Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Addressing Gun Control

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 6:29:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In lieu of the recent shootings (2012 and up), and of course the various shootings of the past 20 years, i'd like to take some time discussing what people think of guns and gun control in the United States. There is a clear divide among Americans when a mass shooting happens, and when every one of these events happens, the American's zeal dramatically shoots up in defense of their viewpoint. In essence, with every new shooting, the country becomes more divided, and it unfortunately leads to political stagnation, which, as we all know, isn't solving the problem.

I think it is sad that this divide is keeping Americans from progressing. It is certainly clear that the status quo needs to change, and therefore I think it is imperative that Americans and American politicians alike yield their differences so as to promote cooperative change. We all hold viewpoints, some of which are clearly distinct, and others which are relatively the same, albeit perhaps with some minor differences. These differences are the source of our gridlock, or more so it is our deep-rooted, unmoving faith in these differences.

We have to be able to move beyond this and take chances. By chances, I mean doing trials; we cannot just leave this issue face the test of time and expect things to just "work out." So, even though we might feel strongly about exactly how much gun control there should be in America, I it is in the general public's interest to put to work the different methods sought. Yeah, I know it's obvious that we can't simply "try this and that," because it takes a lot of time,effort, and resources. But, really, that's just an excuse meant to prolong the already stagnant issue at hand. If not now, when?

So, how do we curb these instances of gun violence? Stricter gun laws? Less or no gun laws? Is there another cultural aspect(s) that needs to be addressed? If so, what is it?

On to what I think should be done. I want stricter gun laws, but I don't want to ban guns all together. It is our right to own these weapons and it is in humanity's interest to be able to be responsible, compassionate, and respectful beings. Banning guns is synonymous to being distrustful with each other, and ourselves. Also, I do believe guns can and should be used in self-defense. Anyone who is willing to use a gun to defend oneself better know how to use a gun proficiently. If you really want to guarantee your own security with a gun, getting an assault rifle, for example, is not needed. A pistol in the hands of a marksman, or one who has sufficient training with projectile weapons, is deadly and reliable enough to be used in self-defense. I deem ALL other guns unnecessary and label them illegal. Now, there is the exception of hunting for "game," or for sport. I condone this as well, leading me to accept single-shot rifles. To be honest, I don't know much of guns and all the different kinds. The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal. All weapons are meant to injure and/or kill. Some do it better, is all.

There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable. Your guns aren't going to stop the army's rule. You've got some guns with limited supply. They've got all the guns they could ask for, as well as tanks, helicopters, jets, nukes, and every other weapon you can think of. A mob of gun toting civilians isn't going to be able to do anything against the so-called "tyrannical government."

The slippery slope argument where if we ban guns because they kill people ,we should ban knives, and then so on and so on, is wrong. The talk is all about guns because when you're faced with a gun, you cannot defend yourself, and you cannot run away. If you're facing a killer with a knife, you can survive multiple stabbings, you can fight back, and you can run away. Guns and knives are definitely NOT comparable in that sense.

Another general argument against guns is: if a gunman is assaulting you, do you actually think having your own gun at that time will be of any use? If you so much as move a finger he can simply pull the trigger. However, I will not deny that this is only situational; if you're not alone and there is someone else carrying a gun, s/he can easily save you and/or distract the gunman.

Guns simply exacerbate the incidents we hear on t.v. Yes, I believe that tighter gun control laws will lower the number of these incidents, but it surely will not stop them from happening. The issue is definitely a societal one, a cultural one. And, as subtly stated earlier in this OP, it is necessary to promote responsibility among parents and children, instilling compassion, respect, and loving-kindness to others. Yes, emotions surely get to people eventually, but proper upbringing is enough to counter any bad thoughts.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 9:08:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
While I support far more strict gun control laws (though some need to be loosened up, let's face it, it isn't a 1 dimensional scale of just more or less, the actual laws are significantly important as some are good and some are not), I have to say that the old adage of "gun don't kill people, people kill people," is very true. That is not to say that we need more guns at all. But the underlying issue is not with guns, but with Americans' fascination with them and our seemingly cultural belief that force and aggression are the solution to any problems you might face.

This underlying mindset (which cannot simply be banned or outlawed) is the real issue regardless of what gun control is implemented or laxed. And this issue is not something that can be solved over a few years. It is a generational mindset that will take decades to weed out, much like racism, sexism, and other hateful and violent mindsets.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LiberalLogic101
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 10:28:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do we curb these instances of gun violence?

There is a fundamental problem with our society as it is today that is causing it. The things that are causing it are varied, but I think each one is perfectly solvable. Obviously the first thing we have to accept is that, though our species is evolving faster than thought to be possible, societal change is gradual. It will probably be another century until racism is fairly obsolete, another until finally misogyny will die, and another before a gay couple can get married without the label "abomination". In the meantime, we have to take action that isn't optional.

Frankly I can't think of a reason that civilians need assault rifles. Much of the argument is that we need to be able to fight tyrants who are in power. This is a flawed argument... the government has so much more equipment than even the gun crazies in this debate that they would be crushed. Any rebellion that came to light in a world as such would be smushed before it even got off it's feet. Much of the population would become a part of the government's big controlling mass, similar to what happened under Hitler's regime. Assault rifles are not needed to hunt deer. People have hunted deer just fine for centuries, before guns existed. You know what they are good for? War and murder.

Background checks would cause many mass murderers to be blacklisted. Lives would be saved, everywhere you turn. They are not debatable. They are so necessary I can't believe anyone is against them. A system where you had to go to the police office and have someone run your history, so you could get a slip that allowed you to buy a gun would be of little inconvenience and will save lives.

A quick little seminar on gun safety would save many people whose stupidity kills them.

Stricter gun laws?

Yes.

No guns laws?

That seems right. Lets legalize rape, murder, use of every drug known to mankind... hell, lets legalize everything! That won't make society collapse into a downfall of fire in about five seconds.

Cultural aspects that need to be addressed?

Absolutely. Male superiority isn't helping, that's for sure. The idea that society owes these men something is driving them crazy, driving them to kill people. Elliot Rodgers was a misogynist who was absolutely rabid with anger over him not being able to get a woman. Not only that, but he was upset because he was under the impression that he deserved sex, that someone owed it to him. This aspect of society needs to be accepted and addressed.

Second, mental illness is underfunded, under accepted, and under treated. Most everyone who has shot up someplace was mentally perturbed. Better mental health institutes, a system where civilians could report a person they believed to be a danger to society mentally, and have that civilian mandated to have psychological tested, etc., could absolutely reinvent our world.

I will return if I remember any other arguments.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:26:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
. By chances, I mean doing trials
Letting the government "Take chances" and "engage in experiments," unconstrained by principle, is how totalitarian regimes have always arisen.

Yeah, I know it's obvious that we can't simply "try this and that," because it takes a lot of time,effort, and resources
Resources such as the liberty of human beings.

If you really want to guarantee your own security with a gun, getting an assault rifle, for example, is not needed. A pistol in the hands of a marksman, or one who has sufficient training with projectile weapons, is deadly and reliable enough to be used in self-defense
An assault rifle is precisely the type of weapon MOST conducive to the security of a free people and LEAST conducive to criminality. A man who takes up an assault rifle has all eyes upon him-- as goes his impact on others, so goes the impact on him, for if he defends himself all know it, if he attacks an innocent all know and eliminate him, and wherever he walks, those who would do something that threatens him and others like him must stay their hand or know their death is imminent, unless they are numerous (i.e., probably not aggressors). While pistols should not be banned, they are concealed weapons, a criminal shoots someone and then hides it again, and even a law abiding person with a pistol does not provide nearly as much of a positive externality as one with a rifle. And a populace armed with pistols can never effectively resist a tyrant's gendarmes armed with rifles.

