- This topic has 335 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM #756870December 28, 2012 at 3:33 AM #756881
CA renter
Participant[quote=zk][quote=ucodegen][quote=zk]I know that a lot of right wingers (men and women) consider themselves manly and badass. The right-wing noise machine has been playing to their perceptions of themselves for a long time. Successfully. They love to talk about liberals as pussies and themselves as powerful. This article plays right along. Enjoy it. Jack off to it, even. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s only your perception of yourself and of others, not reality.
It’s easy to paint the opposition with a broad brush and to resort to emotional bluster. Any retard can do that.[/quote]Pot, meet kettle.. because you just accomplished what you accuse others of doing.[/quote]
True. True indeed.
I have, however, also tried to engage in a meaningful discussion about gun laws. And suddenly, everyone who was talking about Switzerland has disappeared. The only responses have been, “I’m a badass and you’re a pussy.” So I responded in kind. Not my best post, I agree. In fact, to put it in my own words, it was retarded. I’d prefer to discuss the matter reasonably. Any takers?[/quote]
Sorry for taking so long to respond, zk. Christmas & holiday stuff got in the way.
What we don’t know about the U.K. is whether or not the gun laws are effective at keeping **gun crime** down (overall, their violent crime rate is higher than ours, but they track things differently, so it’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison…they are well known for the under-reporting of crimes), or if their surveillance program is what keeps it down.
Here’s an interesting article on the subject:
“We aren’t alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.”
“…What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
—————-
And, is this what we want from our government?
“Britain is ‘surveillance society’
CCTV cameras
There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain
Fears that the UK would “sleep-walk into a surveillance society” have become a reality, the government’s information commissioner has said.Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke after research found people’s actions were increasingly being monitored.
Researchers highlight “dataveillance”, the use of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information, and CCTV.
Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.
There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain – about one for every 14 people.”
December 28, 2012 at 4:04 AM #756882ParticipantMore on the U.K. — all of this during the period that guns have been banned. As many of us have stated, it’s not the guns that are the problem…the people using them to commit violent acts are the problem. We need to focus on mental health and the obsession with sadistic violence in our society.
————–
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
By James Slack
UPDATED: 03:42 EST, 27 October 2009Comments (29)
Sharegun crime
Gun crime has increased five-fold in some parts of the UK
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year – a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: ‘In areas dominated by gang culture, we’re now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.
‘We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz2GLVpZZa3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook——————–
It’s also important to note that the U.K.’s homicide rate was always lower than the homicide rate in the U.S., even before the gun ban.
——————–
More on how the U.K. crime rates measure up to states with the lowest crime rate in the U.S. — some with very lenient gun laws. As others have already noted, some states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the highest crime rates.
IOW, gun bans do not prevent violent crimes or homicides. The culture of the people is what prevents or fosters high crime rates.
http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/
December 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM #756910zk
ParticipantAlright! Now we’re getting somewhere. Too busy to respond right now; I’ll post something in a couple days.
December 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM #756925ucodegen
Participant[quote=craptcha]What about making it harder to obtain a gun? The guy had it, so unless he made it he had to get it from someone.[/quote]The problem there is that it is too easy to get a gun or make a ‘gun’.. from the crude zip-guns, to Saturday Night Specials, to specialty guns like Barrett 50cal. While the ‘printed’ guns ie: MakerBot look to make it much easier, the plastic of these is way too fragile. In general, the barrel of a gun needs to be forged and tempered for strength. It is currently not feasible for a printed gun to function reliably.. though this may not be the case in the future. It is also possible to build a gun using a steel laser sintering printing process and use a lower cartridge charge.. and have it work reliably. There are other ‘interesting’ characteristics that I am not going to get into..
December 29, 2012 at 11:43 PM #756926scaredyclassic
ParticipantQUESTION:
to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?
that is, wont rebelling citizens be just as effective at slaughtering the govt tyrannists with various non-gun weaponry?
if guns didn’t exist, gun enthusiast seem to beli,eve that we won’t be any safer, as killers will turn to equally effective means…and if that were true, then taking away guns shouldn’t affect the ability of the citizenry to revolt.
right?
or are guns absoltuely necessary for the people to overthrow the govt.
the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.
December 29, 2012 at 11:57 PM #756927Participant[quote=squat300]QUESTION:
to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?
that is, wont rebelling citizens be just as effective at slaughtering the govt tyrannists with various non-gun weaponry?
if guns didn’t exist, gun enthusiast seem to beli,eve that we won’t be any safer, as killers will turn to equally effective means…and if that were true, then taking away guns shouldn’t affect the ability of the citizenry to revolt.
right?
or are guns absoltuely necessary for the people to overthrow the govt.
the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.[/quote]
The crazy nutjob killers are not fighting well-armed soldiers; they are fighting innocent civilians who are usually unarmed. They don’t *need* guns, and often don’t use guns, but guns do make it a bit more convenient if one wants to murder multiple people at once if one doesn’t want to use explosives, etc.
