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.

 whembly wrote:
Hey Kan (and anyone else)...

What are you advocating again?

Jackbooted Thuggery and State Sponsered Oppression.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hey Kan (and anyone else)...

What are you advocating again?

Jackbooted Thuggery and State Sponsored Oppression.

While ignoring a couple decades of data in the name of self back patting and aggrandizing over "those backward gunning owning hicks". Sucks when reality doesn't match one's opinion does it not?

Interestingly the only individuals in this thread who've provided cited research and data have been the pro-gunners.

Edit: Breaking news! The KKK is joining the counterprotest against the WBC.
http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/kkk-protests-westboro-church/

When the freaking Ku Klux Klan is standing against you as the vile scum of the earth, you might want to consider that you've gone too far.

 AustonT wrote:
Jackbooted Thuggery and State Sponsered Oppression.

The only people who fear Jackboots are The Criminals. And they aren't really People.

Now move along, Citizen.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Jackbooted Thuggery and State Sponsered Oppression.

The only people who fear Jackboots are The Criminals. And they aren't really People.

Now move along, Citizen.

This guy looks completely trustworthy to me! I mean come on, what's the worst that can happen?



Oh. Right.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You know why, correct?
It's not "the officers being out on the street" which does it. It is the increased watchfulness of the citizens, the increased willingness to cooperate with police, etc.

Yes, I do know why. The why of how it works does not diminish it's effectiveness.

It would reduce the general acts of crime, certainly.
But it would not prevent acts like this.

While it might not reduce the number of suburban mass shootings, I would bet that the overall impact on crime would be a more effective use of law enforcement personnel. How many deaths/injuries from general crime would be prevented vs how many injuries/deaths from mass shootings would be prevented?

This is your rebuttal?

I'll let you reconsider this statement.

Please, enlighten me as I must be missing something. You are talking about randomized plain-sight searches on registered gun owners as I understand it. Actual criminals (and I'm not really sure of a better term to use - meaning someone intent on committing a violent crime) are probably not going to have a firearm that is registered in their name meaning there won't be a search of their property to begin with. Even if they do have a firearm registered in their name, knowing that they will be subject to search at some point, they will most likely ensure that anything incriminating is either off property or otherwise outside the bounds of the search.

An otherwise law-abiding citizen (again, best term I could think of - meaning they have no intent to commit a violent crime with the weapons, but may be a target of theft or may have a family member that intends to use their firearms) that is simply lazy or irresponsible will probably have the weapons out of sight anyway which defeats the purpose of the search.


And for whembly, I am simply proposing that we look for multi-angle, realistic approaches to the problem. I am for better and escalating gun regulation and education. I am for better mental health care and coverage. I am against banning firearms or treating every firearm owner as a potential mass-murderer or counter revolutionary. I own 7 firearms (two shotguns, three rifles, two handguns), all inherited, all have great value from a sentimental and/or historical standpoint. Two are no longer functional, one has never been fired (and probably will never be as long as I own it), and I only keep ammunition for one (and a minimal amount at that). One could be classified as an assault weapon under fairly loose interpretations.

I've never understood the whole 'Defence against an oppressive government' idea.

Let's face it, these days governments have insanely effective weapons with truly incredible killing power. Surely therefore the logic behind this concept is that the civilian population is able to challenge the military forces that are oppressing them - and the more equal the terms the better...

So how far do you go?

- Heavy machine guns?
- 40mm cannons?
- RPGs?
- SAMs?
- MBTs?
- Scuds?
- Mustard gas?
- Anthrax?
- Tactical nuclear weapons?
- H-bombs?

Why do those using this argument stop at assault weapons? Why do advocates of this concept draw the line there, and not somewhere else in this spectrum? After all, the further down this list you go, the lower the chance a dictatorship has of winning against an armed resistance... you can bet that no-one is going to try and invade or oppress a country where everyone has their own suitcase nuke!

The fact they don't go further and advocate this tells me that people don't really believe in this idea - they're simply using it as an excuse to own shiny guns...


One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one. The number of successful democracies where the private ownership of firearms is either heavily restricted or outright banned without a good reason is absolute proof of this.

For the US itself, there may have been good reasons why this was listed as a right over 200 years ago. Whether or not it should still be included as a right is almost irrelevant - I suspect guns are now so entrenched in US culture they can't be shifted, not even by tragedies like Sandy Hook. but restricting the sale and use of the deadlier classes of weapon - i.e. the guns specifically designed for no purpose than to kill lots of people as quickly as possible - that might be something that can be accomplished. America has to ask itself how many children's lives is it willing to trade in exchange for this restriction?

I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hedgehog wrote:
One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.

Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?

- Heavy machine guns?
- 40mm cannons?
- RPGs?
- MBTs?

