Gun Control

[camycamera]

Better yet...
"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'" Biden said. "You don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim, it's harder to use and in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself." -Vice President Joe Biden

i lol'd at the "Vice President's" said statement. that is the most ridiculous statement i have heard all month. going out and shooting from your front porch will NOT scare the baddies away, it will make your poor neighbours think you are a madman.

and on the subject on gun laws in America, it is god-damn silly how the government is handling this. they are blaming VIDEO GAMES for the violence, saying bullshit things such as "a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun" and "we need guards on every corner with guns"..... blah blah blah blah BLAH. CIVILIANS DO NOT NEED AN M249, the most they should have is a pistol, and they should need licences for that. why should they need licences? so they can confirm that they aren't mentally insane and wont go out and commit murder!

the "Bad guys" are the people with mental problems that go out and do this stuff, which results in media attention, which results in copy cat murders, and then the media finds some kind of BULLSHIT link to video games causing the violence, and then the government agrees with the media to get the general public to trust them, because everyone with half a brain (at least in America, anyway) believes and listens to the media, and then the government tries to do something about gun control and fail, and then the cycle starts ALL OVER AGAIN.

this is just proof that you shouldn't listen to everything the media or the government says. it is a shame how the world has come to.

"What a shame."
- JC Denton

[Koadster]

Originally Posted by camycamera

and on the subject on gun laws in America, it is god-damn silly how the government is handling this. they are blaming VIDEO GAMES for the violence, saying bullshit things such as "a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun" and "we need guards on every corner with guns"..... blah blah blah blah BLAH. CIVILIANS DO NOT NEED AN M249, the most they should have is a pistol, and they should need licences for that. why should they need licences? so they can confirm that they aren't mentally insane and wont go out and commit murder!

this is just proof that you shouldn't listen to everything the media or the government says. it is a shame how the world has come to.

The thing about that, the bad guys dont follow the rules! Here in Australia its easier to get a firearm illegally then it is to get one legally in the USA! We constantly keep busting entire gun dealing rings of people the latest being a post office of all places, Hell recently the Federal police busted customs officers who were illegally importing guns into australia. Even people such as those who are meant to stop the importation of guns are breaking the rules. So if you wanted to go kill someone you would just goto your local bikies and get a gun to kill that person.

Gun laws only restrict the law abiding people.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Koadster

Gun laws only restrict the law abiding people.

If that were true, crime and gun violence in the EU would outrate any of yours. So please explain our ratings.


Oh speaking of australia...



Maybe you need to do something about that perception of yours.

And this one keeps being interesting.

From: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/s...s-on-violence/

I wonder what the above would look like if you would compensate for population density.


I'd also look at this:
http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.nl...-spike-in.html

"How are statistics composed?"

[bpostal]

You can use your 'facts' and 'statistics' and all that shit.
Truth is, I've got an AR because I want one, and I'll keep one because I want to. If it's ever made illegal, I'll still keep mine. Because fuck everyone, that's why.
To me, that's the end of the debate.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by bpostal

You can use your 'facts' and 'statistics' and all that shit.
Truth is, I've got an AR because I want one, and I'll keep one because I want to. If it's ever made illegal, I'll still keep mine. Because fuck everyone, that's why.
To me, that's the end of the debate.

Considering you're not open to rational debate in the first place from the sounds of your emotional argumentation, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you were never in it.

But there's also a pretty good chance people don't trust you with guns after making statements like that.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Figment

Considering you're not open to rational debate in the first place from the sounds of your emotional argumentation, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you were never in it.

Certainly shoots down, no pun intended, any hope of further discussion on the matter. A sad day when facts no longer matter.

[Figment]

Oh btw, upon further looking into the Australian weapon laws, in the late 1920s and 1930s, Australia became more strict on gun control in response to organised crime and fear of Communism.

They became more lax in the 1950s and 1970s.

If you look at downward and upward trends during those periods in Australia, the downward trends happen during periods in which gun legislation becomes more strict, while the trends are upwards while legislation is more lax.

Laws have always been somewhat loose, though a bit more strict than in the USA (particularly military grade weapons and handguns were restricted pre-50s). However, never did Australia reach USA levels of crime. Not with partial restrictions, not with full restrictions. It can be said that currently the strictest laws apply in Australia that have ever been instituted there. The trend downwards in murder rate is also the steepest and never have murderrates been this consistently low.


Just saying. >.>

So is there an increase in other forms of crime? Possibly. Could also be that in part you see an increase in crimes in categories of violent crime that could otherwise have escalated to murder. It's quite hard to tell and I'd love some more statistical analysis and comparisons (preferably using the same definitions of crime types).

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Figment

So is there an increase in other forms of crime? Possibly. Could also be that in part you see an increase in crimes in categories of violent crime that could otherwise have escalated to murder. It's quite hard to tell and I'd love some more statistical analysis and comparisons (preferably using the same definitions of crime types).

