Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE4rKWAX4dw&bpctr=1401215347

This guy reads some of his manifesto. Really sick puppy.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte.

What? You mean back when everyone could carry weapons and no one cared about it? Then several decades later the slaves where freed and Guncontrol pops up because we cant have black people owning guns.

 Vash108 wrote:

I would feel a bit better to know they had to go through some kind of training and certification.

Guess we should just all strap on our six-shooters and just call people out for duels at sunset.

He didn't think he was to good for masturbation did he?

 Vash108 wrote:

Guess we should just all strap on our six-shooters and just call people out for duels at sunset.

Only reason Dueling was banned in the united States is because the US navy lost more officers to duels then to naval engagements

 Vash108 wrote:
Guess we should just all strap on our six-shooters and just call people out for duels at sunset.

Yes because lack of training, and/or certification will lead to an increase in duels.... I think you just won best non sequitur so far this thread

 Vash108 wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte.

What? You mean back when everyone could carry weapons and no one cared about it? Then several decades later the slaves where freed and Guncontrol pops up because we cant have black people owning guns.

 Vash108 wrote:

I would feel a bit better to know they had to go through some kind of training and certification.

Guess we should just all strap on our six-shooters and just call people out for duels at sunset.

You knew that despite people saying we'd have shoot outs in the streets like the wild west we actually have had none of that. None at all.

The vast majority of mass shootings are carried out with weapons that are not being considered for bans.

But one common theme for shootings is mental illness, or gang violence. Yet we blame the evil gunz and the NRA daemons who back your constitutional right to own them.

 daedalus wrote:
Who's making this list of human rights that you're going off of?

Maybe you have heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to be, well… universal. Actually some islamic countries do not like it because it does not allow for enough suppression of religious minority and stuff, but I have never heard of any serious rival to this declaration neither in the U.S., nor in France, nor in any non-Islamic country.

 daedalus wrote:
WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.

Keeping it as a testament to your founding is perfect. But basing your decisions on current issue on it is not. Stuff just change!
Beside… you have Lovecraft. And people riding with long white hoods and robes. That is not that bad, really.

 daedalus wrote:
Revenue generation. There's about 6.2 billion a year collected. Also this: http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-01/evidence-traffic-tickets-aren%E2%80%99t-just-about-road-safety
You thought they were about safety?

That was rhetorical, but yeah, I am pretty sure they are about safety too.

 daedalus wrote:
The Stanford Prison Experiment would like to have some words with you.

Geopolitics would like to have some word with you. If you need examples of the army not obeying to the government, there is a thread on it happening in Thailand on this very board.

 Frazzled wrote:
Says the feren guy on a US Board. Didn't Switzerland get rich on stolen Nazi gold that they conveniently kept after the war? Just asking.

Feren?
They were already rich beforehand. Confused about why you want to turn some argument about “Should we base our current decisions on some paper wrote hundred of years ago” into “Hey, let us have a pissing contest at which country behave as the biggest donkey-cave”.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That also doesn't include any national guard units

Would those not join the army? Oh, wait, actually that whole scenario makes no sense whatsoever, I forgot. It is all based on the U.S.A. suddenly becoming a fascist regime overnight. I am strangely not really worried about it actually happening.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Why would I care about that constitution? Seriously, what is with this constitution fetish?

Because it's the fundamental underlying legal document of the United States, the nation where the shooting that spawned this thread occurred and the document upon which all other law in the US must comply with.

There are firing ranges for that. Would you mind being forbidden to have ammunition outside of the firing range, like it works for Swiss militia that does not get a special permit?

It would likely drive the cost way up, and mean that my property is suddenly not something that is under my control. It would also mean I can only shoot at that one range (and be subject to its rules and costs and if it goes out of business what happens to my guns?). It they're closed, my (expensive) firearms are not accessible, and such a system would make hunting (for people that are into that) and shooting on BLM land (essentially empty land that is managed by the government where shooting is permissible, think the deserts of Nevada and eastern California and the like) very difficult or impossible.

