involving paperwork and talking to people.

reducing the number of firearms in circulation will largely take them more immediately out of the hands of people who would buy them legally, it would possibly over a number of decades reduce the amount in circulation as people die or they are found and destroyed (assuming a complete ban is in effect), and over this same time period, the firearms in use by criminals will likely be slowly reduced as they are arrested over time. this assumes they do not build their own, acquire them from overseas or other means.

this illustrates the point that attempts at confiscation would have results take too long and you will wind up creating a massive market for which you have no control over and no insight into and no ability to work within; vs what we have now, which is a largely self-regulating gun culture marred by criminals, negligent owners, and the crazies.


honestly, i meant to say Baltimore, which has a murder rate 11 times greater than Boston. i think you realize that some of the most violent crime in the US is done in the communities with the toughest gun laws. there are outliers like Kansas City; but why would gun crime be so incredible in a place like MD or CA if gun laws were so very effective? hint: they aren't very effective without a complete and utter ban, and many people would be extremely strongly against that because it's considered a fundamental human right to able to bear arms.

Served infantry? Sounds like this: What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

All joking aside however, a responsible gun owner keeps his gun in a safe, where, in the event of an emergency, he cannot reach it quickly. Were you paying attention to the argument that, if someone is responsibly owning a gun, they cannot bring it to bear quickly enough to defend themselves? And isn't funny that in every country that exercises gun control, almost all of them have lower gun crime rates than the U.S? Go ahead and keep your gun in the open. It won't save you when you're half awake and you've been shot five times already by someone entering your house, maybe with your own gun.

And I never said a damn thing about confiscation. I said to cease the manufacture and sale of automatic weaponry for civilians in the U.S, have a 90-day waiting period for gun purchase, not allow the mentally unsound or felons to own firearms, regulate gun shows, and, ideally, have a limit to how much ammunition someone can purchase at any given time. Want to have a rifle? Go right on ahead. All it'll do is take time to get.

If someone's being such a cuck to where they need a big phallic object to protect them from the boogeyman, and they need it now, I don't understand the point. Violent crime has been declining as it is, for at least ten years. You don't need a gun to protect yourself, and you'll cause collateral damage.

But what's hysterical is that, in the U.S, it's considered a human right to have guns, but not healthcare. This is evident of the obviously polluted political environment we operate in, created by the cronyism and incompetence of Reagan, fostered by the NRA, Bush and Trump, and delivered by the modern plutocrat.

Finally, do you think the government wouldn't use force against an insurgency? You're peddling a cherry-picked insurrection where civilians are on equal footing with the military. This isn't some tweenage distopian novel. The government, if rebelled against, will use all available force to quell it, especially with our current administration.

 

[Club Sandwich]

a responsible gun owner keeps his gun in a safe, where, in the event of an emergency, he cannot reach it quickly. Were you paying attention to the argument that, if someone is responsibly owning a gun, they cannot bring it to bear quickly enough to defend themselves? And isn't funny that in every country that exercises gun control, almost all of them have lower gun crime rates than the U.S? Go ahead and keep your gun in the open. It won't save you when you're half awake and you've been shot five times already by someone entering your house, maybe with your own gun.

not always, and there are no statistics to really bank on one way or the other. most people i know who maintain a firearm for security do not keep it in a safe when they are home - it is in a position to be readily retrieved and used.

isn't it funny that in every other country with strong gun control, they have very little in common with the US in terms of size, a lack of homogeneous population, and the massive wealth and opportunity divide that help drive crime along? the incredible gang violence between rival gangs accounts for nearly all gun crime. gun crime that results in homicides are exceptionally rare even with all the gang violence. more to it, those homicides tend to be other gang members, not random persons.

and once again, directly counter to your statement, my gun has saved me three times. when you are awakened from a violent break in you get an adrenaline dump that very very quickly alerts you and you fall back on any training you had to find and end the threat. persons who do not elect to practice and train are at a disadvantage here, but not much of one. you are not "half awake being shot five times". you hear breaking glass or a door being forced open, you awake, grab your firearm, and prepare to defend your self.