These are all legal with the right amount of money and proper paperwork as we've previously established. My standard of "personal freedom" for firearms have always been up to and including the standard kit of the modern infantryman. That used to be muskets, then lever actions, then bolt actions, now it's the semi-automatic AR-15 or one of the various other options out there.

The interesting thing with the whole "Govt is gonna stomp you" argument is it allows for no free will on the part of the military or law enforcement. I promise you in the event of a tyrannical doomsday that a solid half of the regular armed forces in the United States (probably more) wouldn't accept orders to fire on American citizens and in the event of out and out rebellion you're going to see guys deserting in droves and taking their toys with them. It's a rare man you'll find that will willingly fire on or make war upon his own people.

There's also a solid argument for guerrilla forces vs. regular military forces as presented by forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to be doing pretty well with rifles, RPGs, improvised weapons and pickup trucks. Sure they're losing and dying pretty quickly, but they've put up a damn good fight against several major modern military powers, not bad for untrained poorly armed sheep herders.

Meanwhile in America tactical shooting is a regular sporting event:



I'm not of the opinion that violent resistance to the US Government will ever be required, or that the UN is going to invade or some hogwash like that, but as Manchu said, the small tyrannies happen, and should be resisted with all force.
For example, the Battle of Athens Tennessee (aka the McMinn county war)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

 Kanluwen wrote:
You tell me.

Because quite frankly, debating with any of you is like smashing my fingers with a hammer.

I'm done. You can go back to your "Pewpew! I would have stopped this my CCW!" talk. I don't care anymore.

Well... I was trying to understand where you're coming from....

I know someone who scared a would be mugger (rapist?) by pulling her handgun out.

Don't know if that fit's a CCW scenario, but I think that fits.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hedgehog wrote:
One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.

Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?

It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.

If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.


I'll also freely admit I'm just an outside observer with no personal stake in this (apart from the usual shock at the senseless deaths of innocent children). This is, ultimately, a problem that America has to solve itself.

 Hedgehog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hedgehog wrote:
One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.

Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?

It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.

If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.

I'll also freely admit I'm just an outside observer with no personal stake in this (apart from the usual shock at the senseless deaths of innocent children).

I'd consider the right to self defense a human right. It stands to reason if you have a right to life you have the right preserve it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It is the increased watchfulness of the citizens, the increased willingness to cooperate with police, etc.

Kan, from my own experiences,your making assumptions there. I don't often agree with either you or seaward, but he's right, the historical data, the only 'hard' data we have to work with, just isn't there for your assertions. Admittedly, my own experience with police is a mixed bag. Some cops do what you say, others have a more stormtrooperish approach.

 Hedgehog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hedgehog wrote:
One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.

Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?

It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.

If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.

The point some are making is that MORE gun control only really impacts the law-abiding citizens. That's why some gun owners are claiming... "hey, why are you disarming ME?".

Criminials couldn't give a feth to current gun laws.

I guess some could advocate a total gun ban. However... take a look at the homicides (not just guns, all) in the UK.

You would think there would be a downward trend of all Homicide (if, guns were a large part of the crime). But you don't see that.

That's the simple point. Disarming the population in most cases probably wouldn't make that much of an impact to the overall homicide rate.

So... if gun control isn't working enough (if at all), why is it continually being pushed?

 Hedgehog wrote:
I've never understood the whole 'Defence against an oppressive government' idea.

Let's face it, these days governments have insanely effective weapons with truly incredible killing power. Surely therefore the logic behind this concept is that the civilian population is able to challenge the military forces that are oppressing them - and the more equal the terms the better...

So how far do you go?

- Heavy machine guns?
- 40mm cannons?
- RPGs?
- SAMs?
- MBTs?
- Scuds?
- Mustard gas?
- Anthrax?
- Tactical nuclear weapons?
- H-bombs?

Why do those using this argument stop at assault weapons? Why do advocates of this concept draw the line there, and not somewhere else in this spectrum? After all, the further down this list you go, the lower the chance a dictatorship has of winning against an armed resistance... you can bet that no-one is going to try and invade or oppress a country where everyone has their own suitcase nuke!

Well, let me look around the fortress here.

- Heavy machine guns? CHECK
- 40mm cannons? CHECK (and we also have such delightful flavors as 12 and 24 pound, 75mm PAK, British 25 pounder, 105mm and 155.
- RPGs? CHECK (weirdly, I found a bazooka round in my filing cabinet today. I had wondered where it had gotten to.)
- SAMs? None in stock, but can get with 24 hours notice.
- MBTs? CHECK
- Scuds? Who would want a piece of crap like this?
- Mustard gas? See SAMs
- Anthrax? I don't do Germs. I leave that to people who don't catch everything going around. Though I do have a variety of anthrax countermeasures on tap.
- Tactical nuclear weapons? Don't do nukes. Maintaining them in a state of readiness is beyond my means.
- H-bombs? I suppose if i had the materials... but no, again, too hard to safely maintain.


