Darn fine shootin\' there Tex

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by finn17
I have a small air pistol that would only penetrate about 10 sheets of paper that I need a firearms license for

Well, hell, let me turn in my Walther P99, Finn\'s got me out gunned.

On a side note, here in Louisiana it is very, very easy to get a concealed weapon permit.(but we\'ll throw your ass in jail if you smoke in a public park.)lollol

 

[DrEvilmonki]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
What sane, civilized country would put people, usually some of the most corrupt and power hungry people at that, over them to rule without the means of removing them?

Thats just bollocks. The American people vs. the American army? Other than your armies prefernce to shooting its own people the civies wouldn\'t stand a chance.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki

Originally posted by Evil Dave
What sane, civilized country would put people, usually some of the most corrupt and power hungry people at that, over them to rule without the means of removing them?

Thats just bollocks. The American people vs. the American army? Other than your armies prefernce to shooting its own people the civies wouldn\'t stand a chance.

That\'s where you\'d be wrong.
A.) You\'d get a lot of deserters
B.) For every active member of the military there are at the very least 10 inactive veterens.
C.) The myth that the military has some of the best hardware available is just that a myth, quite often the civilians have access to better and more updated equipment that the military does.
D.)Using the US military for police actions within the states is illegal under our constitution.
E.) The civilian population vastly outnumbers the military.
F.) States National Guard units have access to military hardware, so if the rebellion had national guard commanders involved or even state governments it would tip the scales to the civilians side even more.

So unless we\'re talking carpet bombing of cities, which would never happen, it is much more feasable than you think.

But then the British once thought the very same way.

 

[Ebonbuddha]

Thats awesome.

 

[DrEvilmonki]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki

Originally posted by Evil Dave
What sane, civilized country would put people, usually some of the most corrupt and power hungry people at that, over them to rule without the means of removing them?

Thats just bollocks. The American people vs. the American army? Other than your armies prefernce to shooting its own people the civies wouldn\'t stand a chance.

That\'s where you\'d be wrong.
A.) You\'d get a lot of deserters
B.) For every active member of the military there are at the very least 10 inactive veterens.
C.) The myth that the military has some of the best hardware available is just that a myth, quite often the civilians have access to better and more updated equipment that the military does.
D.)Using the US military for police actions within the states is illegal under our constitution.
E.) The civilian population vastly outnumbers the military.
F.) States National Guard units have access to military hardware, so if the rebellion had national guard commanders involved or even state governments it would tip the scales to the civilians side even more.

So unless we\'re talking carpet bombing of cities, which would never happen, it is much more feasable than you think.

But then the British once thought the very same way.

Have to disagree with you Dave. If the government was at the point where it had to be removed by force then that could only occur because the military was complicit with the executive. Why else would force be needed. Also the fact that states have access to Natioanl Gaurd Units with proper military training and equipment makes having an armed civilian population redunant.

 

[Avelorn]

Well.. who\'s in charge of the nukes??

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki
Have to disagree with you Dave. If the government was at the point where it had to be removed by force then that could only occur because the military was complicit with the executive. Why else would force be needed. Also the fact that states have access to Natioanl Gaurd Units with proper military training and equipment makes having an armed civilian population redunant.

This comes from a civilians point of view, anyone who has been in the US military know that you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the government, a point in fact which has many times brought clashes between our congress and our military, I\'m willing to bet over half of the armed forces would side with the civilians if the situation were right.

As to Nukes, any president who would order nukes on their own soil, would probably push the rest of the military over the edge to the civilians insuring the governments downfall.

Back to civilians owning guns, the simple matter is that the police do not prevent crimes, they merely follow them up unless they happen to be at the spot when the crime happens.
If I truly wanted to murder someone whether it be with a gun, a knife, or a sock with a rock in it, the chances that the police would be at the place I choose to do in my victim would be almost nil. So the police could not stop me, however, if the victim had a gun and the knowledge of how to use it, they have a much greater chance of stopping me and protecting themselves.