And I never said a damn thing about confiscation. I said to cease the manufacture and sale of automatic weaponry for civilians in the U.S, have a 90-day waiting period for gun purchase, not allow the mentally unsound or felons to own firearms, regulate gun shows, and, ideally, have a limit to how much ammunition someone can purchase at any given time. Want to have a rifle? Go right on ahead. All it'll do is take time to get.

all gun control eventually leads to further and further restriction until confiscation. at least in the US, it's always been the end goal. and i should mention that you have a very poor grasp of US firearms laws and the reality of firearms in the US. i am a gun manufacturer and dealer.

1. automatic weapons are not legal for individual transfer if they were made after 1986. existing automatic weapons are legal to possess and transfer.

2. waiting periods do nothing for people who already have firearms, and the various waiting periods impact law-abiding gun owners, not criminals. for a criminal determined to do harm with a firearm, they often steal one or cajole someone else to buy it for them. your "solution" would encourage theft or using an expedient weapon if time was an issue.

3. how would you evaluate someone "mentally unsound"? gun dealers already veto people from buying arms that could get them in trouble, based on appearance, attitude, or poor knowledge of existing gun law. persons that were involuntarily committed cannot legally possess a firearm at all until their civil rights are restored. persons that have had an involuntary hold for evaluation have a few years on the same prohibited persons list that makes gun ownership verboten.

4. gun shows are regulated like any other venue. a dealer selling a gun there follows the same rules as anywhere else. i assume you means mandatory criminal background checks for private sales that occur between non-dealers. this is not currently possible as the legislation only allows dealers access to submit NICS queries. further, the federal government has no legal standing to regulate the sale of firearms between two private citizens within the same state, many states explicitly allow such transactions, and some states require a dealer for all transactions. how would it be enforced? wouldn't criminals steal or buy/sell firearms anyway? do you somehow think that a 90 day waiting period or a law requiring private sales to submit NICS queries would be laws that someone intending to commit a gun crime would follow?

5. how do you plan on limiting ammunition? ignoring the whole price aspect (smaller sales drive up prices); most ammunition is purchased in bulk as a cost savings measure. buying a smaller amount more frequently wouldn't do anything but be inconvenient for people that don't manufacture their own ammunition, or who buy from multiple sellers, or who already have a pile of ammunition, or (if you're a criminal) would be stealing or buying it off the books to begun with.

laws that effect people only effect them if they're willing to do so. as criminal weapons are obtained illegally in some fashion (usually theft), these sorts of laws are ineffective. the ammunition one would be annoying, but likewise ineffective.

If someone's being such a cuck to where they need a big phallic object to protect them from the boogeyman, and they need it now, I don't understand the point. Violent crime has been declining as it is, for at least ten years. You don't need a gun to protect yourself, and you'll cause collateral damage.

violent crime has been declining for decades, despite any sort of gun control laws passed or not passed. there wasn't any sharp drop in crime in 1994, or in 1989, or in 1986, or in 1968, or in 1934. people tend to buy a gun to level the playing field against multiple assailants, attackers that have a distinct physical advantage over the victim, or attackers that have a tactical advantage (such as blocking off possible escape routes).

you absolutely need a gun to protect yourself when you're in a situation where you need a gun or you'll die. collateral damage be damned, i would hope that is the least of concerns vs surviving a life-threatening criminal/animal attack.

i want you to tell me without any sarcasm that the (now somewhat common) poor single mother living paycheck to paycheck in a bad part of town shouldn't need a gun because...? should she abandon her home? should she be reduced to using weapons that rely on physical prowess? perhaps just quietly accept her fate?

how about the young boy left alone at home when some thugs break in looking to steal valuables, seeing a witness, now seek to overpower or kidnap or otherwise harm him? is his father's revolver inappropriate?

or the old woman who lives alone with 20 cats and a drug addict accosts her at the car park for her pain medication for it's opiate content. he has a knife and youth and the promise of drugs on his side. is Granny supposed to trust he'll understand and leave her be when she says she has no pain meds to give him? perhaps he gets very angry and vengeful. what then?