Suitcase nukes are a bit of a misnomer. They still weigh several tons.

And, let me counter with this: take a given army, and see how many tanks to rifles they have.

 whembly wrote:

The point some are making is that MORE gun control only really impacts the law-abiding citizens. That's why some gun owners are claiming... "hey, why are you disarming ME?".

Criminials couldn't give a feth to current gun laws.

You act as if criminals are like Morlocks - a separate shadowy race, living in underground caves, waiting to burst out of their hiding places to rape and steal. Criminals are law-abiding citizens, right up until the point they decide to not... abide the law. That's the problem with saying things like 'gun control only affects law abiding citizens' - how do you quantify that? How many crimes are committed by otherwise 'law-abiding' citizens with legally-owned firearms?

I guess some could advocate a total gun ban. However... take a look at the homicides (not just guns, all) in the UK.

You would think there would be a downward trend of all Homicide (if, guns were a large part of the crime). But you don't see that.

Because gun crime doesn't make up a large % of the total homicide rate here. I'm pretty sure it does in the US, though.

That's the simple point. Disarming the population in most cases probably wouldn't make that much of an impact to the overall homicide rate.

Again, not in a country in which gun ownership is not widespread, but in America? I'm not so sure.

 Albatross wrote:
Again, not in a country in which gun ownership is not widespread, but in America? I'm not so sure.

You're overlooking the fact that America is impossible to disarm.

http://www.examiner.com/article/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder-while-babysitting-siblings

In positive gun news a 14 year old successfully defended himself and his siblings from an armed intruder.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Again, not in a country in which gun ownership is not widespread, but in America? I'm not so sure.

You're overlooking the fact that America is impossible to disarm.

I'm not overlooking anything. FWIW, I agree with you. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think such a thing would even be desirable. I was just flagging up that the differences between the UK and US in terms of gun-culture and gun-crime make drawing hypothetical parallels on the effectiveness of gun control nigh on impossible. There are nowhere near the amount of guns per capita here, meaning that gun-control produces a different effect here than it would there. Disarming America's civilian population and removing most privately-owned firearms from circulation probably would bring homicide down, but as it's an impossible thing to do, it's pointless discussing it. Something does need to change though - probably the culture, in my opinion.

Saying that, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, either physically or emotionally. It's also none of my business.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which just means that individuals intending acts like this would move their targets to elsewhere..

That's the idea, yes.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The goal that these shooters have are twofold:
1) Cause as much damage and as many casualties as possible. They want their acts to "shock the conscience".
2) Gain as much attention from media outlets as possible.

Most of them have a third goal, which is to kill themselves by their own hand or by the hand of law enforcement officials on the scene.

Schools are convenient targets for these individuals because there is a stigma against harming children in Western culture, fulfilling the "shock the conscience" aspect for these shooters. Add to it that the individuals know there is no real defensive measures on the premise--and it's a perfect target..

Yes, the fact that it's upsetting to "westerners" to have our children killed at school, and their total defenselessness, is an issue.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Add armed individuals to schools in the form of teachers with guns or a larger police presence, and the shift will be made towards other gathering places where parents and their children are relatively vulnerable.

Then we have another location to start moving in the direction of target hardening, and the cycle begins anew.

So... what? What is your point?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://www.examiner.com/article/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder-while-babysitting-siblings

In positive gun news a 14 year old successfully defended himself and his siblings from an armed intruder.

Only in America could that be a positive news story!



*there is no orkmoticon for rueful laughter*

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hey Kan (and anyone else)...

What are you advocating again?

Jackbooted Thuggery and State Sponsered Oppression.

Yes actually. Blatant violation of civil liberties.

For people who ask why we can't have a rational debate about this, or why the "pro-gun" side of the aisle is so reflexively dismissive of any suggestions involving the limitation of firearm rights, I present to you Don Lemon, CNN anchor extraordinaire:

If someone who has a mental issue did not have access to guns that should only be available in war zones, we would not be dealing with this. Who needs a bullet piercing, armor piercing bullet to go hunting? Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting? You can’t even use the prey that you kill with an assault rifle if you indeed do it. no one needs an assault rifle to go out and shoot a deer. … That’s the issue that we need to deal with. So to say that gun violence is down does not make sense. To me, it’s insulting to everyone who lost a loved one here and who was dealing with that. It doesn’t matter if gun violence is down...We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt children.