That's what I gathered from the Australian government's official statistics as well.
Just as a note.
However the use of knives in homicides also increased, this doesn't mean that the amount of homicides haven't decreased overall.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/...%7Dfacts11.pdf
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by Figment

Considering you're not open to rational debate in the first place from the sounds of your emotional argumentation, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you were never in it.

The gun grabbers aren't open to rational debate, why should you expect people like bpostal to be different, a lot of people are just fed up with the lies and manipulation from the anti gun rights people in the US.

There is no compromise on the core issues underlying the US gun debate.

One side essentially thinks the State should have complete monopoly on the use of force and thus find the idea that individual citizens having weapons of any kind to defend themselves unacceptable, never mind defend themselves against government itself, which is completely abhorrent to them. This is the opinion of statists everywhere and of course the orthodoxy of the UN.

The other side believes in the natural or god given right of the individual to defend themselves including from their own government should it overstep and become tyrannical. As such they believe they should be able to own at least personal weapons on par with those used by agents of the state. This is the view that was shared by the founders of the United States and written into the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which is the bedrock on which the US as a state is built.

Now how can these two sides possibly compromise? There is no rational debate between people that are already settled into either camp that can possibly lead anywhere constructive.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Helwyr

The other side believes in the natural or god given right of the individual to defend themselves including from their own government should it overstep and become tyrannical. As such they believe they should be able to own at least personal weapons on par with those used by agents of the state. This is the view that was shared by the founders of the United States and written into the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which is the bedrock on which the US as a state is built.

That's strange since I don't remember reading that in the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms can mean a lot of things and it doesn't mention anything about firearms that match those used by the agents of the state.... Which is actually funny if you read the Amendment in the way that it gives state's the right to have a militia and but not the individuals to bear arms against the state.
The right to defend yourself is definently a part of the natural law, but the right to bear arms, in this case firearms, is a legal given right or if you prefer a part of the common law rights, if I'm not mistaken. And a god given right? Ok, I guess that can be filed under natural law.
What it really seems like you're reffering to are some of the various court descisions on the matter.

Damned thing about unspecific laws, people have a tendency to read them however they want with very varying results.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Helwyr

The gun grabbers aren't open to rational debate, why should you expect people like bpostal to be different, a lot of people are just fed up with the lies and manipulation from the anti gun rights people in the US.

I'm sorry, but rational debate entails presenting solid argumentation. If one side cannot accept the arguments of the opposition because they don't deem them solid, this does not mean they are "irrational". Arguments pro-guns are virtually ALWAYS based on emotions - fear and threats in particular - and therefore likely to be emotional, rather than rational.

There are a few rational arguments for gun ownership, such as practical need in every day work (forest ranger for instance), but even those make more sense to be locked up at the office under constant surveillance of the person on duty, than at home where third parties may get involved.

There is no compromise on the core issues underlying the US gun debate.

There's always room for compromise, the US just forgot how to make compromises between two groups and prefers to polarise every debate till there's a clear winner. :/ That's basically just childish behaviour.

One side essentially thinks the State should have complete monopoly on the use of force and thus find the idea that individual citizens having weapons of any kind to defend themselves unacceptable, never mind defend themselves against government itself, which is completely abhorrent to them. This is the opinion of statists everywhere and of course the orthodoxy of the UN.

If the citizenry is in democratic control of the State and no single party could make claim to dominate it, essentially the State is non-threatening and benevolent to its civilian populace. It becomes a problem when groups with guns fight other groups with guns and assume totalitarian control.

This however, would require a civil war with a total unconditional victory and the wiping out of all opposition. It is likelier that this would occur by gun owners than by those that handed in their weapons. Hence it's better to remove them from all and have all share control over the government in coalitions, than leave some with and some without and have one party in control at a time. With a seesaw system, one of them might become too heavy and stay in control of the seat of power long enough to influence all positions of power (including the checks and balances) and then assume it's their right to be in control.

This is more likely to occur when (either entitled or disgruntled) citizens can back up their words with force, than if they have to make due with words and votes.

The other side believes in the natural or god given right of the individual to defend themselves including from their own government should it overstep and become tyrannical. As such they believe they should be able to own at least personal weapons on par with those used by agents of the state. This is the view that was shared by the founders of the United States and written into the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which is the bedrock on which the US as a state is built.

Only it isn't. I know they believe that, you might believe that, but that's not at all what the founders did. :/ The militias are there to protect the federal state and act on behalf of the president. Not of the states themselves. The idea was to keep the populace involved for various reasons, including keeping down military cost and prevention of military coups. Not to keep the government itself in check.

Besides, it also states that federal law supercedes state law. And that too is constantly disputed when it doesn't suit the states.

Now how can these two sides possibly compromise? There is no rational debate between people that are already settled into either camp that can possibly lead anywhere constructive.

Of course there is compromises possible, but one side thinks that if they're just stubborn enough, they'll never need to concede. Probably also because they're afraid of a slipery slope effect where one law leads to the next. In fact, you see this fear constantly expressed here, even if there are no indicators of such. That is irrational.