The US is also much larger and more decentralized that Switzerland and Europe in general (Compared to the EU, the US has 60% of the people occupying 200% as much land), we don't have centralized armories, shooting ranges in some places are plentiful, in other places almost nonexistent or require a long drive out to the boonies to shoot on empty BLM land.

Yeah, it would be annoying, just like those speed limits are annoying (and beside, criminals do not respect speed limits sometime, so why enforce them anyway?)

Speed Limits only apply on public streets. If I'm on private property, assuming I have enough space, I can go as fast or as slow as I like. If I'm on public property, I'm not expecting to be able to walk around with my Kalashnikov loaded and ready to go, nor am I expecting to be able to run through the streets at 95MPH to get to work. But I expect to be able to park my car in my own garage and keep my gun in my own home so that either are accessible when I desire to use them.

And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army.

Which has only existed as a powerful standing army for ~70 years (out of nearly 240) and may not exist in its current form in the future (maintaining it is extraordinarily expensive). Regardless, that's not the point, ultimately it's a lot harder for a government to start doing bad things to its populace if it is armed. One of the first things the NSDAP did when it came to power in Germany was confiscate civilian arms to prevent civilian challenge to their rule.

Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.

Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else. They've got rent to pay, penalties to face, and careers to think about. That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.

We still might not even be talking about the US army, it could be a state governor that oversteps their mandate (such as Arkansas where the intervention of the US army was required in the 1950's) or the like.

If even U.S. citizens cannot trust the U.S. army, how do you expect the people from countries it invades to see them .

A different topic entirely that would be best served by its own thread.

 Vash108 wrote:


CCW is pretty much a joke everywhere else. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.

To be fair, shootings by CCW holders have thus far been relatively rare, especially unjustified homicides. Of 25,000 firearms homicides (excludes justified shootings but including suicides) in 2007/2008/2009, 117 were estimated to be by CCW holders, and a not insubstantial number of those were suicides or murder/suicides in the home (where CCW status is irrelevant).

Yes they back it. They are wanting me to arm myself against bad people, like Haters.
Because I want these guys on my side...
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/0sf8y6/gunny-delight


You know who else backs it? Me, with my votes.

Wow
How is the US Military getting dragged into this...nevermind.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.

Keeping it as a testament to your founding is perfect. But basing your decisions on current issue on it is not.

Uh... it's the law of the land.

And yes, it can be changed... just not easily (for good reason).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Wow
How is the US Military getting dragged into this...nevermind.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I know what that means, but please... explain what that truly means.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wow
How is the US Military getting dragged into this"

I blame the cool uniforms...of the Marines

I still have Dad's dress blues.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Because it's the fundamental underlying legal document of the United States, the nation where the shooting that spawned this thread occurred and the document upon which all other law in the US must comply with.

Does that make what it says inherently right? Does that mean you should not change it on this point, even though you changed it on tons of other points?

 Vaktathi wrote:
It would likely drive the cost way up, and mean that my property is suddenly not something that is under my control.

It would maybe drive the cost up, but yeah, it would make shooting akin to how about everyone plays bowling. You go to the place, rent the equipment, have fun, give back the equipment and then leave.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It would also mean I can only shoot at that one range

What? Why?

 Vaktathi wrote:
It they're closed, my (expensive) firearms are not accessible

Yeah, surely renting the firearm too would be a better idea. This could maybe actually lower the cost, because one given firearm will serve for more people.

 Vaktathi wrote:
and such a system would make hunting (for people that are into that) and shooting on BLM land (essentially empty land that is managed by the government where shooting is permissible, think the deserts of Nevada and eastern California and the like) very difficult or impossible.

Yes, that would be something that would need its own rules. But while I can care for people who like shooting at range, I have a very hard time feeling any kind of empathy for those that actually enjoy causing voluntary suffering in animals as a past-time. That is just… wrong.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Speed Limits only apply on public streets. If I'm on private property, assuming I have enough space, I can go as fast or as slow as I like. If I'm on public property, I'm not expecting to be able to walk around with my Kalashnikov loaded and ready to go, nor am I expecting to be able to run through the streets at 95MPH to get to work. But I expect to be able to park my car in my own garage and keep my gun in my own home so that either are accessible when I desire to use them.