But what's hysterical is that, in the U.S, it's considered a human right to have guns, but not healthcare. This is evident of the obviously polluted political environment we operate in, created by the cronyism and incompetence of Reagan, fostered by the NRA, Bush and Trump, and delivered by the modern plutocrat.

i'm barely going to address this other than to say that the human right to bear arms is a recognized human right that our federal government both recognizes and is proscribed from infringing upon it.

it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, which is why there is no healthcare provisions in it. further, healthcare in the US consists largely of elective coverage for those who've paid employment taxes, or received it as an employment benefit (some 70%+ have one of these two), emergency life saving care (free for anyone at any federally funded hospital or clinic), or mandatory coverage (which is the terrible part of the ACA where if you do not purchase a plan from the state insurance market you are penalized for it to the tune of several hundred dollars).

the 20-odd percent of the uninsured either elect to have no coverage (a tiny percent) or are prioritizing their money towards food and rent and heat and clothes. they are the working poor, and this is another topic entirely. people in the US largely do not feel like paying higher taxes to support universal healthcare.

the NRA has little to nothing to do with healthcare other than opposing legislation that would involve beneficiaries from considering gun ownership as a healthcare topic.

Finally, do you think the government wouldn't use force against an insurgency? You're peddling a cherry-picked insurrection where civilians are on equal footing with the military. This isn't some tweenage distopian novel. The government, if rebelled against, will use all available force to quell it, especially with our current administration.

our government will fob it off largely on police forces with increasing federal presence until martial law is declared, upon which it would be too late to stop a budding insurgency.

in any case it's clear to me that no petty words of mine are reasonable for you on this topic, so let me ask you a question: what value is your life if you cannot defend it from attacks that seek to end it? what value is there in possessions if someone can easily force you to give them over?

 

[Antipathy]

not always, and there are no statistics to really bank on one way or the other. most people i know who maintain a firearm for security do not keep it in a safe when they are home - it is in a position to be readily retrieved and used.

isn't it funny that in every other country with strong gun control, they have very little in common with the US in terms of size, a lack of homogeneous population, and the massive wealth and opportunity divide that help drive crime along? the incredible gang violence between rival gangs accounts for nearly all gun crime. gun crime that results in homicides are exceptionally rare even with all the gang violence. more to it, those homicides tend to be other gang members, not random persons.

and once again, directly counter to your statement, my gun has saved me three times. when you are awakened from a violent break in you get an adrenaline dump that very very quickly alerts you and you fall back on any training you had to find and end the threat. persons who do not elect to practice and train are at a disadvantage here, but not much of one. you are not "half awake being shot five times". you hear breaking glass or a door being forced open, you awake, grab your firearm, and prepare to defend your self.


all gun control eventually leads to further and further restriction until confiscation. at least in the US, it's always been the end goal. and i should mention that you have a very poor grasp of US firearms laws and the reality of firearms in the US. i am a gun manufacturer and dealer.

1. automatic weapons are not legal for individual transfer if they were made after 1986. existing automatic weapons are legal to possess and transfer.

2. waiting periods do nothing for people who already have firearms, and the various waiting periods impact law-abiding gun owners, not criminals. for a criminal determined to do harm with a firearm, they often steal one or cajole someone else to buy it for them. your "solution" would encourage theft or using an expedient weapon if time was an issue.

3. how would you evaluate someone "mentally unsound"? gun dealers already veto people from buying arms that could get them in trouble, based on appearance, attitude, or poor knowledge of existing gun law. persons that were involuntarily committed cannot legally possess a firearm at all until their civil rights are restored. persons that have had an involuntary hold for evaluation have a few years on the same prohibited persons list that makes gun ownership verboten.