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by Figment

If the citizenry is in democratic control of the State and no single party could make claim to dominate it, essentially the State is non-threatening and benevolent to its civilian populace. It becomes a problem when groups with guns fight other groups with guns and assume totalitarian control.

I'm sorry but this statement just shows you don't have a clue what's going on in the world.

I'm not arguing semantics with collectivist authoritarians or their apologists. Individual rights and liberties aren't up for debate. Come for peoples guns in the US you best be prepared for many of them to use those guns. People aren't going to roll over so easily as they did in Australia, it will mean civil war.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by Helwyr

The other side believes in the natural or god given right of the individual to defend themselves including from their own government should it overstep and become tyrannical.

I can sort of understand the "self defense" argument even though I think its wrong (but on an emotional level I get it), I just can't fathom why anyone would trot out the "from the government" argument in seriousness.

Do you think that whatever citizen forces can be equipped with the legally available firearms would stand a chance against the organized armed forces of the country, especially western ones like the US?

An AK47 or bpostals AR will not do any good against an M1A1 tank (as any PS2 player should be aware off) nor will your Desert Eagle protect you from aerial bombardment and strafing runs with an F22.

If "the government" wants to kill you, they will kill you.
Unless you are advocating that military-grade hardware be available to civilians (AT missiles, FLAK, mines; including tactical nukes)

This fantasy scenario can only work with the assumption that parts of the military forces large enough to counter the loyal government troops will defect and side with the armed citizens.

Except, if you already have this large support for your cause, overthrowing the government is only a formality and can be performed completely without civil war.
Examples:

1989, Poland - not one shot was fired from the military, martial law was in effect
1989, East Germany - GDR military watched as millions of (unarmed) citizens streamed into the west breaking the wall with sledgehammers
1990-91 Soviet Union - tanks rolled out against the protesters just to ultimately do nothing

This "protect themselves from their government" is a romantic idea from the turn of the 19th century and imagines an US civil war with cannons and single-shot rifles where a man with a six-shooter can make a difference.

Red Dawn isn't a documentary, neither is Homefront.

In a realistic scenario of a successful tyrannical government being established in the US by a force large enough to control the military, the citizens are fucked.

Guns are/were not illegal in Iraq, they did not stop Hussein and did not save the Kurds.
North Korea didn't have gun control and it didn't help against the tyrannical regime of Kim Jong-il.

If the tyrannical government were not to have the military under their control, it's not a tyrannical government because it can't enact its tyranny.

You would need to have an exceedingly specific scenario to make armed civilians matter.
For example whole states secede and form separate governments, but then you can join the armed forces of those states/governments and their civilians still don't need guns.
Or a complete breakdown in law and order enacted by any form of authority (i.e. Wild West/Somalia), but if you have a breakdown in law, no shit, you can own illegal things.

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by Mietz

[...]

I know many collectivist authoritarians that call themselves "liberals" and have never had so much as a real fist fight get aroused at the image of A1 Abrams tanks laying waste to some "red neck" gun rights people armed rifles while they sit back drinking cocktails watching it all on CNN. However, that's as much a fantasy as is the notion it will play out just like it did vs the British in 1776. All that military hardware isn't run by AI programs yet, and not all the military in the US are automatons.

But rather than having a pissing contest over who "wins" a potential civil war like it's another video game why not just acknowledge it would be absolutely awful for everyone involved, and start acknowledging what's leading us down that path in the first place. Maybe you should start questioning what's going on in the world and not look to government and their propaganda arm the mainstream media for all the answers. We're heading into very dark times, and I'm not talking about the swamps of Hossin. You people cheering on the gun grabbers in the US are hastening disaster and potentially your own demise.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I know many collectivist authoritarians that call themselves "liberals" and have never had so much as a real fist fight get aroused at the image of A1 Abrams tanks laying waste to some "red neck" gun rights people armed rifles while they sit back drinking cocktails watching it all on CNN. However, that's as much a fantasy as is the notion it will play out just like it did vs the British in 1776. All that military hardware isn't run by AI programs yet, and not all the military in the US are automatons.

But rather than having a pissing contest over who "wins" a potential civil war like it's another video game why not just acknowledge it would be absolutely awful for everyone involved, and start acknowledging what's leading us down that path in the first place. Maybe you should start questioning what's going on in the world and not look to government and their propaganda arm the mainstream media for all the answers. We're heading into very dark times, and I'm not talking about the swamps of Hossin. You people cheering on the gun grabbers in the US are hastening disaster and potentially your own demise.

Way to spin that one. Going from arguing that a professional military force would almost certainly defeat an armed militia to gun control advocates and the government actually enjoying the wanton slaughter of their own people... Ok, you might want to calm down a bit before posting again.

No one has ever been able to stave off change by threats of violence, if you want to keep your weapon laws as they are now I would advice against threathing to kill anyone who tries to change that. Not going to work.
I won't blame you for being passionate about what you believe in, but come on...