The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal.
The basic weapon of the American nation is and always has been the infantryman's rifle.

There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable.
Please. Armed with little more than widespread assault rifles and improvised household explosives, Iraqis, who could be subjected to strategic bombing, maintained a counterinsurgency against the US military for a decade. Americans can do no less, especially when the US cannot strategically bomb its own cities.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:29:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 10:28:29 PM, LiberalLogic101 wrote:
How do we curb these instances of gun violence?

There is a fundamental problem with our society as it is today that is causing it. The things that are causing it are varied, but I think each one is perfectly solvable. Obviously the first thing we have to accept is that, though our species is evolving faster than thought to be possible, societal change is gradual. It will probably be another century until racism is fairly obsolete, another until finally misogyny will die, and another before a gay couple can get married without the label "abomination". In the meantime, we have to take action that isn't optional.

Frankly I can't think of a reason that civilians need assault rifles. Much of the argument is that we need to be able to fight tyrants who are in power. This is a flawed argument... the government has so much more equipment than even the gun crazies in this debate that they would be crushed. Any rebellion that came to light in a world as such would be smushed before it even got off it's feet. Much of the population would become a part of the government's big controlling mass, similar to what happened under Hitler's regime. Assault rifles are not needed to hunt deer. People have hunted deer just fine for centuries, before guns existed. You know what they are good for? War and murder.

The vast majority of murders are performed with handguns, not rifles.

Background checks would cause many mass murderers to be blacklisted. Lives would be saved, everywhere you turn. They are not debatable. They are so necessary I can't believe anyone is against them. A system where you had to go to the police office and have someone run your history, so you could get a slip that allowed you to buy a gun would be of little inconvenience and will save lives.

There already are background checks, thanks to the Brady Bill.

A quick little seminar on gun safety would save many people whose stupidity kills them.

Stricter gun laws?

Yes.

No guns laws?

That seems right. Lets legalize rape, murder, use of every drug known to mankind... hell, lets legalize everything! That won't make society collapse into a downfall of fire in about five seconds.

Nobody is arguing for no gun laws.

Cultural aspects that need to be addressed?

Absolutely. Male superiority isn't helping, that's for sure. The idea that society owes these men something is driving them crazy, driving them to kill people. Elliot Rodgers was a misogynist who was absolutely rabid with anger over him not being able to get a woman. Not only that, but he was upset because he was under the impression that he deserved sex, that someone owed it to him. This aspect of society needs to be accepted and addressed.

Half of Roger's victims were men, and he killed as many people with a knife as a gun. He also struck people with his car.

Second, mental illness is underfunded, under accepted, and under treated. Most everyone who has shot up someplace was mentally perturbed. Better mental health institutes, a system where civilians could report a person they believed to be a danger to society mentally, and have that civilian mandated to have psychological tested, etc., could absolutely reinvent our world.

I will return if I remember any other arguments.
Mr_Soundboard
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 5:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not an American but I know a little about American gun laws but what is most shocking is how lax they are.

There was a great documentary, with an undercover British reporter who traveled to the US and to cut a long story short, managed to buy weapons, some serious fire arms in fact, without the show of ID or license or any such documentations. All of this was done at gun fairs up and down the country. This was absolutely ridiculous, why aren't these laws regulated as strictly as say, accidentally littering, something which I was guilty of and had an entire squad of police officers on me in a second lol
"Conscience is universal, the ability to adhere to that moral thought is not"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 3:00:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 5:20:35 PM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
I'm not an American but I know a little about American gun laws but what is most shocking is how lax they are.

There was a great documentary, with an undercover British reporter who traveled to the US and to cut a long story short, managed to buy weapons, some serious fire arms in fact, without the show of ID or license or any such documentations. All of this was done at gun fairs up and down the country. This was absolutely ridiculous, why aren't these laws regulated as strictly as say, accidentally littering, something which I was guilty of and had an entire squad of police officers on me in a second lol

Actually, there are a few problems with that movie.

1) Very few criminals get weapons from gun shows, rather they get them as gifts, from friends, or often times through normal gun shops with legal ID and background checks (generally for first offenders, and in fact background checks actually stop more innocent people from getting guns then bad guys)
2) It is actually illegal for gun shows to do that. They are required to run a background check and see legal ID. People who don't are actually committing a felony.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 10:59:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 6:29:18 PM, ben2974 wrote:
...There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable....."

The slippery slope argument where if we ban guns because they kill people ,we should ban knives, and then so on and so on, is wrong...

Another general argument against guns is: if a gunman is assaulting you, do you actually think having your own gun at that time will be of any use? If you so much as move a finger he can simply pull the trigger. However, I will not deny that this is only situational; if you're not alone and there is someone else carrying a gun, s/he can easily save you and/or distract the gunman...

A lot of things the military has are available to John Q. Public, even if not affordable. I think a very large and often forgot about point to "Citizens with guns vs the Military" is that the Military is made up of -- citizens.

Often times just having a gun will deter any would-be criminal from targeting you, assuming they know you have one.

I don't think we should ban guns, however, even if we did ban guns it would only make it harder to get them, and criminals with guns would certainly prefer unarmed victims.

If people were breaking into your house intent on doing you and your family harm -- would you want to have a gun? I would. I would take a gun over a phone any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Mr_Soundboard
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 6:05:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:00:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/21/2014 5:20:35 PM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
I'm not an American but I know a little about American gun laws but what is most shocking is how lax they are.

There was a great documentary, with an undercover British reporter who traveled to the US and to cut a long story short, managed to buy weapons, some serious fire arms in fact, without the show of ID or license or any such documentations. All of this was done at gun fairs up and down the country. This was absolutely ridiculous, why aren't these laws regulated as strictly as say, accidentally littering, something which I was guilty of and had an entire squad of police officers on me in a second lol

Actually, there are a few problems with that movie.

1) Very few criminals get weapons from gun shows, rather they get them as gifts, from friends, or often times through normal gun shops with legal ID and background checks (generally for first offenders, and in fact background checks actually stop more innocent people from getting guns then bad guys)
2) It is actually illegal for gun shows to do that. They are required to run a background check and see legal ID. People who don't are actually committing a felony.

You're telling me what SHOULD happen, the program showed us the reality. The laws are too easily broken with minimal consequences because who will report? The person buying the gun? No. The person selling? No. Other people at the show? NO.

The biggest issue I believe is this inherent attitude that Americans have towards guns and their belief that they have a right to possess increasingly dangerous weapons. Even with the horrendous attacks on children and innocent people multiple times a year, there's a movement that says gun laws are ok...that I will never understand.
"Conscience is universal, the ability to adhere to that moral thought is not"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:33:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 6:05:49 AM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
At 6/22/2014 3:00:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/21/2014 5:20:35 PM, Mr_Soundboard wrote:
I'm not an American but I know a little about American gun laws but what is most shocking is how lax they are.

There was a great documentary, with an undercover British reporter who traveled to the US and to cut a long story short, managed to buy weapons, some serious fire arms in fact, without the show of ID or license or any such documentations. All of this was done at gun fairs up and down the country. This was absolutely ridiculous, why aren't these laws regulated as strictly as say, accidentally littering, something which I was guilty of and had an entire squad of police officers on me in a second lol

Actually, there are a few problems with that movie.