4. gun shows are regulated like any other venue. a dealer selling a gun there follows the same rules as anywhere else. i assume you means mandatory criminal background checks for private sales that occur between non-dealers. this is not currently possible as the legislation only allows dealers access to submit NICS queries. further, the federal government has no legal standing to regulate the sale of firearms between two private citizens within the same state, many states explicitly allow such transactions, and some states require a dealer for all transactions. how would it be enforced? wouldn't criminals steal or buy/sell firearms anyway? do you somehow think that a 90 day waiting period or a law requiring private sales to submit NICS queries would be laws that someone intending to commit a gun crime would follow?

5. how do you plan on limiting ammunition? ignoring the whole price aspect (smaller sales drive up prices); most ammunition is purchased in bulk as a cost savings measure. buying a smaller amount more frequently wouldn't do anything but be inconvenient for people that don't manufacture their own ammunition, or who buy from multiple sellers, or who already have a pile of ammunition, or (if you're a criminal) would be stealing or buying it off the books to begun with.

laws that effect people only effect them if they're willing to do so. as criminal weapons are obtained illegally in some fashion (usually theft), these sorts of laws are ineffective. the ammunition one would be annoying, but likewise ineffective.


violent crime has been declining for decades, despite any sort of gun control laws passed or not passed. there wasn't any sharp drop in crime in 1994, or in 1989, or in 1986, or in 1968, or in 1934. people tend to buy a gun to level the playing field against multiple assailants, attackers that have a distinct physical advantage over the victim, or attackers that have a tactical advantage (such as blocking off possible escape routes).

you absolutely need a gun to protect yourself when you're in a situation where you need a gun or you'll die. collateral damage be damned, i would hope that is the least of concerns vs surviving a life-threatening criminal/animal attack.

i want you to tell me without any sarcasm that the (now somewhat common) poor single mother living paycheck to paycheck in a bad part of town shouldn't need a gun because...? should she abandon her home? should she be reduced to using weapons that rely on physical prowess? perhaps just quietly accept her fate?

how about the young boy left alone at home when some thugs break in looking to steal valuables, seeing a witness, now seek to overpower or kidnap or otherwise harm him? is his father's revolver inappropriate?

or the old woman who lives alone with 20 cats and a drug addict accosts her at the car park for her pain medication for it's opiate content. he has a knife and youth and the promise of drugs on his side. is Granny supposed to trust he'll understand and leave her be when she says she has no pain meds to give him? perhaps he gets very angry and vengeful. what then?


i'm barely going to address this other than to say that the human right to bear arms is a recognized human right that our federal government both recognizes and is proscribed from infringing upon it.

it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, which is why there is no healthcare provisions in it. further, healthcare in the US consists largely of elective coverage for those who've paid employment taxes, or received it as an employment benefit (some 70%+ have one of these two), emergency life saving care (free for anyone at any federally funded hospital or clinic), or mandatory coverage (which is the terrible part of the ACA where if you do not purchase a plan from the state insurance market you are penalized for it to the tune of several hundred dollars).

the 20-odd percent of the uninsured either elect to have no coverage (a tiny percent) or are prioritizing their money towards food and rent and heat and clothes. they are the working poor, and this is another topic entirely. people in the US largely do not feel like paying higher taxes to support universal healthcare.

the NRA has little to nothing to do with healthcare other than opposing legislation that would involve beneficiaries from considering gun ownership as a healthcare topic.


our government will fob it off largely on police forces with increasing federal presence until martial law is declared, upon which it would be too late to stop a budding insurgency.

in any case it's clear to me that no petty words of mine are reasonable for you on this topic, so let me ask you a question: what value is your life if you cannot defend it from attacks that seek to end it? what value is there in possessions if someone can easily force you to give them over?

