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.

reds8n wrote:

Is the former there though not specifically to enable you to do the latter when tyranny reigns/the zionists make thier move/Obama is revealed to be a muslim after all/bugbear of your choice.

Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

Yes.... so do many religious groups... are we going to do the prop 8 gay rights/abortion/whatever dance in this thread too ?

I look at guns as:
1. A Hunting Tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can shoot for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have them.

Why should I be limited in any of those areas?

A car/motor vehicle is

1. A mode of transport that is quick and efficient--if you haven't bought domestic anyway
2. A fun thing to drive and own.
3. Protection from otehr motorists and something that enables one to have greater economic indepenence in many cases.

Do you think people should have unrestricted access to cars as well then ? Regardless of proficiency, age etc ?

reds8n wrote:A car/motor vehicle is

1. A mode of transport that is quick and efficient--if you haven't bought domestic anyway
2. A fun thing to drive and own.
3. Protection from otehr motorists and something that enables one to have greater economic indepenence in many cases.

Do you think people should have unrestricted access to cars as well then ? Regardless of proficiency, age etc ?

I think there would be a big problem if the government told me, "You can't own a truck. Trucks are not for normal driving and you have no need for a truck as you live in the city." OR "That muscle car has the potential to break the speed limits. For the greater good, we are making it illegal to own."

EDIT- as a side note... you can buy a car without a license. If you pay cash anyone can get any car, regardless of age, mental health, etc. Driving it is different.

reds8n wrote: Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

I want a weapon to hunt bambi, because venison tastes good. The idea of having an armed militia preventing tyrants from taking over is out-dated. 100 rednecks with M-16s don't stand up well against a squad of the United States Marine Corps.

While I personally do not own a sidearm for self defense, I do not oppose the idea. As long as you are responsible with it - as in, don't leave it laying around where you kid can find it and play with it. Some people really do need one for self defense, but I'm not one.

As I've stated elsewhere, the problem isn't in preventing some guns from being owned, it's in preventing certain people from owning guns. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortuantely, it's hard to legislate how to keep morons from owning firearms. So, instead, we outlaw the more dangerous firearms and that makes everyone sleep better at night because at least 'something' was done about it. Even though it accomplishes very little.

Did anyone think the whack job in Pittsburgh legally bought an assault rifle, er carbine, er...gun that shoots really fast?

The paranoia about 'dem Democrats takin' 'way ur gunz!' is ridiculous. It'll never happen. They may take away guns that shoot a lot in short amount of time, but not sidearms for self defense and hunting weapons. It might be harder to buy them, but I don't know that is a bad thing. It's used to be harder to buy a house than a rifle.

And don't call me Mr. Dietrich, that's my father. And don't call me sir either, I work for a living. Well, except when I goof off at work all day by posting on dakka.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I think there would be a big problem if the government told me, "You can't own a truck. Trucks are not for normal driving and you have no need for a truck as you live in the city." OR "That muscle car has the potential to break the speed limits. For the greater good, we are making it illegal to own."

Don't they already do that though ? I assume you have what we call Heavy Goods Vehicles licenses for lorries etc. And there's all sorts of restrictions on cars to do with safety, what they can and can't do etc. NOt to mention the whole license thing yes ? No license no driving...legally anyway.

As I've stated elsewhere, the problem isn't in preventing some guns from being owned, it's in preventing certain people from owning guns. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortuantely, it's hard to legislate how to keep morons from owning firearms. So, instead, we outlaw the more dangerous firearms and that makes everyone sleep better at night because at least 'something' was done about it. Even though it accomplishes very little.

I agree 100%..... as I've said before I find it baffling there's no form of proficiency test at least or similar.

The idea of having an armed militia preventing tyrants from taking over is out-dated. 100 rednecks with M-16s don't stand up well against a squad of the United States Marine Corps.

Again I agree... but there's a lot who don't and they are the peope arguing for onwership of the BLASTOMATIC 8000 etc.

Did anyone think the whack job in Pittsburgh legally bought an assault rifle, er carbine, er...gun that shoots really fast?

I believe the news over here reported it to be legally owned... but... *shrugs*

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Is the former there though not specifically to enable you to do the latter when tyranny reigns/the zionists make thier move/Obama is revealed to be a muslim after all/bugbear of your choice.

Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

Yes.... so do many religious groups... are we going to do the prop 8 gay rights/abortion/whatever dance in this thread too ?

I look at guns as:
1. A Hunting Tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can shoot for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have them.