1) Very few criminals get weapons from gun shows, rather they get them as gifts, from friends, or often times through normal gun shops with legal ID and background checks (generally for first offenders, and in fact background checks actually stop more innocent people from getting guns then bad guys)
2) It is actually illegal for gun shows to do that. They are required to run a background check and see legal ID. People who don't are actually committing a felony.

You're telling me what SHOULD happen, the program showed us the reality. The laws are too easily broken with minimal consequences because who will report? The person buying the gun? No. The person selling? No. Other people at the show? NO.

You still didn't address the fact that virtually none of the violent crime offenders use guns which they obtained through a gun show, which means increasing restrictions on a gun show would have, at best, little effect on crime. It has been demonstrated that reducing gun shows significantly reduces gun ownership, for those who use firearms for defense, and this leads to a slight increase in crime (Lott 2002, Lott 2010).

If you go to page 32, you see that actually 92% of firearms in crime have been obtained in a black market, and that less than 1% of firearms are obtained in a gun show (http://www.gunfacts.info...).

The biggest issue I believe is this inherent attitude that Americans have towards guns and their belief that they have a right to possess increasingly dangerous weapons. Even with the horrendous attacks on children and innocent people multiple times a year, there's a movement that says gun laws are ok...that I will never understand.

The question is what is 'more dangerous'. The second amendment was created so that citizens would be able to a) defend themselves and b) to be able to combat government infringements on liberty. Whilst it is obvious that citizens should not be able to own a tank, for example, the 'more dangerous' weapons are needed in order to fulfill part b. Multiple state supreme courts have resulted in rulings which make assault weapons bans illegal, based on the fact that if you apply the 2nd amendment to today's world, in order to fulfill its principles, people need to have these 'assault' weapons.

But assault weapons are not 'more dangerous' to anyone who knows anything about guns. They are merely more scary looking versions of other semi-automatic rifles. They function exactly the same. Further, most 'assault weapons' in this country are of the AR platform. Although the AR has many calibers, it is most often .223, which is almost the same width as a .22 rifle (what kids use), with more gunpowder essentially. An M1-Garand, which was the military rifle used in WWII was a 30 caliber, much more dangerous than the current military weapons. Someone may say the smaller bullet = higher capacity, which in a way does make the weapon 'dangerous'. But it also makes the weapon better for defensive use. The military uses 'assault' weapons for a reason: they are, all around, effective. This means that even if they are 'better' at killing, they are also better at defending citizens. Therefore, one must weigh the effects, which is more pronounced: the killing effect, or the defensive effect (as well as deterrence). All the literature points to one end: assault weapons bans have no effect on overall crime, and in some cases, increase homicide rates.

-> 1.3 percent of violent crime was perpetrated by assault weapons, making a ban likely insignificant
-> When assault weapons were put on the black market due to the ban, the price increased. They actually estimate that production of assault weapons increased illegally, instead of decreasing
-> The Brady Campaign often points to a decrease in crime due to assault weapons, but as assault weapons were rarely used in crime, a small change leads to a huge statistical change, making it statistically irrelevant and insignificant
See page 4: http://www.gunfacts.info...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:35:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 6:29:18 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Also, I do believe guns can and should be used in self-defense. Anyone who is willing to use a gun to defend oneself better know how to use a gun proficiently. If you really want to guarantee your own security with a gun, getting an assault rifle, for example, is not needed. A pistol in the hands of a marksman, or one who has sufficient training with projectile weapons, is deadly and reliable enough to be used in self-defense. I deem ALL other guns unnecessary and label them illegal. Now, there is the exception of hunting for "game," or for sport. I condone this as well, leading me to accept single-shot rifles. To be honest, I don't know much of guns and all the different kinds. The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal. All weapons are meant to injure and/or kill. Some do it better, is all.

There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable. Your guns aren't going to stop the army's rule. You've got some guns with limited supply. They've got all the guns they could ask for, as well as tanks, helicopters, jets, nukes, and every other weapon you can think of. A mob of gun toting civilians isn't going to be able to do anything against the so-called "tyrannical government."

The slippery slope argument where if we ban guns because they kill people ,we should ban knives, and then so on and so on, is wrong. The talk is all about guns because when you're faced with a gun, you cannot defend yourself, and you cannot run away. If you're facing a killer with a knife, you can survive multiple stabbings, you can fight back, and you can run away. Guns and knives are definitely NOT comparable in that sense.

Another general argument against guns is: if a gunman is assaulting you, do you actually think having your own gun at that time will be of any use? If you so much as move a finger he can simply pull the trigger. However, I will not deny that this is only situational; if you're not alone and there is someone else carrying a gun, s/he can easily save you and/or distract the gunman.

Guns simply exacerbate the incidents we hear on t.v. Yes, I believe that tighter gun control laws will lower the number of these incidents, but it surely will not stop them from happening. The issue is definitely a societal one, a cultural one. And, as subtly stated earlier in this OP, it is necessary to promote responsibility among parents and children, instilling compassion, respect, and loving-kindness to others. Yes, emotions surely get to people eventually, but proper upbringing is enough to counter any bad thoughts.

If you knew anything about violence in general, and you wanted to decrease it by banning an inanimate object, you would have better luck banning handguns. They're used in far more crime than any rifle. Period. Mass shootings included. You also seem to have failed simple high school history. The Viet-Cong, Taliban and Al-Qaida have been very successful at whipping our military's rear with just rifle and improvised explosives. I would argue the "pulling a gun on a gunman" argument, but that would delve too deeply into tactics you don't understand.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 1:55:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:35:28 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 6/11/2014 6:29:18 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Also, I do believe guns can and should be used in self-defense. Anyone who is willing to use a gun to defend oneself better know how to use a gun proficiently. If you really want to guarantee your own security with a gun, getting an assault rifle, for example, is not needed. A pistol in the hands of a marksman, or one who has sufficient training with projectile weapons, is deadly and reliable enough to be used in self-defense. I deem ALL other guns unnecessary and label them illegal. Now, there is the exception of hunting for "game," or for sport. I condone this as well, leading me to accept single-shot rifles. To be honest, I don't know much of guns and all the different kinds. The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal. All weapons are meant to injure and/or kill. Some do it better, is all.

There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable. Your guns aren't going to stop the army's rule. You've got some guns with limited supply. They've got all the guns they could ask for, as well as tanks, helicopters, jets, nukes, and every other weapon you can think of. A mob of gun toting civilians isn't going to be able to do anything against the so-called "tyrannical government."

The slippery slope argument where if we ban guns because they kill people ,we should ban knives, and then so on and so on, is wrong. The talk is all about guns because when you're faced with a gun, you cannot defend yourself, and you cannot run away. If you're facing a killer with a knife, you can survive multiple stabbings, you can fight back, and you can run away. Guns and knives are definitely NOT comparable in that sense.

Another general argument against guns is: if a gunman is assaulting you, do you actually think having your own gun at that time will be of any use? If you so much as move a finger he can simply pull the trigger. However, I will not deny that this is only situational; if you're not alone and there is someone else carrying a gun, s/he can easily save you and/or distract the gunman.

Guns simply exacerbate the incidents we hear on t.v. Yes, I believe that tighter gun control laws will lower the number of these incidents, but it surely will not stop them from happening. The issue is definitely a societal one, a cultural one. And, as subtly stated earlier in this OP, it is necessary to promote responsibility among parents and children, instilling compassion, respect, and loving-kindness to others. Yes, emotions surely get to people eventually, but proper upbringing is enough to counter any bad thoughts.