I noticed that in none of those scenes, you never described a criminal with a gun, attempting to force the "guns = safe" narrative. As if an old woman or small child could realistically aim and fire a gun as it is. And moreover, there are ways to defend yourself without a firearm. I'm physically fit and have been in a couple of fights, so it's not implausible to assume I could overpower someone, if I hit fast and hard enough. You're trying to force the issue by giving idealized scenarios, so allow me to reciprocate.

So an old woman's carrying a revolver in her purse and a mugger accosts her, trying to get her pain meds. She reaches into her purse, and the instant the mugger realizes she's armed, he shoots her in the head, and takes her purse.

A small child is at home and someone breaks in. Grabbing his father's revolver, the child attempts to kill the mugger, and misses, twisting his wrist out of alignment. The mugger's return fire quickly ends his life. Guns aren't a safety net, and the more guns there are, the more will fall into criminal hands.

 

[Pikimon]

I think an important distinction should be made between urban/suburban gun usage and rural gun usage, rural people use guns for hunting and keeping shit off their property while urban/suburban people use guns for protection and entertainment.

I also believe that gun violence in the USA is the product of hundreds of little failures that add up into one giant shitfest (poverty, lack of education, shitty mental health services, lack of screening, speds buying guns without knowing how to store and maintain them) since Canada, which has similar gun-ownership rates and similar culture does not experience the same amount of gun violence that here in the USA.

 

[ICametoLurk]

There would no need for any of this if people only had wooden spears.

 

[WateredDownInk]

I'm in the "ban semi autos" crowd. Or at the very least have heavier restrictions on them - and have parents be more responsible about their guns and keeping them out of others hands, cause apparently they're not doing a very good job if their kid can just pluck it up and go off to shoot up a school without much problem. Or the idiot parents who leave their guns lying around waiting for their little kid to pick up and shoot themselves in the head.

I don't care if you have a hunting rifle or a pistol, but semi autos scare me a bit with how they can be modified to imitate a full auto. Their range and fire power is not something I'd want to come across on campus.

 

[Coconut Gun]

Their range and fire power is not something I'd want to come across on campus.

I don't understand how a gun being semi-automatic or full-auto increases its range, and I'm not sure what you mean by fire power. Semi-automatic means that another bullet is loaded into the chamber after the first one is fired, without the shooter having to do anything except squeeze the trigger again to fire the next round. Automatic means that bullets keep flying as long as the trigger is held down. Also, both hunting rifles and pistols can be semi-auto. Did you mean to say bolt action rifles and revolvers?

Also, nice necro, fag.

 

[WateredDownInk]

I don't understand how a gun being semi-automatic or full-auto increases its range, and I'm not sure what you mean by fire power. Semi-automatic means that another bullet is loaded into the chamber after the first one is fired, without the shooter having to do anything except squeeze the trigger again to fire the next round. Automatic means that bullets keep flying as long as the trigger is held down. Also, both hunting rifles and pistols can be semi-auto. Did you mean to say bolt action rifles and revolvers?

Also, nice necro, fag.

I guess maybe I should've said "how fast can this thing shoot out bullets" instead of fire power - I can't think of the right words when I'm groggy in the morning, hah. And as for range - thinking from my tired brain's logic this morning, judging by that crazy ass Las Vegas dude, just doing a (poor) spray fire over that giant crowd from a higher vantage point, even if he was kind of a poor shot he still managed to get people. I'm not sure if you could still have the same kind of shots with a pistol from up high like that? He shot from a long distance away from the crowd.