There's a lot wrong with the above, least of all the terminology and claims regarding the weapon technology used in these tragedies. "Semantics!" the other side will shout, but I'd argue it's not semantics when you're writing legislation. If you care so passionately about something that you can't...quite...manage to do a basic level of research on it, I'm not sure yours should be a voice involved in the conversation.

Above all, though, it's that one line. Gun violence is down, but that doesn't matter, because sensational tragedies still occur. Is that a logical approach to the issue? Is that anything but attempting to legislate by emotion?

In regards to protecting against tyrannical governments: if the US government wanted to become a tyrannical state there'd be pretty much nothing the populace could do about it.

How effective are handguns against a heavily armed drone being controlled from a hardened bunker beneath the Pentagon?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
In regards to protecting against tyrannical governments: if the US government wanted to become a tyrannical state there'd be pretty much nothing the populace could do about it.

How effective are handguns against a heavily armed drone being controlled from a hardened bunker beneath the Pentagon?

Depends on how fast they get hacked, if guys living in caves can access unprotected channels for those things I'm sure some of the genius hackers living in the United States pull it off.

Also I hear they work just fine... on the controllers.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

The interesting thing with the whole "Govt is gonna stomp you" argument is it allows for no free will on the part of the military or law enforcement. I promise you in the event of a tyrannical doomsday that a solid half of the regular armed forces in the United States (probably more) wouldn't accept orders to fire on American citizens and in the event of out and out rebellion you're going to see guys deserting in droves and taking their toys with them.

Well, yeah, but tyrannical doomsday prognostications generally leverage the number of body bags that FEMA has stockpiled. In a realistic scenario involving a legitimate threat to the power of the federal government the US military would most likely behave as every other military in a similar situation has: follow the orders of the immediate CO. Because, at the end of the day, identifying oneself as being military is almost always far stronger than identifying oneself as being nationality X; especially with a nationality as weak as "American".

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

It's a rare man you'll find that will willingly fire on or make war upon his own people.

If you can get members of the Ohio National Guard to shoot college kids in Ohio, you can very easily get the US Army to shoot college kids in the US. There is a lot less common identity.

Look at it like this, If you banned guns outright in the USA what would happen.

It would be illegal to own a Gun, okay got it. So 95% of the population would not own a gun.

However it does not mean the other 5% would not go get them and obtain them.

Cocaine is illegal, yet still here in the states.
Pot, heroine, crack, immigrants entering without proper paper work,...
infact name one thing that is banned, outlawed or illegal not to be in possession of someone i\n the USA.

The sad truth is, some people don't follow the law. Outlawing guns does nothing to criminals.

I do see the argument about this case, well if the mom did not own these guns the Kid would not of used them. But that doesnt mean he couldn't drive to NYC or Hartford and obtain some if he wanted. Or perhaps worse, resort to a home made explosive or 2.

I have a permit to carry, I own guns. I would gladly give it my guns if it meant 1 "criminal" would have to give up his and magically could never obtain another one.

Gun control will never happen. Laws are for those who follow the law. The Lawless follow none.

The place to start is police or armed security at every school. And then stricter and tougher gun laws, NO TOLERANCE, as well as a revamp in background checks on how to acquire guns legally. Consider this, NFL wide reciever, Plexico Burress, shot himself and did 2 years in prison. Yet other NFL athletes have shot other people and have only done as little as 8 months.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
In regards to protecting against tyrannical governments: if the US government wanted to become a tyrannical state there'd be pretty much nothing the populace could do about it.

How effective are handguns against a heavily armed drone being controlled from a hardened bunker beneath the Pentagon?

How effective are Ku-band antennas underground?

Tsilber wrote:
Look at it like this, If you banned guns outright in the USA what would happen.

It would be illegal to own a Gun, okay got it. So 95% of the population would not own a gun.

Quite optimistic in thinking that 95% of the population would just walk to their nearest gun-collection zone to drop of the weapons they have legally owned, sometimes for generations.

How would you compensate the people who, with the stroke of a pen, lost legally owned property?

I was speaking hypothetically... let's say 80%, 70%, 60%.

Either way, the point, which you seemed to have missed. Is that people who wanted a gun to commit a murder, would still obtain guns, and murderers would still murder.

Tsilber wrote:
I was speaking hypothetically... let's say 80%, 70%, 60%.

Either way, the point, which you seemed to have missed. Is that people who wanted a gun to commit a murder, would still obtain guns, and murderers would still murder.

Look... this whole ordeal touched me in ways I've never thought of as being a dad of a 6 and 8 year old... And having multiple familiy members teaching profession.

I don't know what is the right answer.

My gut feeling is that it's impossible to get rid of guns... so, I don't mind sensible regulation and more concerted effort to discover/treat mental illness.

It's the "how" that is going to be challenging.