 

[ZeCorto]

Originally posted by supervike
We doan need no steenking licenses.....

Just a background check and short waiting period if you are going to buy a pistol.

I could buy all the shotguns I\'d like...no questions asked!!

So you are actually asking us to believe that you would pass a background check?

 

[ZeCorto]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
If I truly wanted to murder someone whether it be with a gun, a knife, or a sock with a rock in it, the chances that the police would be at the place I choose to do in my victim would be almost nil. So the police could not stop me, however, if the victim had a gun and the knowledge of how to use it, they have a much greater chance of stopping me and protecting themselves.

That may not be entirely true: If you really want to murder someone and you both have guns, it will be very easy for you since all you have to do is be 5 meters behind them and empty your gun in their back before they even have a chance of knowing what is happening, let alone draw their \'protective\' gun. Even if you miss (or half miss) the first bullet, you have lots more coming their way within a few seconds.
On the other hand, with a knife you have to get up close and personal, and not miss the first blow because after that things become more complex.
Yes, you would still have a pretty good chance of success but in the first scenario you would have to be both bumb AND unlucky to fail.
Personally I tend to be unlucky so I would certainly fail, but I would have a much, much better chance than with only a knife.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by ZeCorto

So you are actually asking us to believe that you would pass a background check?

Well, that is an awfully good point. I know when i tried to buy the nuclear weapons, they were eyeballing me awfully strangely....But thats what you get when you buy your heavy armaments at the Wal-mart sporting section...lol

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by ZeCorto

Originally posted by Evil Dave
If I truly wanted to murder someone whether it be with a gun, a knife, or a sock with a rock in it, the chances that the police would be at the place I choose to do in my victim would be almost nil. So the police could not stop me, however, if the victim had a gun and the knowledge of how to use it, they have a much greater chance of stopping me and protecting themselves.

That may not be entirely true: If you really want to murder someone and you both have guns, it will be very easy for you since all you have to do is be 5 meters behind them and empty your gun in their back before they even have a chance of knowing what is happening, let alone draw their \'protective\' gun. Even if you miss (or half miss) the first bullet, you have lots more coming their way within a few seconds.
On the other hand, with a knife you have to get up close and personal, and not miss the first blow because after that things become more complex.
Yes, you would still have a pretty good chance of success but in the first scenario you would have to be both bumb AND unlucky to fail.
Personally I tend to be unlucky so I would certainly fail, but I would have a much, much better chance than with only a knife.

Maybe, but in either case, the point is the bad guy will have them, the police will not be there to protect you, and outlawing guns for the law abiding just decreases their chances of survival.
If I\'m willing to murder someone, do you think the penalty of having an illegal weapon is going to stop me?

 

[Ebonbuddha]

What about crossbows? Compound bows? Should we outlaw those too? You don’t have to get up close to kill someone with one of those. lol

 

[ZeCorto]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
If I\'m willing to murder someone, do you think the penalty of having an illegal weapon is going to stop me?

No, but you WILL have a very tough time finding them. Maybe you will, maybe you won\'t and maybe you will be sold one by an undercover cop and THEN the police will be there on your murder night.
And please don\'t get me wrong: I do not think banning weapons is a solution to crime, I am just saying that NOT banning them makes violent crime a tiny bit easier

 

[ZeCorto]

Originally posted by Ebonbuddha

What about crossbows? Compound bows? Should we outlaw those too? You don’t have to get up close to kill someone with one of those. lol

A car is your best murder weapon. And you can even make it look like an accident. Perfect, but don not reverse to make sure he\'s dead od the police might discard the accident theory a bit early

 

[mattsterbenz]

flyswatters and rolled up newspapers will be banned next if the gun-haters get their way...

 

[DrEvilmonki]

I think you missed my point regards the military being complicit. I am not saying they are a puppet now but if you had a situation where armed up rising by the citizens was your only recourse for change then your whole system must have collapsed to get to that point. That makes any discussion on how seperate the military is now completely pointless.