Spoiler: Gun gun bomb - the new duck duck goose

little psychotic school kids looking to shoot up their schools with guns like AR15s have really soured my taste on what could just be a fun gun to shoot at range targets or rotten pumpkins with. :powerlevel::powerlevel::powerlevel:Not to mention someone threatened to shoot up the last job I used to work at, several bomb threats (one bitch was bitter over a break up and thought bombs was the way to go)over the past years and some idiot firing a gun over a stupid argument disturbingly close to where I am (just naming a few incidents for reference), I'm just slowly developing a more negative view of weapons in general. Not that all should be banned, but dang, at least teach people to handle them more responsibly so they don't get into irresponsible people's hands. Sorry for super into personal dangers of mah lyfe, but that's what's shaping my current opinions on guns.:powerlevel::powerlevel::powerlevel: )

Also, necro? (I'm still tired as fuck from lack of sleep, so maybe this is an obvious thing my brain can't process right now. My brain is frying like an egg on a hot summer day.)

 

[Maxliam]

I guess maybe I should've said "how fast can this thing shoot out bullets" instead of fire power - I can't think of the right words when I'm groggy in the morning, hah. And as for range - thinking from my tired brain's logic this morning, judging by that crazy ass Las Vegas dude, just doing a (poor) spray fire over that giant crowd from a higher vantage point, even if he was kind of a poor shot he still managed to get people. I'm not sure if you could still have the same kind of shots with a pistol from up high like that? He shot from a long distance away from the crowd.

Spoiler: Gun gun bomb - the new duck duck goose

little psychotic school kids looking to shoot up their schools with guns like AR15s have really soured my taste on what could just be a fun gun to shoot at range targets or rotten pumpkins with. :powerlevel::powerlevel::powerlevel:Not to mention someone threatened to shoot up the last job I used to work at, several bomb threats (one bitch was bitter over a break up and thought bombs was the way to go)over the past years and some idiot firing a gun over a stupid argument disturbingly close to where I am (just naming a few incidents for reference), I'm just slowly developing a more negative view of weapons in general. Not that all should be banned, but dang, at least teach people to handle them more responsibly so they don't get into irresponsible people's hands. Sorry for super into personal dangers of mah lyfe, but that's what's shaping my current opinions on guns.:powerlevel::powerlevel::powerlevel: )

Also, necro? (I'm still tired as fuck from lack of sleep, so maybe this is an obvious thing my brain can't process right now. My brain is frying like an egg on a hot summer day.)

So because some idiots with guns have hurt others, it's time to scrap all guns or the ones that are "scary"? That's like banning cars becuase idiots do stupid things with them (which by the way kill more people than guns do) or because of some personal anecdotes from someone online.

Charles Whitman killed about 20 people with a bolt action rifle in the UT clock tower. What helped keep that death toll lower than what it could have been was people retrieved guns from their car and started firing back at him.

Cho killed 32 people at Vtech with handguns and the liberal friendly 10 round magazines.

Honestly it's not so much the weapon it's the skill of the user. Whitman was a Marine who was really, really really prepared for his attack. The amount of shit he brought up to that tower really shows how much of a Marine he was.

The sawed-off shotgun was also a federal gun law violation. It's almost like criminals don't obey the laws that only prevent law-abiding citizens from owning something in such an arbitrary fashoin.

Look at the recent bombings that happened here in Austin. Do you think that means there should be cameras everywhere so you have to be watched for your safety a la' 1984?

 

[WateredDownInk]

Sorry about the rant from earlier - I had a (thankfully rare) paranoid episode while sick (pretty good combo there - helps with judgement and thinking process, haha), so I babbled a lot. Still not a huge fan of guns outside of shooting them at the range at fun shit. You can't really stop adults from buying guns legally without more restrictions , but you can prevent blood hungry kids from grabbing your stash of rifles, ya know?

 

[Nihilist Lord]

I think they are a tool that has to be used with responsability. I´m not gonna say just NO to guns, but I think that sometimes it can be a high risk to let people have them in some places as the university campus, high schools...

I agree with the fact that guns are to protect us but some people are dumb and use them like a toy.