Different dangers means different restrictions.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Which has only existed as a powerful standing army for ~70 years (out of nearly 240) and may not exist in its current form in the future (maintaining it is extraordinarily expensive).

Well, less army means even less need for guns, because the government will have even less brainwashed faceless goon to send to kill you if you just disobey it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Regardless, that's not the point, ultimately it's a lot harder for a government to start doing bad things to its populace if it is armed.

I disagree.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One of the first things the NSDAP did when it came to power in Germany was confiscate civilian arms to prevent civilian challenge to their rule.

So apparently the guns of the Germans did not helped them in the slightest. Because the Nazis had both the cops and their own paramilitary unit by their side. Actually, I think banning paramilitary unit is more efficient than giving guns to the population.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else.

That is my point. They are people like anyone else. They do not want to shoot on their fellow citizen if said citizen go on demonstrating against the government. They will refuse to do it, and likely side with the protesters if the government goes too far.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.

For the Russian, it implied a civil war, and they went from an autocracy to another.
For the Italians and the Germans, since in both case the leaders came into power with quite a big popular support, more armed population would just mean that those leader would have had a more armed militia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I forgot that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You never had very many guns/weapons period, because of the feudal legacy of keeping the peasants unarmed. You also don't have it as a fundamental right.

Well, in Switzerland we do have many guns. And people used to have the ammunition to go with it, though they do not anymore. And that is not recent. Switzerland was a small country surrounded by bigger, scarier ones. They have a tradition of turtling up. That is where their constitutional neutrality comes from .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Who's making this list of human rights that you're going off of?

Maybe you have heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to be, well… universal. Actually some islamic countries do not like it because it does not allow for enough suppression of religious minority and stuff, but I have never heard of any serious rival to this declaration neither in the U.S., nor in France, nor in any non-Islamic country.

And why do you assume that those rights are exhaustive? Also, I'll draw to your attention that the US isn't really good about following quite a few of those.

 daedalus wrote:
WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.

Keeping it as a testament to your founding is perfect. But basing your decisions on current issue on it is not. Stuff just change!
Beside… you have Lovecraft. And people riding with long white hoods and robes. That is not that bad, really.

You have a point about Lovecraft. We have Poe too as I think about it.

The thing is about the change is that stuff totally can change, and does. You're right. We don't throw it out until it does though, and most people here appear to be actually okay with it, so why would we change it to begin with?

 daedalus wrote:
The Stanford Prison Experiment would like to have some words with you.

Geopolitics would like to have some word with you. If you need examples of the army not obeying to the government, there is a thread on it happening in Thailand on this very board.

I wouldn't cite Thailand as a location where the system is working the way it's supposed to. The army didn't stop obeying the wishes of the government because the members of the army are collectively good guys who are incorruptibly good citizens. They did it because a general wanted to seize power. Notice that the first things they did were declare martial law and shut down the media? There's your overnight fascist regime forming.

 daedalus wrote:
I wouldn't cite Thailand as a location where the system is working the way it's supposed to.

Yeah. I tried hard to find a good example of a democracy turning suddenly into a fascist regime against the will of the majority of its people, but I could not, so I choose something else. Do I need to start looking for events where soldiers refused to shoot on innocent protesters?

I'm waiting on more clarification from 'Cat in the Thailand thread before I form a opinion.

 daedalus wrote:
We don't throw it out until it does though, and most people here appear to be actually okay with it

Well, actually, consensus and agreement is not what pops to mind when the question of gun control pops up between U.S. citizens. Unlike France or Switzerland were most people do not know much about it, and do not care either, so the discussions are way; way milder and calmer.

I don't think "gun control" is the appropriate phrase. Nothing short of a complete ban on legal, private ownership of firearms would have made a difference here -- and even that is extremely questionable considering the nature of the perpetrator. Unlike Adam Lanza and other public shooting perpetrators, Rodger also does not seem to have been invested in gun culture or obsessed with guns (which I agree the NRA does promote) or right-wing politics. Even considering his misogyny, his rants don't tap into the MRA script. Mental health infrastructure also seems like a red herring. Rodger came from an extremely privileged background and can hardly be cast as a poster child for "slipping through the cracks."