If you knew anything about violence in general, and you wanted to decrease it by banning an inanimate object, you would have better luck banning handguns. They're used in far more crime than any rifle. Period. Mass shootings included. You also seem to have failed simple high school history. The Viet-Cong, Taliban and Al-Qaida have been very successful at whipping our military's rear with just rifle and improvised explosives. I would argue the "pulling a gun on a gunman" argument, but that would delve too deeply into tactics you don't understand.

But automatic guns aren't necessary for self protection. They can only do more harm. I don't want to ban guns. It just isn't necessary to be able to access excessively dangerous weaponry. Civilians may as well be able to own grenades, bombs, and tanks.

And, fyi, "simple high school history" doesn't delve into the nitty-gritty of wars, let alone the relatively recent wars of the second half of the 20th century. You also can't use these "foreign policing" maneuvers as evidence against the claim that a government can't defeat its own populace. An organized military such as the U.S with direct access to ample supplies will easily dominate its own grounds. Often times we see civil wars break out from the civilian side; these incidents result initially with the government simply trying to suppress the issue while not blowing it up even more. But what about when the government decides to impose its will from the start? This is where my knowledge of history fails me. Maybe you know of an event that I don't. I do know of the Brazilian military dictatorship from the 60s-80s, but i'm not sure that's exactly applicable here (not that it would help your case either way). Also, what is the chance that the US would even enter such a state anyway?

Tactics that I don't know of, sure. Understand? Try me.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 2:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 9:26:05 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
. By chances, I mean doing trials
Letting the government "Take chances" and "engage in experiments," unconstrained by principle, is how totalitarian regimes have always arisen.

Yeah, I know it's obvious that we can't simply "try this and that," because it takes a lot of time,effort, and resources
Resources such as the liberty of human beings.

We should just issue a referendum to get the ball rolling. Simple: the voters vote on a mix of choices for gun control (and social-reform as is relevant). The one with the most votes is put into action. No injustice here.


If you really want to guarantee your own security with a gun, getting an assault rifle, for example, is not needed. A pistol in the hands of a marksman, or one who has sufficient training with projectile weapons, is deadly and reliable enough to be used in self-defense
An assault rifle is precisely the type of weapon MOST conducive to the security of a free people and LEAST conducive to criminality. A man who takes up an assault rifle has all eyes upon him-- as goes his impact on others, so goes the impact on him, for if he defends himself all know it, if he attacks an innocent all know and eliminate him, and wherever he walks, those who would do something that threatens him and others like him must stay their hand or know their death is imminent, unless they are numerous (i.e., probably not aggressors). While pistols should not be banned, they are concealed weapons, a criminal shoots someone and then hides it again, and even a law abiding person with a pistol does not provide nearly as much of a positive externality as one with a rifle. And a populace armed with pistols can never effectively resist a tyrant's gendarmes armed with rifles.

Oh yeah, sure. Let's all carry M4s strapped on our backs while shopping for shoes at the local mall. I can sense the calm and peace already.

Once the perpetrator whips out his pistol in public, there won't be much to hide. I don't know what you're talking about.

Let's be real here, if the government turns against its people, there won't be much you can do with your neighborhood comrades and their little assault guns.


The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal.
The basic weapon of the American nation is and always has been the infantryman's rifle.

Come on now, you knew exactly what I meant by "basic."


There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable.
Please. Armed with little more than widespread assault rifles and improvised household explosives, Iraqis, who could be subjected to strategic bombing, maintained a counterinsurgency against the US military for a decade. Americans can do no less, especially when the US cannot strategically bomb its own cities.

This has to be wrong. Read the ]paragraph I posted before this one that was in response to another poster.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 10:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 1:55:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:35:28 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 6/11/2014 6:29:18 PM, ben2974 wrote:


But automatic guns aren't necessary for self protection. They can only do more harm. I don't want to ban guns. It just isn't necessary to be able to access excessively dangerous weaponry. Civilians may as well be able to own grenades, bombs, and tanks.

We don't have automatics. Everything is semi-automatic. I disagree, how can you claim that rifles do more harm when 99% of gun deaths are by handgun? There have been plenty of mass shootings that happened that didn't involve the use of a rifle. I personally would love to own a tank. I don't care if the gun functioned, but it'd be fun to drive one.

And, fyi, "simple high school history" doesn't delve into the nitty-gritty of wars, let alone the relatively recent wars of the second half of the 20th century. You also can't use these "foreign policing" maneuvers as evidence against the claim that a government can't defeat its own populace. An organized military such as the U.S with direct access to ample supplies will easily dominate its own grounds. Often times we see civil wars break out from the civilian side; these incidents result initially with the government simply trying to suppress the issue while not blowing it up even more. But what about when the government decides to impose its will from the start? This is where my knowledge of history fails me. Maybe you know of an event that I don't. I do know of the Brazilian military dictatorship from the 60s-80s, but i'm not sure that's exactly applicable here (not that it would help your case either way). Also, what is the chance that the US would even enter such a state anyway?

The U.S military would have the hardest time trying to overcome a homegrown militia for 2 reasons. 1. Collateral damage. 2. Americans are turning out to be a bunch of softies. As soon as the Marines start rolling in tanks and taking out entire city blocks trying to combat "the enemy", the media and "civilians" would start crying like infants.

Tactics that I don't know of, sure. Understand? Try me.
Know of is what I meant. My bad. It's wide-spread knowledge among those with firearms training that you never pull on a gunman when you have his direct attention. Or should I say, not immediately. At that point, you wait until you have a good time to draw and retaliate.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 10:22:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 6:29:18 PM, ben2974 wrote:
In lieu of the recent shootings (2012 and up), and of course the various shootings of the past 20 years, i'd like to take some time discussing what people think of guns and gun control in the United States. There is a clear divide among Americans when a mass shooting happens, and when every one of these events happens, the American's zeal dramatically shoots up in defense of their viewpoint. In essence, with every new shooting, the country becomes more divided, and it unfortunately leads to political stagnation, which, as we all know, isn't solving the problem.

I think it is sad that this divide is keeping Americans from progressing. It is certainly clear that the status quo needs to change, and therefore I think it is imperative that Americans and American politicians alike yield their differences so as to promote cooperative change. We all hold viewpoints, some of which are clearly distinct, and others which are relatively the same, albeit perhaps with some minor differences. These differences are the source of our gridlock, or more so it is our deep-rooted, unmoving faith in these differences.

We have to be able to move beyond this and take chances. By chances, I mean doing trials; we cannot just leave this issue face the test of time and expect things to just "work out." So, even though we might feel strongly about exactly how much gun control there should be in America, I it is in the general public's interest to put to work the different methods sought. Yeah, I know it's obvious that we can't simply "try this and that," because it takes a lot of time,effort, and resources. But, really, that's just an excuse meant to prolong the already stagnant issue at hand. If not now, when?

So, how do we curb these instances of gun violence? Stricter gun laws? Less or no gun laws? Is there another cultural aspect(s) that needs to be addressed? If so, what is it?