I look at dynamite as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can blow things up for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have dynamite

I look at slaves as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting gear (yes, you can shoot for fun and the skill of it when you don't have to carry all that heavy equipment yourself)
3. Protection against others who have slaves


1. Everything can help you kill something in the woods.
2. Everything can be used recreationally in some way.
3. When someone else having something is a threat having that same thing reduces the threat in almost all situations.


Number one is pointless in modern society and is little more than a sport.
Number two is a sport.
Number three only works if guns are still on the field. You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

Why should I be limited in any of those areas?

The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

If he legally bought the AK-47, then making it fire at a rate beyond semi-automatic (pull the trigger and fire one round) was an illegal modification. To be honest, I haven't read too much about the event (despite it being in my hometown), but when I hear "AK-47" and "police shooting" together, I'm assuming it was not a semi-automatic.

Isn't this debate a little academic in the US? The Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS, says that people have a right to own guns. That separates it from other types of property, in that any restriction needs to satisfy a compelling state objective and be narrowly tailored.

Given that a healthy plurality of American's own guns, it's unlikely that there will be an amendment covering that any time soon.

Polonius wrote:Isn't this debate a little academic in the US? The Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS, says that people have a right to own guns. That separates it from other types of property, in that any restriction needs to satisfy a compelling state objective and be narrowly tailored.

Given that a healthy plurality of American's own guns, it's unlikely that there will be an amendment covering that any time soon.

Certainly true, though I believe its still worth hashing over the concepts behind gun ownership and the reasons for believing it should be banned in a civil society, if only because perhaps far down the road after we've solved the energy crisis, the environment, war, hunger, ensured freedom across the globe, and we're working on crime we'll have a good understanding of what to consider.

Polonius wrote:Isn't this debate a little academic on the internet on a Friday night. HAIL SATAN.

Don't think we're not onto you Mr. !

Given the somewhat considerable problems facing America/the entire world at the moment anyway, does anyone who isn't wearing a tinfoil hat actually think that the GOvt is likely to make any major changes in this area.

...unless.... damn it.. the pullout from Iraq! IT's a sign !

ShumaGorath wrote:

I look at dynamite as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can blow things up for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have dynamite

I look at slaves as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting gear (yes, you can shoot for fun and the skill of it when you don't have to carry all that heavy equipment yourself)
3. Protection against others who have slaves


1. Everything can help you kill something in the woods.
2. Everything can be used recreationally in some way.
3. When someone else having something is a threat having that same thing reduces the threat in almost all situations.


Number one is pointless in modern society and is little more than a sport.
Number two is a sport.
Number three only works if guns are still on the field. You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

Wow. Take a deep breath. It is going to be okay.
1. Hunting is not pointless. You may not like it. But you don’t get to decide everything.
2. Here is nothing dangerous about the sport of shooting, when the rules are followed. Just like driving. Just like swimming. Etc.
3. Criminals who want to have guns will always have guns. There are ways to get guns illegally. If you make all guns illegal, there will still be guns, but only in the wrong hands. I'd prefer that every citizen be training to shoot a gun rather than none of them. (In a 'perfect world', LOL)

Well, democracy in the US has always been a bit different than elsewhere, due to the generally wider suffrage through out history, a tradition of self rule even before independence, and our own myth/history of the noble yeoman farmer, carving his fields out of the forest, defending himself from savages, the french, and finally the King's Men with his trusty rifle.

I'm one of the people that believes that as long as there are enough guns in the US, the government knows it needs to tread a little more carefully. Sure, no rag tag militia could stand up to the full American war machine, but there's no way martial law would be fun for anybody in this country if the populace were fully roused.

Additionally, the Constitution is essentially the sacred touchstone of the American civilization. While blind obedience to it is foolhardy, it's really important to not chip away at any part of it without thinking it through.

Are guns dangerous? Of course. I think that requireing a full Conceal and carry course and registration before buying a handgun is a great compromise. Hunting weapons should be freely available to those of age and competency. Military weapons are a grey area, but I think there are ways to license and regulate this stuff instead of banning it.

The #1 reason to not ban guns? Banning things that many American's like has never ever worked. It failed in prohibition, it's failing now in the War on Drugs, and it would fail in a gun ban.

ShumaGorath wrote:The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

It is worth it.
It holds its worth in that I want to live in a place where people are held responsible for their actions. Ultimately, the risk you seek to ban, also absolves responsibility.