If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Does that make what it says inherently right? Does that mean you should not change it on this point, even though you changed it on tons of other points?

In and of itself no it doesn't make it inherently right, but I do believe the text within it to be.

That said, changing it is extraordinarily difficult by design.

It would maybe drive the cost up, but yeah, it would make shooting akin to how about everyone plays bowling. You go to the place, rent the equipment, have fun, give back the equipment and then leave.

I hate bowling. That said, you do have the option to own your own bowling equipment and bring it to the alley and back home.

What? Why?

If I store it there, taking it elsewhere will be very onerous indeed, especially if I have to bring it back.

Yeah, surely renting the firearm too would be a better idea. This could maybe actually lower the cost, because one given firearm will serve for more people.

Which makes it much more expensive over the long run (having to rent a gun every time i want to go shooting) and restricts where you can go shooting and what events you can attend further. It'll only lower costs for the gun range.

Yes, that would be something that would need its own rules. But while I can care for people who like shooting at range, I have a very hard time feeling any kind of empathy for those that actually enjoy causing voluntary suffering in animals as a past-time. That is just… wrong.

Well, ideally there isn't suffering, when hunting you're supposed to aim for as clean and instant a kill as possible by going for the heart or head. This is both to reduce suffering on the part of the animal and to make it so the hunter doesn't have to trek all over the place tracking down a wounded, bleeding, and angry fleeing animal. If the animal suffers, the hunter fethed up, simple as that. Hunting also serves a major population control purpose for some animals in the US, namely Deer (which are more numerous now than they were several hundred years ago because their predators are gone). That said, personally I don't hunt and really don't have any desire to.

Different dangers means different restrictions.

To a point yes, but keep in mind, unless you include suicides, cars kill far more people in the US than guns do (if you include suicides then firearms kill about as many people as cars). Either way, there already exist far greater restrictions on where one can carry and operate a firearm than where one can drive and operate a car.

Well, less army means even less need for guns, because the government will have even less brainwashed faceless goon to send to kill you if you just disobey it.

From one perspective yes, but it will have a greater reliance on citizens to defend it as well.

So apparently the guns of the Germans did not helped them in the slightest. Because the Nazis had both the cops and their own paramilitary unit by their side. Actually, I think banning paramilitary unit is more efficient than giving guns to the population.

Well, basically they made everyone register their firearms and started going door to door collecting them, and did so before they started going to town on the major bad things they're remembered for today.

I don't like random, independently operating paramilitary groups much either without a clear and present reason for them to exist, but that's a different thing than simply owning firearms.

That is my point. They are people like anyone else. They do not want to shoot on their fellow citizen if said citizen go on demonstrating against the government. They will refuse to do it, and likely side with the protesters if the government goes too far.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Who knows what might really happen. Either way, it's a contingency plan.

For the Russian, it implied a civil war, and they went from an autocracy to another.
For the Italians and the Germans, since in both case the leaders came into power with quite a big popular support, more armed population would just mean that those leader would have had a more armed militia.

Potentially yes, who knows, but either way there'd be a greater civilian capability to resist.

 Manchu wrote:


If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.

Couldn't have said it better, Manchu. Well put.

 Manchu wrote:


If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.

This is a very strong point in all of this. Well said.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
and such a system would make hunting (for people that are into that) and shooting on BLM land (essentially empty land that is managed by the government where shooting is permissible, think the deserts of Nevada and eastern California and the like) very difficult or impossible.

Yes, that would be something that would need its own rules. But while I can care for people who like shooting at range, I have a very hard time feeling any kind of empathy for those that actually enjoy causing voluntary suffering in animals as a past-time. That is just… wrong.

Activities like fox hunting in the UK and bull fighting in Spain were also heavily steeped in tradition, but they have gone now because ultimately they are barbaric.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Regardless, that's not the point, ultimately it's a lot harder for a government to start doing bad things to its populace if it is armed.

It never happens though. When there was talk of an illegal war which was just a front for profiteering, lead by a president who no one was quite sure even won an election. Where was the armed militia to put things straight? The only time they seem to show up is when people like Bundy break federal law, or when a black guy in democratically elected.