OTOH, people who are protecting against a tyrannical government (ours or another) will be fighting well-armed soldiers, and would therefore need guns, at the very least.
If you think armed citizens don’t regularly protect against armed soldiers, look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Cuba, etc. Our military has not managed to really gain control in any of these countries because of their armed citizens/guerrilla forces . There are many examples in history where armed citizens were able to fight off military/political enemies. An armed citizenry is also why Switzerland wasn’t invaded by the Nazis.
December 30, 2012 at 2:24 AM #756928Participant[quote=squat300]QUESTION:
to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?[/quote] Except for one little tiny problem.. well maybe not so tiny. Bombs, ricin are not targeted, they are by nature indiscriminate. They kill everyone in the vicinity and are useless in defense. They can only be used in retaliation, and not very well without a delivery system (ie. missile). Guns are targeted, and selective by nature (you have to aim them) — so I would have to say that your ‘equivalency’ is reaching a bit.
December 30, 2012 at 2:53 AM #756929Participant[quote=squat300]QUESTION:
to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?[/quote] Except for one little tiny problem.. well maybe not so tiny. Bombs, ricin are not targeted, they are by nature indiscriminate. They kill everyone in the vicinity and are useless in defense. They can only be used in retaliation, and not very well without a delivery system (ie. missile). Guns are targeted, and selective by nature (you have to aim them) — so I would have to say that your ‘equivalency’ is reaching a bit.[/quote]
[quote=squat300]the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.[/quote]Except that is happened before, and I think the King of England felt that it was equally unlikely at the time. After all, England had a professional army with considerable experience… against what? Back country ‘hick’ colonialists?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana
PS: Take a look at the costs of defending against Guerrilla tactics. While Guerrilla tactics may now outright win, they make it expensive for the opposing force to continue. Just remember Russia and Afghanistan…
December 30, 2012 at 10:33 AM #756931all
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=craptcha]What about making it harder to obtain a gun? The guy had it, so unless he made it he had to get it from someone.[/quote]The problem there is that it is too easy to get a gun or make a ‘gun’.. from the crude zip-guns, to Saturday Night Specials, to specialty guns like Barrett 50cal. While the ‘printed’ guns ie: MakerBot look to make it much easier, the plastic of these is way too fragile. In general, the barrel of a gun needs to be forged and tempered for strength. It is currently not feasible for a printed gun to function reliably.. though this may not be the case in the future. It is also possible to build a gun using a steel laser sintering printing process and use a lower cartridge charge.. and have it work reliably. There are other ‘interesting’ characteristics that I am not going to get into..[/quote]
In this particular case (NY firefighters killed by a guy unable to purchase guns legally) the gun(s) were purchased by a neighbor for her own protection.
http://gothamist.com/2012/12/29/feds_woman_bought_rifle_for_upstate.php
December 30, 2012 at 10:41 AM #756932ParticipantThen I suppose the 30000 or so people shot this year including the new town kids are actually heroes whose deaths are worthwhile and in furtherance of the cause of liberty.
Every time someone is shot with a gun we should just think yes, this is the price we pay to be free.
….
Doesn’t feel right to me.
Maybe the NRA could issue the parents of the dead kids posthumous medals for their sacrifice for our freedoms.
December 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM #756933dumbrenter
Participant[quote=squat300]Then I suppose the 30000 or so people shot this year including the new town kids are actually heroes whose deaths are worthwhile and in furtherance of the cause of liberty.
Every time someone is shot with a gun we should just think yes, this is the price we pay to be free.
….
Doesn’t feel right to me.
Maybe the NRA could issue the parents of the dead kids posthumous medals for their sacrifice for our freedoms.[/quote]
Funnily enough this hand wringing happens only when there is a new incidence of shooting. There will be no concerted effort to do away with 2nd amendment which according to you is the root of this evil.
Thankfully NRA (and I) know that you will go back to some other issue-of-the-day and have no stomach for sustained action.
You would have achieved something the day you can get one congressman (either house or party) to say they will do away with the 2nd and still get elected.
You and your fleeting attention are the best friend NRA can hope for and if anybody deserves a medal it is you.
Thank you for protecting our liberty and freedom from a potentially oppressive government in future.December 30, 2012 at 1:04 PM #756934ParticipantAd hominem attack … very effective.
Whenever we allow our children to go over to a friends house do we interview the parents to ensure any guns are present and if so are they secured properly? Shouldn’t we?
I try. Always have always will. I assume nothing about guns and the lunkheads who own them. Not that all gun owners are lunkheads. But a chunk of them are. This is an example of a non ad hominem attack since it supports my vigiliancexabout protecting my kids from an actual likely danger.
December 30, 2012 at 1:08 PM #756935ParticipantPerhaps the problem is there is no anti gun group to promote a 2nd amendment repeal.
Perhaps a triggering event could make that happen.
Perhaps a dictatorship will ensue.
But if I were betting money we’d just see the same sad democracy we have now but with a lot less gun deaths.
December 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM #756936ParticipantWhen I google repeal 2nd amendment I see lots of chatter but no big movement to donate money to.
What should I call it?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.