Polonius wrote:

The #1 reason to not ban guns? Banning things that many American's like has never ever worked. It failed in prohibition, it's failing now in the War on Drugs, and it would fail in a gun ban.

That was very intelligent and well put. Thank you.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I look at dynamite as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can blow things up for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have dynamite

I look at slaves as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting gear (yes, you can shoot for fun and the skill of it when you don't have to carry all that heavy equipment yourself)
3. Protection against others who have slaves


1. Everything can help you kill something in the woods.
2. Everything can be used recreationally in some way.
3. When someone else having something is a threat having that same thing reduces the threat in almost all situations.


Number one is pointless in modern society and is little more than a sport.
Number two is a sport.
Number three only works if guns are still on the field. You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

Wow. Take a deep breath. It is going to be okay.
1. Hunting is not pointless. You may not like it. But you don’t get to decide everything.
2. Here is nothing dangerous about the sport of shooting, when the rules are followed. Just like driving. Just like swimming. Etc.
3. Criminals who want to have guns will always have guns. There are ways to get guns illegally. If you make all guns illegal, there will still be guns, but only in the wrong hands. I'd prefer that every citizen be training to shoot a gun rather than none of them. (In a 'perfect world', LOL)

Aside from the fact that hunting is pointless given the ability of any american to travel a few minutes and pick up several pounds of meat without hunting you missed the point of my post. There is nothing dangerous about the sport of shooting with the exception of the fact that the guns are still there when you are done shooting. Criminals who want to have guns will have guns in the current system. Half assing gun laws doesn't do much. For criminals to not have guns would take the removal of guns. Guns are an expedient method of killing people, that has been their general point ever since farming made hunting into little more than a sport. If all gun ownership is banned and gun possession becomes a crime then gun crime will drop significantly, and it will drop quickly.

However.

Like polonius said given the world as it is that will not happen. Even ignoring the foolish perception that gun ownership somehow reduces your chance of being shot (when statistically it increases it due to the incidence of accident and the relative lack of noticeable change in your chance of being shot criminally) there are too many guns out there to be removed quickly and without major societal upheaval. People are too fixated on the romantic perception of guns as tools of power and rightmaking. It is too heavily ingrained in our society that shooting can be fun and killing is a passtime to be enjoyed and followed (action movies, books, videogames, tabletop games).



In a perfect world guns wouldn't exist. People wouldn't all be training to kill eachother. Your perfect world is broken and illogical, mine is a childs fantasy.

The #1 reason to not ban guns? Banning things that many American's like has never ever worked. It failed in prohibition, it's failing now in the War on Drugs, and it would fail in a gun ban.

The war on drugs is working and has worked. Usage rates when the substances were considered acceptable and now are quite different. The war on drugs shouldn't be called a war. Wars have a finite objective. The war on drugs is a struggle that can't be won, but can most certainly be lost.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

Actually the point is when one becomes a terrorist because of those opinions. As long as someone is following the societal contract then they are not acting in a terrorist fashion. That was my point. That belief and act are two separate things.

You kind of jumped on the whole me not understanding thing kind of quick...

Oh my, Shuma and I are in agreement.
Everyone has thoughts, but attempting to destroy thoughts is often, not always, a mark of the oppressor. Besides much of what has been described is actually an act. You need the evidence of the act.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

Actually the point is when one becomes a terrorist because of those opinions. As long as someone is following the societal contract then they are not acting in a terrorist fashion. That was my point. That belief and act are two separate things.

You kind of jumped on the whole me not understanding thing kind of quick...

Oh my, Shuma and I are in agreement.
Everyone has thoughts, but attempting to destroy thoughts is often, not always, a mark of the oppressor. Besides much of what has been described is actually an act. You need the evidence of the act.

It's easy to agree when you are talking about something that isn't being talked about. No one is talking about banning any types of thoughts anywhere. We were, on the other hand, talking about the process from which radical becomes extreme. I think it's nice that you both agree that we shouldn't police thoughts, hell, i don't think so either, but it wasn't the point of the conversation.

It's easy to agree when you are talking about something that isn't being talked about. No one is talking about banning any types of thoughts anywhere. We were, on the other hand, talking about the process from which radical becomes extreme. I think it's nice that you both agree that we shouldn't police thoughts, hell, i don't think so either, but it wasn't the point of the conversation.

See, and here I thought we were discussing this all along.

Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up?