I seriously doubt that anyone interested in forming an armed militia shares many political ideals with me, or even with each other. It just sounds like a recipe for stupid.

 Smacks wrote:

It never happens though. When there was talk of an illegal war which was just a front for profiteering, lead by a president who no one was quite sure even won an election. Where was the armed militia to put things straight? The only time they seem to show up is when people like Bundy break federal law, or when a black guy in democratically elected.

I seriously doubt that anyone interested in forming an armed militia shares many political ideals with me, or even with each other. It just sounds like a recipe for stupid.

You won't get the masses to care until they can't afford their loaf of bread.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I hate bowling.

Well, pool, then. Or movie theater.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, you do have the option to own your own bowling equipment and bring it to the alley and back home.

Yeah, but that is not the point.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If I store it there, taking it elsewhere will be very onerous indeed, especially if I have to bring it back.

If you can go with your gun, and only need to buy and use ammunition on the spot, then you can just go to any range that sell your ammunition type. If you do rent the gun and the ammunition, you can go wherever you want to.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Which makes it much more expensive over the long run (having to rent a gun every time i want to go shooting) and restricts where you can go shooting and what events you can attend further.

It makes it more expensive if you do shoot a lot, maybe. Not necessarily. I mean, if three people are using the gun, and over the full life of the gun they pay each half of the price of the gun, the owner will still make a profit. How long is the life of a gun?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, ideally there isn't suffering, when hunting you're supposed to aim for as clean and instant a kill as possible by going for the heart or head. […] If the animal suffers, the hunter fethed up, simple as that.

I am still not okay with people willing to take that risk for their personal pleasure. But then again, I am one of those annoying vegetarians…

 Vaktathi wrote:
To a point yes, but keep in mind, unless you include suicides, cars kill far more people in the US than guns do (if you include suicides then firearms kill about as many people as cars).

On the other hand, even though range shooting can be a pretty neat hobby, let us be honest here, cars bring much, much, much more than guns to society.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, basically they made everyone register their firearms and started going door to door collecting them, and did so before they started going to town on the major bad things they're remembered for today.

Hitler wrote a book explaining what he wanted to do. It is called Mein Kampf.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't like random, independently operating paramilitary groups much either without a clear and present reason for them to exist, but that's a different thing than simply owning firearms.

Different, but directly linked.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Potentially yes, who knows, but either way there'd be a greater civilian capability to resist.

Are you really expecting to see this in your lifetime?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Activities like fox hunting in the UK and bull fighting in Spain were also heavily steeped in tradition, but they have gone now because ultimately they are barbaric.

I am pretty sure bull-fighting is still happening. Even in France IIRC. And stuff like foie gras.

 Smacks wrote:

It never happens though. When there was talk of an illegal war which was just a front for profiteering, lead by a president who no one was quite sure even won an election. Where was the armed militia to put things straight?

It was a war taking place on the other side of the planet with (relative to other conflicts) few American dead. The vast majority of the US population were only aware of the conflict as as a thing on the news, it didn't impact their daily lives. Governments aren't overthrown for that.

The only time they seem to show up is when people like Bundy break federal law, or when a black guy in democratically elected.

I seriously doubt that anyone interested in forming an armed militia shares many political ideals with me, or even with each other. It just sounds like a recipe for stupid.

I agree with the stupidity of the examples you listed. The Bundy case is particularly amusing. I'm don't approve of peacetime militias (if they can even be called that) that just exist to prance around because "the gub'mint's bad mmkay" when some rancher doesn't pay his bills. But, I'd also consider them cases of abusing a right, much as one would consider yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre or picketing soldiers funerals with "god hates fags" signs to be abuses of the freedom of speech.

 Manchu wrote:
If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.

 cincydooley wrote:
Couldn't have said it better, Manchu. Well put.

 curran12 wrote:
This is a very strong point in all of this. Well said.