 

[A Hotdog]

Guns for sport and hunting is fine, maybe for self defense. But you don't need a fucking AR-15 for home defense. How unwieldy is that gonna be. Dude is gonna fumble in the dark wielding a long rifle while some undesirable gentlemen are going through your house.

 

[Maxliam]

Guns for sport and hunting is fine, maybe for self defense. But you don't need a fucking AR-15 for home defense. How unwieldy is that gonna be. Dude is gonna fumble in the dark wielding a long rifle while some undesirable gentlemen are going through your house.

That's how I know you don't know shit about guns. I did MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain, aka fighting in buildings) training in the Army with an M16A4 which is a full length M16, not a shorter, more manevuerable M4. You can clear rooms with it just fine. And what if you live out in the country and you need to protect yourself from say coyotes or a cougar? One size fits all doesn't work in self-defense.

That and the 2nd Amendment was about resisting all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[GethN7]

Any gun is just, by itself, a tool, devoid of good or evil intent.

The intent comes from those who operate them.

Given their tendency to be used by those of evil intent, I support some measure of regulation of such items as determined by law, but I do not support their being taken away from everyone because that unreasonably punishes those who have every intention of using them for sane, lawful purposes.

 

[A Hotdog]

That's how I know you don't know shit about guns. I did MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain, aka fighting in buildings) training in the Army with an M16A4 which is a full length M16, not a shorter, more manevuerable M4. You can clear rooms with it just fine. And what if you live out in the country and you need to protect yourself from say coyotes or a cougar? One size fits all doesn't work in self-defense.

That and the 2nd Amendment was about resisting all enemies, foreign and domestic.

My guy, You aren't gonna tell me you would be in bed with your wife, you spring up into action grabbing your assault rifle from under your pillow like some soldier clearing rooms.

Sure, maybe for people with military service experience that might be a thing, but for average Joe it's not very realistic.

 

[Edge_Beta]

My guy, You aren't gonna tell me you would be in bed with your wife, you spring up into action grabbing your assault rifle from under your pillow like some soldier clearing rooms.

Sure, maybe for people with military service experience that might be a thing, but for average Joe it's not very realistic.

Agreed. The avg joe is more likely to shoot himself, or his wife, than a perp.

 

[OB 946]

Served infantry? Sounds like this: What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

All joking aside however, a responsible gun owner keeps his gun in a safe, where, in the event of an emergency, he cannot reach it quickly. Were you paying attention to the argument that, if someone is responsibly owning a gun, they cannot bring it to bear quickly enough to defend themselves? And isn't funny that in every country that exercises gun control, almost all of them have lower gun crime rates than the U.S? Go ahead and keep your gun in the open. It won't save you when you're half awake and you've been shot five times already by someone entering your house, maybe with your own gun.

And I never said a damn thing about confiscation. I said to cease the manufacture and sale of automatic weaponry for civilians in the U.S, have a 90-day waiting period for gun purchase, not allow the mentally unsound or felons to own firearms, regulate gun shows, and, ideally, have a limit to how much ammunition someone can purchase at any given time. Want to have a rifle? Go right on ahead. All it'll do is take time to get.

If someone's being such a cuck to where they need a big phallic object to protect them from the boogeyman, and they need it now, I don't understand the point. Violent crime has been declining as it is, for at least ten years. You don't need a gun to protect yourself, and you'll cause collateral damage.

But what's hysterical is that, in the U.S, it's considered a human right to have guns, but not healthcare. This is evident of the obviously polluted political environment we operate in, created by the cronyism and incompetence of Reagan, fostered by the NRA, Bush and Trump, and delivered by the modern plutocrat.

Finally, do you think the government wouldn't use force against an insurgency? You're peddling a cherry-picked insurrection where civilians are on equal footing with the military. This isn't some tweenage distopian novel. The government, if rebelled against, will use all available force to quell it, especially with our current administration.