On to what I think should be done. I want stricter gun laws, but I don't want to ban guns all together. It is our right to own these weapons and it is in humanity's interest to be able to be responsible, compassionate, and respectful beings. Banning guns is synonymous to being distrustful with each other, and ourselves. Also, I do believe guns can and should be used in self-defense. Anyone who is willing to use a gun to defend oneself better know how to use a gun proficiently. If you really want to guarantee your own security with a gun, getting an assault rifle, for example, is not needed. A pistol in the hands of a marksman, or one who has sufficient training with projectile weapons, is deadly and reliable enough to be used in self-defense. I deem ALL other guns unnecessary and label them illegal. Now, there is the exception of hunting for "game," or for sport. I condone this as well, leading me to accept single-shot rifles. To be honest, I don't know much of guns and all the different kinds. The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal. All weapons are meant to injure and/or kill. Some do it better, is all.

There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable. Your guns aren't going to stop the army's rule. You've got some guns with limited supply. They've got all the guns they could ask for, as well as tanks, helicopters, jets, nukes, and every other weapon you can think of. A mob of gun toting civilians isn't going to be able to do anything against the so-called "tyrannical government."

The slippery slope argument where if we ban guns because they kill people ,we should ban knives, and then so on and so on, is wrong. The talk is all about guns because when you're faced with a gun, you cannot defend yourself, and you cannot run away. If you're facing a killer with a knife, you can survive multiple stabbings, you can fight back, and you can run away. Guns and knives are definitely NOT comparable in that sense.

Another general argument against guns is: if a gunman is assaulting you, do you actually think having your own gun at that time will be of any use? If you so much as move a finger he can simply pull the trigger. However, I will not deny that this is only situational; if you're not alone and there is someone else carrying a gun, s/he can easily save you and/or distract the gunman.

Guns simply exacerbate the incidents we hear on t.v. Yes, I believe that tighter gun control laws will lower the number of these incidents, but it surely will not stop them from happening. The issue is definitely a societal one, a cultural one. And, as subtly stated earlier in this OP, it is necessary to promote responsibility among parents and children, instilling compassion, respect, and loving-kindness to others. Yes, emotions surely get to people eventually, but proper upbringing is enough to counter any bad thoughts.

I think you're also underestimating just how well stocked people are with arms and munitions. You're also underestimating how easy it would be to get arms and munitions through black market means.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 10:46:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Guns simply exacerbate the incidents we hear on t.v.

This ignores the fact that in the vast majority of cases, guns are used for defensive purposes, not aggressive ones.

Yes, I believe that tighter gun control laws will lower the number of these incidents, but it surely will not stop them from happening.

This is incorrect. The vast majority of research shows that new gun control laws, at best, have no effect on the total amount of crime. In fact, there is a new wave of research (see, eg, http://www.law.harvard.edu...) which demonstrates that more guns in a society, not less, actually decrease crime.

Why is this the case?

Guns cause crime, its a fact. Guns are an excellent weapon to kill others with. At a basic glance, this seems to prove a gun controllers point: that guns need to be controlled. But upon further thinking, we see this is not the case. For if guns are so effective at killing, then this means they would be able to kill for good. They are excellent defensive tools. They make the playing field much more fair, especially for women and the elderly. And even children. Of the existing research, banning firearms has had little effect on the crime, demonstrating that there is no reason to actually restrict firearms from huge swaths of the population. So, does this deterent effect outweigh the brutalization effects?

Yes. See, for example, Kleck 1991; Kleck 1997; Kleck and Gertz 1995; Lott 2010. The fact is, guns are used in defense much more often they in offense. Which means the net effect is positive. One study noted, "much stronger individual-level evidence consistently supports the hypothesis that actual defensive uses of guns by victims "disrupt" criminal attempts, i.e. reduce the chances that the victim will be injured or lose property" http://saf.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 10:55:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Pretty thorough article here

http://publicsafetyproject.org...

Also my computer is being weird and wont open https sites, but I am pretty sure this is the study I am trying to cite (even though I cant load it... I am stuck using Bing because of this...)
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:38:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 2:08:34 PM, ben2974 wrote:
We should just issue a referendum to get the ball rolling. Simple: the voters vote on a mix of choices for gun control (and social-reform as is relevant). The one with the most votes is put into action. No injustice here.
I don't think you understand the concept of liberty or justice. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote whether to rape me, it's still gang rape. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote to disarm me, it still leaves me at your mercy.


Once the perpetrator whips out his pistol in public
Only the very stupidest criminals pull out their pistols with many witnesses around.

Let's be real here, if the government turns against its people, there won't be much you can do with your neighborhood comrades and their little assault guns.
I am being real. The only serious resistance to the US military in decades has been asymmetric-- people with little or no military training, a small amount of grassroots organization, cheap assault rifles that are common household goods in those societies, and improvised household explosives. Maybe an RPG here and there (which doubtless can be found squirreled away in various Montana basements).



The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal.
The basic weapon of the American nation is and always has been the infantryman's rifle.

Come on now, you knew exactly what I meant by "basic."
Apparently I didn't, because a handgun is definitely not a basic weapon. It's a specialized weapon that works less well as a weapon, making design compromises in favor of concealment and ease of carrying for someone who wants to carry a weapon every single day of their life.

There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable.
Please. Armed with little more than widespread assault rifles and improvised household explosives, Iraqis, who could be subjected to strategic bombing, maintained a counterinsurgency against the US military for a decade. Americans can do no less, especially when the US cannot strategically bomb its own cities.

This has to be wrong.
That's not an argument. And I don't care if it has to be, it's empirically true. It's recent history. Are you telling me you aren't aware of the Iraqi counterinsurgency this past decade? Are you telling me you aren't aware that, by contrast to this performance by everyday civilians with assault rifles and household chemicals, the Iraqi military one of the largest in the world at the time, complete with tanks and an air force collapsed with very little fight to the same opponent, most units surrendering on first contact?

The meme that the government need not fear an armed citizenry is ridiculous. An armed citizenry, capable of asymmetric warfare, is virtually the only threat on earth the US government can't crush immediately. This isn't merely hypothetical, you can ask any of the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers who saw it with their own eyes, who went to work every day wearing helmets, body armor, carrying rifles, with a convoy of tanks and APCs 15 minutes away, with a radio that could call in an air strike that would destroy any structure built in that country in the same fifteen minutes and kill everyone inside-- and yet, despite all this technology, saw many of their coworkers with the same advantages die. To an armed citizenry, unsupported by the trappings of a modern army.
Read the ]paragraph I posted before this one that was in response to another poster.
That's about as clear a pointer as mud.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:51:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It took a tyrannical president like Lincoln to win a Civil War with outrageous casualties on all sides.

Unless we get another Lincoln, the 2nd amendment keeps the country safe from domestic military abuse.
Jikpamu
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 11:37:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tyrants just love an unarmed populace...
Jikpamu: Conservative "Libertarian" Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian
I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion (particularly abortion).
I am for anything Jesus and the Bible : )
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 1:37:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:38:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/26/2014 2:08:34 PM, ben2974 wrote:
We should just issue a referendum to get the ball rolling. Simple: the voters vote on a mix of choices for gun control (and social-reform as is relevant). The one with the most votes is put into action. No injustice here.
I don't think you understand the concept of liberty or justice. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote whether to rape me, it's still gang rape. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote to disarm me, it still leaves me at your mercy.

I don't advocate a gunless society. I advocate less guns, less access to deadly weapons. It's in my OP, jeeze.



Once the perpetrator whips out his pistol in public
Only the very stupidest criminals pull out their pistols with many witnesses around.

So where do you pull the pistol if not in public? At the moment of the incident, the perpetrator will be seen or unseen, either way. What weapon the person decides to carry then is of no importance. Unless you can draw faster, as an unsuspecting victim no less, you surely won't be able to defend yourself in time.