Glad to know we weren't because you say so.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It's easy to agree when you are talking about something that isn't being talked about. No one is talking about banning any types of thoughts anywhere. We were, on the other hand, talking about the process from which radical becomes extreme. I think it's nice that you both agree that we shouldn't police thoughts, hell, i don't think so either, but it wasn't the point of the conversation.

See, and here I thought we were discussing this all along.

1. You kept talking about us banning thought or telling people they shouldn't think one way or the other, which was never brought. How could we be talking about the same thing when we were talking about different things. You were discussing that all along maybe, but you were the only one and it was off-topic for what the rest of us were discussing. It's not that hard to follow, but your troll-fu is strong.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up?

Glad to know we weren't because you say so.

Nice that you don't put who the original posters on the quotes and then attribute one to me, but that aint my quote. It's funny that the biggest "well I say so" person on the OT board would accuse others of it. Again, your troll-fu is strong.

ShumaGorath: Great Dakka troll or Greatest Dakka Troll?

1. You kept talking about us banning thought or telling people they shouldn't think one way or the other, which was never brought. How could we be talking about the same thing when we were talking about different things. You were discussing that all along maybe, but you were the only one and it was off-topic for what the rest of us were discussing. It's not that hard to follow, but your troll-fu is strong.

Bizarre then, how I was communicating and discussing it with several other people while you were being generally ignored. Lets see, scrolling through general lee responded to you once. Really. Who is this "we" you are talking about? I'm pretty sure I know what I was posting about, and I'm fairly certain that others in this thread know the same.

I think you may want to reconsider who is off topic here.

Nice that you don't put who the original posters on the quotes and then attribute one to me, but that aint my quote. It's funny that the biggest "well I say so" person on the OT board would accuse others of it. Again, your troll-fu is strong.

That quote was the gensis of the current line of conversation. If I had attributed it to you then that would mean you were correct and that we should be discussing what you are discussing. However I didn't attribute it to you. You didn't say it. It was the genisis of the current line of conversation. And you appear to be terribly lost, especially given the fact that more of your posts on this discussion are aimed at calling me a troll then actually discuss this topic.

ShumaGorath: Great Dakka troll or Greatest Dakka Troll?

Yes. I am the troll.

Well if it helps for the arguement.

Since a nutjob killed lots of kids in Dunblane twelve years ago handguns have been banned outright.

However the amount of handguns has increased, though you will need to wait a long time before our junta to release honest figures about gun crime. It's rife and getting worse.

What is needed are psychologicalm controls not outright bans.

Congratulations on all your success SG!

I can't tell if you're trolling me, or if you're actually serious here.


Polonius, what is your opinion on this situation?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Polonius, what is your opinion on this situation?

I have no clue what anybody is talking about.

It seems that Ahtman is going a little out of his way to bait you, on the other hand he has a valid point in that you included a quote from a new poster under his quote without changing the names, implying that you were responding to him, which is if nothing else a faux pas. In addition, you responded in a pretty inflammatory fashion. I know, you have a policy of acting like the people you are responding to, but all that does is make you as big a jerk as the biggest jerk you're talking to....

Well given that the quote was the focal point of the conversation and I don't know the bb code to include names I didn't see fit to site it. Though I probably wouldn't have anyway, laziness and all.

Frazzled wrote:Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

You haven't shot as many AK's as you profess. I've hit targets @300 yards, my friends have hit targets @300 yards. All with DIFFERENT AK's. Are AK's EFFECTIVE @300 yards? Just BARELY. But the accuracy is there.

ShumaGorath wrote:
You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

So.... HOW exactly do you keep criminals from having guns? Seriously. They still can't do it in Britain and Australia. All they've done is disarmed the honest citizenry, so that the criminals (with OR without guns) have an easier time victimizing them.

We do not have a serious gun crime problem in the UK. A lot of the gun crime actually happening is crim on crim.

One reason is that since ordinary citizens do not have guns, criminals do not need guns to threaten them. The penalties for carrying out crimes involving guns are quite severe, so they only tend to be used when they are really needed and the rewards are high, for example, in bank jobs.

That said, the same experience can't be transferred to the USA. For one thing, if the government did manage to get the 2nd Amendment amended, how many guns would citizens turn in? Loads of citizens would keep their guns illegally, and the problem would be doubled.

The basic point about crime is you usually can't stop people doing it if they are determined. You have to make them not want to do it.

Orlanth wrote:
However the amount of handguns has increased,.

and you know this because... ?

Ask the police.