Thanks. I should probably clarify that I am not for banning free speech. I just think that any freedom, whether regarding speech or owning firearms, entails responsibilities. I think the way we use mass media at large, and particularly the internet, undermines a culture of personal accountability. Extremist views grow up in this kind of free-for-all digital environment. To be sure, this problem did not begin online. Many people assume they should be able to say or post anything at all as if words and ideas are totally disconnected from the reality. This attitude is reinforced by an appeal to freedom of speech (and not only by people in the US) based on the notion that all perspectives, opinions, and positions are more or less equally valid/invalid.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.

Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else. They've got rent to pay, penalties to face, and careers to think about. That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.

Are we talking Russia>USSR or Russia>Putin? Because the former was a case of an armed populace rising up against the government, after all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.

Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else. They've got rent to pay, penalties to face, and careers to think about. That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.

Are we talking Russia>USSR or Russia>Putin? Because the former was a case of an armed populace rising up against the government, after all.

So was the later, more or less. Probably even more so than the former. Really all that you can really determine from Russia's past 100 years is that popular uprisings are not anywhere near as effective at producing (EDIT: positive) change as people like to pretend they are.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:



If you can go with your gun, and only need to buy and use ammunition on the spot, then you can just go to any range that sell your ammunition type. If you do rent the gun and the ammunition, you can go wherever you want to.

That would require the range to stock ammunition for your gun. I can't think of a single range that carries 7.5x55mm ammunition for my Swiss K-31 or 5.45x39mm ammunition my AK-74 because they're not common calibers, and especially the AK-74 if they don't allow steel ammunition. I have to order it all online.

It would also require ranges to then have storage space for every person who shoots there, which could get very large and expensive indeed.

It makes it more expensive if you do shoot a lot, maybe. Not necessarily. I mean, if three people are using the gun, and over the full life of the gun they pay each half of the price of the gun, the owner will still make a profit. How long is the life of a gun?

Depends on the materials, really it'll be one component at a time that will fail, depends a lot on caliber and type of gun as well. Something like a quality cold hammer forged eastern bloc AK will last many thousands of thousand rounds before needing a barrel replacement (or, if rented and shot daily, probably a couple of years), but many handguns may need a barrel replacement in 1/10th that time.

I am still not okay with people willing to take that risk for their personal pleasure. But then again, I am one of those annoying vegetarians…

Well then that's another topic altogether

On the other hand, even though range shooting can be a pretty neat hobby, let us be honest here, cars bring much, much, much more than guns to society.

To the average person's daily life, probably. That said, given the huge number of people killed by cars *completely unintentionally*, we're talking about something at least as dangerous if not moreso.

Hitler wrote a book explaining what he wanted to do. It is called Mein Kampf.

Some stuff yes, other stuff no. He didn't say he wanted to murder millions on gas chambers or shooting pits or the like in that book.

Different, but directly linked.

And so is drunk driving to normal driving.

Are you really expecting to see this in your lifetime?

No, and I would hope not. But I can't see the future and I who knows what may happen? Such things aren't there because you *know* they'll happen, but because it's *possible* and there must be at least some recourse.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire US. Yet the perpetrator was able to acquire firearms even after the waiting periods and paperwork. Senator Blumenthal used this tragedy to renew the push for gun control legislation, oblivious to the fact that the gun control camps proposals (bar an outright ban and confiscation) would not have prevented this.
No. I think that gun ownership is something that should be determined by the individual
There seems to be an inherent contradiction in this sentence.

I think gun control laws can be more thorough and stringent in their background checks for a firearms permit and a firearm without resorting to an outright ban. This guy clearly had issues, and there was evidence. It should have been enough to stop him from obtaining a firearm, but it obviously wasn't.
I agree that citizens of the United States should be able to own and bear arms. I don't think they should be allowed to be carried in public. If you can't understand why that is, then I can't really explain it to you. I do think buildings should have firearms installed. A teacher would be able to defend students if someone decides to shoot up a school. A store owner would be able to defend his store.
And lastly, there's no contradiction. I can think of a few ways to increase monitoring of firearms without gimping peoples ability to defend themselves. I'm sure you can too.

P.S. I put United States in bold because this is the only country I can relate to, where I'm informed of the issues and can confidently make an opinion. I don't know what the situation is in other countries. I also think some countries should not have firearms at all.

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. BMWs and knives should also be heavily regulated and restricted from the civilian marketplace.

Nah.