Let's be real here, if the government turns against its people, there won't be much you can do with your neighborhood comrades and their little assault guns.
I am being real. The only serious resistance to the US military in decades has been asymmetric-- people with little or no military training, a small amount of grassroots organization, cheap assault rifles that are common household goods in those societies, and improvised household explosives. Maybe an RPG here and there (which doubtless can be found squirreled away in various Montana basements).

Wait, did I miss the American civil war of the 21st century?




The main idea here is that the more "basic" a gun is, the more I would accept the weapon as legal.
The basic weapon of the American nation is and always has been the infantryman's rifle.

Come on now, you knew exactly what I meant by "basic."
Apparently I didn't, because a handgun is definitely not a basic weapon. It's a specialized weapon that works less well as a weapon, making design compromises in favor of concealment and ease of carrying for someone who wants to carry a weapon every single day of their life.

Sounds like a good weapon for self-defense! Look at the George Zimmerman case, lol. It works both ways, wouldn't you say? You might argue that if George zimmerman was carrying an M4, and assuming trayvon attempted murder, that because Zimmerman was visibly wielding an M4, that Trayvon would not engage him. But, again, if Trayvon also had the M4 since he's allowed to do so, and he saw this suspicious guy walking in the rain and approaching him, who's to say trayvon wouldn't have simply pulled the trigger in fear (and spraying him to death with bullets), as he practically did without a gun? I mean hell, i'd freak the hell out if I saw a a sketchy guy WITH AN M4 walking towards me. Anyway, this adds to my other obvious problem that I noted earlier, which was how ridiculously impossible it would be to live in a society where everyone was carrying M4s on their person wherever they went. And if we were allowed, you wouldn't EVER want to be caught without one of them (an M4) in public. Because then you're truly screwed.

There is this bizarre notion that having the right to bear arms will allow American civilians to stave off a tyrannical government. That may have possibly been true 300 years ago when the military's arsenal was as basic as what an individual could arm oneself with, but today that is not applicable.
Please. Armed with little more than widespread assault rifles and improvised household explosives, Iraqis, who could be subjected to strategic bombing, maintained a counterinsurgency against the US military for a decade. Americans can do no less, especially when the US cannot strategically bomb its own cities.


This has to be wrong.
That's not an argument. And I don't care if it has to be, it's empirically true. It's recent history. Are you telling me you aren't aware of the Iraqi counterinsurgency this past decade? Are you telling me you aren't aware that, by contrast to this performance by everyday civilians with assault rifles and household chemicals, the Iraqi military one of the largest in the world at the time, complete with tanks and an air force collapsed with very little fight to the same opponent, most units surrendering on first contact?

The meme that the government need not fear an armed citizenry is ridiculous. An armed citizenry, capable of asymmetric warfare, is virtually the only threat on earth the US government can't crush immediately. This isn't merely hypothetical, you can ask any of the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers who saw it with their own eyes, who went to work every day wearing helmets, body armor, carrying rifles, with a convoy of tanks and APCs 15 minutes away, with a radio that could call in an air strike that would destroy any structure built in that country in the same fifteen minutes and kill everyone inside-- and yet, despite all this technology, saw many of their coworkers with the same advantages die. To an armed citizenry, unsupported by the trappings of a modern army.
Read the ]paragraph I posted before this one that was in response to another poster.
That's about as clear a pointer as mud.

You are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think any of the recent scenarios are applicable to the question at hand, which is: can U.S citizenry defeat their military? If the U.S government decides to strip certain rights of Americans, or if all of a sudden the executive powers of the U.S decide to work as a totalitarian regime, can the citizenry of the U.S successfully counter this will of the government?

Seriously, what do you think will happen? You ought to remember they are at home here. And you also ought to know that the military is infinitely more equipped than its citizens in many ways (from advanced guns/shields to tanks, helicopters, jets, and drones, to security cameras, central planning, and so on and so forth). Do you really think the people of America can overturn the decrees of the government? There could be a resistance, but it would be swiftly crushed, depending on how direct and aggressive the military wishes to be, and how soon they wish to quell the turmoil.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 8:39:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 1:37:52 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:38:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/26/2014 2:08:34 PM, ben2974 wrote:
We should just issue a referendum to get the ball rolling. Simple: the voters vote on a mix of choices for gun control (and social-reform as is relevant). The one with the most votes is put into action. No injustice here.
I don't think you understand the concept of liberty or justice. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote whether to rape me, it's still gang rape. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote to disarm me, it still leaves me at your mercy.

I don't advocate a gunless society. I advocate less guns, less access to deadly weapons. It's in my OP, jeeze.

Gun control will reduce the amount of weapons in a society, its a fact. However, they will remove them from the victims in society, not the criminals. To unarm victims merely evens the playing field--in the wrong direction, criminals will be more equal.

So where do you pull the pistol if not in public? At the moment of the incident, the perpetrator will be seen or unseen, either way. What weapon the person decides to carry then is of no importance. Unless you can draw faster, as an unsuspecting victim no less, you surely won't be able to defend yourself in time.

This is incorrect. Especially in a crowd situation, the criminal is unaware as to who is and who isnt armed. Further, as the criminal wouldn't know (concealed carry), the victim would have the surprise. Take an example from D day. 30 german soldiers held off 9000 americans for 9 hours on one section of the beach. The germans were not better, smarter, they were just more aggressive. An aggressive victim will, 9/10, beat a criminal. Further, survey data demonstrates that people are less likely to be hurt when they use a firearm in defense.

Wait, did I miss the American civil war of the 21st century?

No, you're point? The fact is, a government could theoretically become tyrannical, and untrained militias could theoretically be able to damage, slow down, and annoy a much stronger enemy. If, say, you banned assault weapons, the civilian defense capabilities would decrease dramatically. The founding fathers wanted people to have muskets in order to kill men with muskets. If they were alive today, they would want us to have assault rifles so that we could kill people with assault rifles.

Sounds like a good weapon for self-defense! Look at the George Zimmerman case, lol. It works both ways, wouldn't you say? You might argue that if George zimmerman was carrying an M4, and assuming trayvon attempted murder, that because Zimmerman was visibly wielding an M4, that Trayvon would not engage him. But, again, if Trayvon also had the M4 since he's allowed to do so, and he saw this suspicious guy walking in the rain and approaching him, who's to say trayvon wouldn't have simply pulled the trigger in fear (and spraying him to death with bullets), as he practically did without a gun? I mean hell, i'd freak the hell out if I saw a a sketchy guy WITH AN M4 walking towards me. Anyway, this adds to my other obvious problem that I noted earlier, which was how ridiculously impossible it would be to live in a society where everyone was carrying M4s on their person wherever they went. And if we were allowed, you wouldn't EVER want to be caught without one of them (an M4) in public. Because then you're truly screwed.

A pistol is great for, say, everyday walking around in public. However, an assault rifle is much better for defense. Your argument is this: guns are used in offense and defense. The offensive capability is much stronger. But in your scenario, at best, I see a 50-50 split. Some research (Kleck and Patterson 1993) says that guns overall have no effect on crime. However, other work (Kleck 1997, Lott 2010) demonstrates that guns are used in defense 1) much more often than in offense, and 2) decrease overall crime rates. The deterrent effect outweighs the brutalization effect.