As to owning a gun making you safer from personal attack, well that MAY be true in some situations but usually crime is an unexpected occurance.
I have also seen stats saying you are about 4 times more likely to die from gunshot wounds if you have a gun in your house than not. (of course that could be completely wrong - you have to take such stats with a grain of salt)

 

[paintingploddy]

I believe McVeigh thought he was acting against a corrupt brutal regime when he bombed Oklahoma City. Those at Waco might have the same opinion. Who decides whether they are right?

Seriously though, in a country where only 50 % of eligible voters can be bothered to vote why do you think a massed uprising is a possibility?

Oh and a small aside. I know someone who got off a charge of murdering her husband by running over him, despite then reversing back over him. The jury accepted her explanation that she was reversing back to check on his welfare.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki
I think you missed my point regards the military being complicit. I am not saying they are a puppet now but if you had a situation where armed up rising by the citizens was your only recourse for change then your whole system must have collapsed to get to that point. That makes any discussion on how seperate the military is now completely pointless.

As to owning a gun making you safer from personal attack, well that MAY be true in some situations but usually crime is an unexpected occurance.
I have also seen stats saying you are about 4 times more likely to die from gunshot wounds if you have a gun in your house than not. (of course that could be completely wrong - you have to take such stats with a grain of salt)

Of course, but then again, you are far more likely to be killed in a tiger related accident in a country that has tigers than a country that doesn\'t. You simply cannot have X related accidents without the X.
I\'ve had guns in my household since birth, as have most of my friends, our outlook is that guns are not weapons unless used as such. They are tools. Tools designed for killing, but tools nonetheless.
Any tool if mishandled can seriously wound or even kill the person mishandling it or others nearby.
The problem is not guns at all, the problem is people.
Contrary to popular myth, guns do not go off by themselves.
Swords do not pick themselves up and run someone through.
Bows do not nock an arrow, draw back, aim and let fly themselves.
Only through human interaction are these things dangerous.

So should we ban humans?
If you look at history man has killed far before guns were even invented.
You can take away the guns, but people will still kill each other. Hell, they\'ll invent new ways to kill each other.
And to be completely honest, I\'d rather get shot, than bludgeoned to death, or stabbed to death, or even hit by a car.
Speaking of stabbing, have you ever noticed that most stabbing murders involve multiple stab wounds, Uurggh, no thanks.
All in all I\'d feel much safer if they took cars away from idiots rather than guns away from citizens, after all cars cause 400X more accidental deaths a year than guns do.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by ZeCorto
No, but you WILL have a very tough time finding them. Maybe you will, maybe you won\'t and maybe you will be sold one by an undercover cop and THEN the police will be there on your murder night.

Not really, In New Orleans, during Katrina, National Guardsmen were coming under fire from full auto AK-47\'s which are banned but apparently very, very easy to get with the right criminal connections, and these are the poor.

 

[Avelorn]

“And the National Rifle Association says that, \"Guns don\'t kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I think just standing there going, \"Bang!\" That\'s not going to kill too many people, is it? You\'d have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…”

“Guns don\'t kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).”

- Eddie Izzard

There are alot of misleading facts in the debate of guns and lots of statistics going against each other, designed for those who don\'t know statistics. For example the pro-side tend to not take into account which kind of weapons that are being owned in different countries. I don\'t think statistics will take the argument very far, so I leave it out.

There are so many aspects to this question; Why IS the homicidal rates so different in different countries? If it was just a natural human law, it wouldn\'t change with time or place. One important factor in my opinion is trust, if you feel a general trust to your fellow people or if you think they\'ll screw you if they can. The less trust you feel and the more scaremongering you believe, the more likely you are to feel the need to arm yourself and be ready to defend yourself to life. You get caught in a prisoners dilemma where what seems to be the rational thing to do for yourself is not rational when you look upon the entire collective acting. It\'s called the problem of collective action.

One more thing, I heard a real good saying once, \"always trace the money\". When you read about these kinds of issues, who gets the benefits? You can most often start smelling lies and half truths when it\'s a billion dollar industry behind the arguments.