The OPFOR scenarios I've seen for my state specifically put a manpower loss of guard and police units at over 80% for a 12 month period in the event of an insurgency with a wide conservative base of support, I am not aware of an OPFOR scenario for a leftwing militia confronting the state government, probably because there is not a significant enough of a threat, and detailed OPFOR scenarios take an absurd amount of time, effort, planning, and manpower. Note: I am not on the OPFOR planning team, I'm just on the email list. That 80% number is mainly defections. That is what is going to really fuck you, defections. Not just people that leave either, those guys are bad, but the real threat is the large number that are expected to remain in their positions while feeding information and equipment to the OPFOR. Do you have any idea how fragile the military CnC structure in the US really is? There is one artillery base in the US. There are 7 facilities with SF units stationed at them in the US. There are 3 bases with AWACS stationed at them. All of those bases are in or very near major metro areas with sizable populations. How hard is it for someone to make an IRA mortar van, park on a city street 1200m away from the flight line, sling a half dozen mortars into it, and drive away, causing millions in damage and months in repairs? It isn't. How hard is it to just start popping family members of people that work on base until people start thinking that "hey, maybe supporting this regime was a bad idea?" The US government is woefully unprepared to face an insurgency with any wide base of support. They do not have the logistics capacity, the manpower, or the willpower to fight such a conflict. I would also assume that particular widely available "seditious materials" (see: anything by Uncle Fester), would also ensure that copious amounts of nerve agents, poison gasses, and IED/EFPs would be used to a wide degree against regime forces, probably with an impressive degree of success. Things like Sarin or even VX are relatively easy to make by an experienced backyard chemist. EFPs capable of penetrating tanks are even easier to make, taking only some high explosive and a copper plate inside a flowerpot.

My personal opinion is that the state would do anything and everything possible to avoid a civil conflict because of these reasons. I don't feel as though any state entity is prepared to push past that red line, regardless of political affiliation. It is also my opinion that any form of widespread civil conflict in the US would be the end of widespread organized society in the US, and that the standard of living would plummet, and likely wouldn't recover to prewar levels for decades, or up to a century. I also believe that there are people significantly higher on the foodchain than myself that keeps their finger on the pulse of things like this, and are aware of just how far they can push without toppling the house of cards. Again, the bureaucracy is extremely large, and the tendrils extremely deep. Everyone plays a part, down to the letter carriers. Not in like a spooky deep state way, but everyone is getting fed information from everywhere. It's pretty cool, in a way. In fact, this overwhelming amount of information and lack of analysts is actually what causes things like Parkland, where they had all of the information available, and nobody to analyze the lead to see if it was a credible threat. That happens more than anyone will admit.

Anyway, I digress, the point is that the government fighting their own people here is absolute suicide. That being said my personal opinion is that America was meant to be free, not safe, so I really couldn't give two fucks. Let people own guns, let people carry them, who gives a shit? Don't take life too seriously, nobody makes it out alive anyway. It's just a shitty joke with an even worse punchline.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Sure, maybe for people with military service experience that might be a thing, but for average Joe it's not very realistic.

Have you shot one? I have as a civilian. ARs are are slick little carbines. The control you have versus a pistol is much greater. Greater control means better aim. Better aim means being more likely to hit your target. These aren't big clunky SKSs or grandpappy's scattergun. You can put more of the lead where you want to regardless of your training.

And if you are pulling a gun out of the safe to confront that which goes bump in the night, you might as well grab the best gun you have.

 

[OB 946]

Have you shot one? I have as a civilian. ARs are are slick little carbines. The control you have versus a pistol is much greater. Greater control means better aim. Better aim means being more likely to hit your target. These aren't big clunky SKSs or grandpappy's scattergun. You can put more of the lead where you want to regardless of your training.

And if you are pulling a gun out of the safe to confront that which goes bump in the night, you might as well grab the best gun you have.

Personally I have a cheap Ruger as my nightstand gun, because I'll be damned if I'm going to let my Sig sit in an evidence locker for 6 months.