And it makes sense. There are more normal citizens than criminals. If you armed all the citizens and criminals, there would be more firepower in the hands of law abiding citizens then for criminals. We see this in Kennesaw Georgia, where you are required to own a firearm, which means criminals also have them. But they saw a decrease in robbery, murder, and overall violent crime. Which means in a gun toting society, it is unlikely that a brutalization effect will outweigh deterrent effects or make criminals superior to potential victims.



You are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think any of the recent scenarios are applicable to the question at hand, which is: can U.S citizenry defeat their military? If the U.S government decides to strip certain rights of Americans, or if all of a sudden the executive powers of the U.S decide to work as a totalitarian regime, can the citizenry of the U.S successfully counter this will of the government?

Yes, probably. The US would not have as much leeway as in Iraq, as they would be more hesitant to bomb certain areas. Now, remember also that many national guard units would side with the people of the united states, or if say a state seceded, would side with their state. However, these units would help a lot, but not be able to win alone. Therefore, an armed populace as well as an unknown amount of defective military units could force a stalemate or a victory in a tyrannical situation.


Seriously, what do you think will happen? You ought to remember they are at home here. And you also ought to know that the military is infinitely more equipped than its citizens in many ways (from advanced guns/shields to tanks, helicopters, jets, and drones, to security cameras, central planning, and so on and so forth). Do you really think the people of America can overturn the decrees of the government? There could be a resistance, but it would be swiftly crushed, depending on how direct and aggressive the military wishes to be, and how soon they wish to quell the turmoil.

Although we kill Iraqis 30-1, the cost of keeping an occupying force against guerilla forces would be extremely high. Further, the federal government would likely receive little international support (remember that in Iraq the British, French, and other nations serves alongside the US). In fact, many people would actually fund the rebels, terrorist organizations, North Korea, China, and Russia may all serve to benefit from a new government. If they funded the rebels, and they won, they would have a claim "hey we did this for you, so do this for us", which means funding a rebellion would be in their interests.

An interesting example is the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A few hundred Jews, armed with weak (in comparison) weapons fought elite german SS troops. 9,000 german troops were killed, 10,000 rebels were killed. However, more interesting is that 300 german tanks were lost (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Although the uprising ended in a failure, the fact is that it was very costly to put the rebellion out. Now, imagine every city in the same situation. Germany's holocaust would have been impossible, and they would have stopped attempting it. Same would occur in a modern rebellions. Even if the battles are lost, if you make it costly enough, you will win the war. (see, eg, vietnam... We won every battle, but lost in the end). Or Lybia, or Tunisia. See, those countries rebels got US support. Why would rebels lose to the US government with, say, Russian and Chinese support?

Could citizens win in a revolution? I think a well armed populace would have a decent chance, yes. History shows that it is possible. Every drone, every man, the government would lose would cost them more then a casualty on the rebellions side. In the long run, we would win a war of attrition.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:31:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:39:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/27/2014 1:37:52 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:38:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/26/2014 2:08:34 PM, ben2974 wrote:


Although we kill Iraqis 30-1, the cost of keeping an occupying force against guerilla forces would be extremely high. Further, the federal government would likely receive little international support (remember that in Iraq the British, French, and other nations serves alongside the US). In fact, many people would actually fund the rebels, terrorist organizations, North Korea, China, and Russia may all serve to benefit from a new government. If they funded the rebels, and they won, they would have a claim "hey we did this for you, so do this for us", which means funding a rebellion would be in their interests.

An interesting example is the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A few hundred Jews, armed with weak (in comparison) weapons fought elite german SS troops. 9,000 german troops were killed, 10,000 rebels were killed. However, more interesting is that 300 german tanks were lost (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Although the uprising ended in a failure, the fact is that it was very costly to put the rebellion out. Now, imagine every city in the same situation. Germany's holocaust would have been impossible, and they would have stopped attempting it. Same would occur in a modern rebellions. Even if the battles are lost, if you make it costly enough, you will win the war. (see, eg, vietnam... We won every battle, but lost in the end). Or Lybia, or Tunisia. See, those countries rebels got US support. Why would rebels lose to the US government with, say, Russian and Chinese support?

Could citizens win in a revolution? I think a well armed populace would have a decent chance, yes. History shows that it is possible. Every drone, every man, the government would lose would cost them more then a casualty on the rebellions side.

I can't tell you how true that is.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:02:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 1:37:52 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:38:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/26/2014 2:08:34 PM, ben2974 wrote:
We should just issue a referendum to get the ball rolling. Simple: the voters vote on a mix of choices for gun control (and social-reform as is relevant). The one with the most votes is put into action. No injustice here.
I don't think you understand the concept of liberty or justice. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote whether to rape me, it's still gang rape. It is irrelevant whether you hold a vote to disarm me, it still leaves me at your mercy.

I don't advocate a gunless society. I advocate less guns, less access to deadly weapons. It's in my OP, jeeze.
A mixture of food and poison is still poison.

So where do you pull the pistol if not in public?
A dark alley.

Wait, did I miss the American civil war of the 21st century?
No, you missed Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
All of which had poorly trained insurgents with a much less advantageous situation than a potential American equivalent.

Sounds like a good weapon for self-defense!
But not defense against tyrants.

But, again, if Trayvon also had the M4 since he's allowed to do so, and he saw this suspicious guy walking in the rain and approaching him, who's to say trayvon wouldn't have simply pulled the trigger in fear
I'd think a Trayvon carrying an M4 around others who do so would have learned or come to his conclusion a little earlier in life.

which was how ridiculously impossible it would be to live in a society where everyone was carrying M4s on their person wherever they went.
This society wouldn't actually happen, btw, since the whole point of rifles, again is defense against tyrants, which means you keep them at home.

You are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think any of the recent scenarios are applicable to the question at hand which is: can U.S citizenry defeat their military?
The only difference between whether the Iraqi citizenry can beat the US military and whether the American citizenry can beat the US military is strategic bombing-- i.e., American citizenry has an easier time.

Seriously, what do you think will happen? You ought to remember they are at home here.
Which makes things harder,not easier, for the gov't, both in terms of PR and in targeting

And you also ought to know that the military is infinitely more equipped than its citizens in many ways (from advanced guns/shields to tanks, helicopters, jets, and drones, to security cameras, central planning, and so on and so forth).
Most of that stuff is useless in an asymmetric conflict, and the rest, armed citizens have too.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 7:11:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 10:02:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

This whole idea of fighting the military and the police seems a tad fanciful to me. Surely if you take up arms against the government, then you're going to have to convince the rest of the population that the government needs to be fought with violence or you will be destroyed, right? Seems like you're putting yourself in an extraordinarily difficult situation there. As far as I'm aware its a hell of a lot easier to convince the average citizen that armed people need killing than it is to convince them that unarmed people need killing, and similarly its a hell of a lot easier to convince people that the government needs to be opposed than it is to convince them that they need to strap on a rifle and take part in guerrilla warfare. Am I woefully out of touch or something?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 7:57:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 7:11:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/30/2014 10:02:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

This whole idea of fighting the military and the police seems a tad fanciful to me. Surely if you take up arms against the government, then you're going to have to convince the rest of the population that the government needs to be fought with violence or you will be destroyed, right? Seems like you're putting yourself in an extraordinarily difficult situation there. As far as I'm aware its a hell of a lot easier to convince the average citizen that armed people need killing than it is to convince them that unarmed people need killing, and similarly its a hell of a lot easier to convince people that the government needs to be opposed than it is to convince them that they need to strap on a rifle and take part in guerrilla warfare. Am I woefully out of touch or something?

Afghanistan and Iraq after the initial invasion did a large amount of combat, albeit with mixed success, but with a very small minority of the population. In the case of fighting a tyrannical government, it wouldn't be so much convincing the people that the government was bad, but more ending their fears. Over time, fewer people would be scared and an insurgency would likely grow.

Also remember, large portions of the conservative and libertarian bases already accept the possible notion of fighting a tyrannical government.

You also don't take into account national guard. I dont see a revolution occurring, but more likely another civil war. I mean, with 200,000 people or something asking for Texas to secede... come on. So I see civil war much more likely. If a state seceded, I see large portions of the military from the states that seceded deserting, and the national guard siding with their local state. So, we can also assume there would be a small traditional military force in the case of a tyrannical government, as well. Although this military force would, actually, probably revert to guerilla warfare... But the fact remains.

I suspect in any tyrannical government situation, a resistance force would be large. We saw this when Germany occupied Poland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. These small forces disrupted and annoyed many german units and supply lines. Further, the Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion, although a rebel defeat, shows how small, lightly armed, but determined people can do substancial damage to a stronger military force. Imagine, say, 10 Warsaw Ghetto Rebellions. Or, say, every Jew had a firearm and took down one German soldier each time they came to arrest them. Hitler would have been forced to call off the holocaust due to the huge cost.

All in all, I really think that a revolution or civil war force with basic arms (assault rifles, fore example) could win a war with the US government. It would be bloody, but I think its possible.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 8:45:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 7:57:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Let's discuss reality. You currently live under a government that needs to be abolished, yet there is no civil war. Your argument rests on the assumption that it is perfectly obvious to nearly everyone that the government must be destroyed. What I was saying is that, as the state currently ought to be dismantled, armed resistance is a ridiculously foolish course of action which would only serve to tarnish the image of all revolutionary ideas.

Furthermore, if we imagine all Jews as possessing firearms, surely we must imagine every German possessing a firearm, and thus when the Jews start firing upon Germans, the Germans will start firing upon the Jews, thereby creating a wonderful bloodbath as every Jew is declared an enemy combatant. I can only presume you prefer a Rwandan Genocide to a Holocaust (reckon if the Hutus and Tutsis had guns instead of machetes things would have worked out better?).
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:34:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 8:45:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/30/2014 7:57:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Let's discuss reality. You currently live under a government that needs to be abolished, yet there is no civil war. Your argument rests on the assumption that it is perfectly obvious to nearly everyone that the government must be destroyed. What I was saying is that, as the state currently ought to be dismantled, armed resistance is a ridiculously foolish course of action which would only serve to tarnish the image of all revolutionary ideas.


Well, let's discuss reality then. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria. Through social media, these people all agreed: the government was tyrannical. People got together, overthrew the government, and won (although I suspect the Syrian regime will continue to exist and Egypt has been taken over by the military... but there was no real revolution there).

Also take communist China. Mao started with only a few thousand men, but his message appealed to the right people (uneducated peasants) which led a huge uprising. He began in the situation where a lot of people just accepted the status quo, but he himself was able to change that opinion and take control of the country.

I see that in any type of civil war or revolution, many people will accept it as a fact. In our own civil war, tensions (the south saw the north as oppressive of states rights) and seceded, and to be honest, put up a hugely good fight--and almost won. The fact is, if the government went to a extreme, and the people were armed, there would be a significant force for good that could, as history tells us, emerge.

It really does make a government worried. Further take ISIS, a small minority who has taken 1/3 of Iraq over. You don't need a lot of people, you just need a determined armed force willing to risk everything. And trust me, many libertarians and conservatives are ready and willing.

Furthermore, if we imagine all Jews as possessing firearms, surely we must imagine every German possessing a firearm, and thus when the Jews start firing upon Germans, the Germans will start firing upon the Jews, thereby creating a wonderful bloodbath as every Jew is declared an enemy combatant. I can only presume you prefer a Rwandan Genocide to a Holocaust (reckon if the Hutus and Tutsis had guns instead of machetes things would have worked out better?).

Maybe. I suspect a lot of Germans, if aware of what was occurring, would actually see it as unjust and wrong. The soldiers, who were either obligated to do it or fanatical SS, would continue until ordered to stop. The fact is, if the cost is large enough to deter the attacker, the attacker will lay off.

If you research Jewish history after WW2, England promised to defend Jews in Palestine. Jews were murdered over and over again, until they got sick of it. They obtained illegal german firearms left over from WW2, fought the Arabs, and won. Since then, Israelis have a strong military culture and high gun ownership rate, and they have yet to lose a war to their many hostile neighbors.

And actually, in Rwanda, the Hutu's often used guns and grenades, as it is more efficient for mass killing (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org...). The study actually shows that the attackers acted in a rational manner: only using the firearms if they met resistance. Although one may take the conclusion as anti gun--that guns exacerbate the violence--I disagree. It means that they saw armed defenders as high priority and more dangerous. Had a large portion of the tutsi minority had firearms, it would have greatly limited the Hutu slaughtering of the Tutsi's (as they would be forced to fight, slowly, house by house, man by man). In the end, this could have prevented the killings as the Hutu's would make a rational analysis: we could beat them, but it is extremely costly to do so. Therefore, they may have made the Tutsi's second class citizens, but I doubt that they would have killed in excess of half a million in the process.

This actually has been covered by many experts. David Kopel has noted that the Hutu's desperately tried to disarm the Tutsi minority in order to reduce any possible resistance. The UN promised to protect the Tutsi's, but withdrew (http://www.davekopel.com...). This sounds a lot like Israel, except that Israel re-armed themselves and were successful in saving their lives.

If you are interested, this article is very comprehensive and makes a good case for an armed resistance to genocide (http://www.davekopel.org...).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:07:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:34:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
If you research Jewish history after WW2, England promised to defend Jews in Palestine. Jews were murdered over and over again, until they got sick of it. They obtained illegal german firearms left over from WW2, fought the Arabs, and won. Since then, Israelis have a strong military culture and high gun ownership rate, and they have yet to lose a war to their many hostile neighbors.

I like the way Israel handles guns. They have a draft. We should too. But unless every gun owner is properly trained in firing, handling, securing, maintaining, etc. the firearms they own so that they could serve in a militia, I see no reason to interpret the second amendment as guaranteeing the right to privately owning firearms.
Tsar of DDO
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:22:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:34:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Oh man, I see you really are preparing for a civil war.

The major problem with your analysis is that you have not illustrated how violence is the most effective course of action. You have simply given examples of violent rebellion - I also do not think you are correct to use Tunisia and Egypt as examples, as there were no civil wars there, merely protests. They were also clearly the most successful revolutions. (Forgive me if I'm wrong). Furthermore, your analysis appears to suggest that the US government could easily be overthrown now. You have the means - are you unmotivated?

Funnily enough, I think Gandhi came to literally the exact opposite conclusion you did. Do you seriously believe that people will be more likely to believe that it is wrong to shoot someone who is attacking the police, or to shoot someone who is being dragged out of their home?

As for the cost analysis, surely you're just inventing a situation where the victims of the genocide have guns and the perpetrators do not? Clearly it's very easy to perpetrate a massacre when you have superior weapons to your victims (plenty of examples of this come from your country every year, it seems), but I do not see that if all of the Tutsis were armed and all of the Hutus were much of a difference would have been made. Presumably the Tutsis had machetes, knives and clubs too when they were slaughtered at the hands of such weapons.

I also don't know what you're mentioning Israel for - haven't they always been aggressors? I appreciate the articles but it is pretty late.