Crazy gun laws

[Nakosis]

My biggest concern when around people with guns is safety.
Too few are well enuf trained, particularly with handguns.
It's both a fundamental right & a great responsibility.

No reason not to support a law that requires a certification in firearm safety and training before being able to purchase a gun I think. No one objects to requiring a license to drive a car which can be a dangerous tool in the wrong hands as well.

 

[suncowiam]

Strange obsession? Try fundamental right…. to protect ourselves from others and our own government. (If you do not think that small arms can thwart and hold off a technologically advanced army then you need to read more books on history) I take personal responsibility for me and my family’s safety. My father gave me great respect for the power of firearms, and I have seen what they can do more than most in our society, but my safety and the safety for my family is my responsibility, and I do not shove it off on some police officer or federal official that cannot help when a crime is happening.

It is a shame through, I see an end to all this soon, a few more steps and we are done, firearms or not, it really will not matter.

The protection against government argument is silly and delusional at this day in age.

Defending against British oppression during the revolutionary war had merits when all they had were muskets, bayonets and cannon balls.

Good luck defending yourself against tanks, bombers, artillary with only small arms. You seriously think you can bunker yourself in your house and defend against a military's full range of arsenal?

Can we simply get past that argument?

The real valid argument is defense against other citizens. The data suggests everything. But then you have to question the data and where it came from.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Average Americans on their morning commute.

 

[oldbadger]

That's a rather dishonest oversimplication, but I've noticed that a lot when debating this issue.

I was asking a question of Bricks to clarify. But, yes, folks do read all sorts of nonsense into questions on these threads.

 

[Revoltingest]

No reason not to support a law that requires a certification in firearm safety and training before being able to purchase a gun I think. No one objects to requiring a license to drive a car which can be a dangerous tool in the wrong hands as well.

More training for car driving ain't a bad idea either.
But guys like me who haul trailers would really benefit.
Some things are best not learned the hard way.

 

[Nakosis]

The protection against government argument is silly and delusional at this day in age.

Defending against British oppression during the revolutionary war had merits when all they had were muskets, bayonets and cannon balls.

Good luck defending yourself against tanks, bombers, artillary with only small arms. You seriously think you can bunker yourself in your house and defend against a military's full range of arsenal?

Can we simply get past that argument?

The real valid argument is defense against other citizens. The data suggests everything. But then you have to question the data and where it came from.

Yes! Private ownership of tanks...
Deer hunting, tanks might be a bit of overkill, literally.

But trap shooting with a tank. Now there's a sport.

Probably too much of a threat for the government to handle though.

Likely why the US government doesn't have much of a problem with private gun ownership. It's not really a threat to the government.

Countries without the military might of the US, it might be a problem.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Coming from Europe I had a massive cultural shock the first time I went to the US and saw ammunition for sale in Wallmart. We have plenty of issues here, but nothing of that level. Getting a gun or ammunition around here is not easy.

I don’t understand how anyone can think that easy access to guns can bring anything positive to society.

Instead of writing a long, boring, post, I just want to share this video that expresses my views quite well (minus the swearing that I don’t generally do):

A hilarious Australian stand-up comic explains what U.S. gun laws look like to the rest of the world - The Washington Post

Whether it's difficult or easy to get a gun, criminals always find a way. The cities with the strictest gun laws doesn't stop the criminals from owning guns. All of those gun laws that makes it difficult to own one only ends up hurting the innocent who whishes to defend themselves. Which is why gun crimes happen so much. Gun laws only disarm the innocent. It's been shown time and time again. We know it doesn't work, so there's no point in doing it.

 

[Father Heathen]

The protection against government argument is silly and delusional at this day in age.

Defending against British oppression during the revolutionary war had merits when all they had were muskets, bayonets and cannon balls.

Good luck defending yourself against tanks, bombers, artillary with only small arms. You seriously think you can bunker yourself in your house and defend against a military's full range of arsenal?

Can we simply get past that argument?

The real valid argument is defense against other citizens. The data suggests everything. But then you have to question the data and where it came from.

While an armed resistance couldn't defeat the military, it could still be costly and problematic enough to serve as a deterant.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

While an armed resistance couldn't defeat the military, it could still be costly and problematic enough to serve as a deterant.

The people heavily outnumber the military anyway if the population was allowed guns and can cause problems. I don't know where people got this mind set that the military is always stronger. If that was the case, how did governments get overthrown in the past? They have fancier toys, but if they were that much more powerful, governments wouldn't waste so much time and effort to try and disarm the population.

 

[Father Heathen]

The people heavily outnumber the military anyway if the population was allowed guns and can cause problems.

In an actual uprising, I wouldn't exect all or even most citizens to be willing to take up arms and risk their lives, even if they opposed the government's actions.

I don't know where people got this mind set that the military is always stronger. If that was the case, how did governments get overthrown in the past?

Smaller, unstable countries with weaker governments/militaries. That, or the military backed the people instead of the government.

They have fancier toys, but if they were that much more powerful, governments wouldn't waste so much time and effort to try and disarm the population.

They don't. Where guns are illegal there weren't many to begin with.

 

[suncowiam]

While an armed resistance couldn't defeat the military, it could still be costly and problematic enough to serve as a deterant.

Assuming you can fight in a guerilla style warfare.

If the enemy doesn't give a crap about civilian lives, then they will never be in your sight given the range and destruction of their armament.

And its delusional to think that another country will successfully invade US. Also, if you (generally speaking) feel the need to defend against the US government, then maybe it's not the US government that we should be afraid of. Most likely, its you.

Seriously, one does not know how good he has it until he moves to a non-western country and deal with a real oppressive government.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

In an actual uprising, I wouldn't exect all or even most citizens to be willing to take up arms and risk their lives, even if they opposed the government's actions.
Smaller, unstable countries with weaker governments/militaries. That, or the military backed the people instead of the government.

They don't. Where guns are illegal there weren't many to begin with.

It all depends on the situation and how corrupt it is. If America became similar to North Korea, you'll see quite a few Americans do something about it.

Not all were smaller countries. Militaries are always outnumbered by the citizens. And sometimes some people in the military will leave and end up joining the resistance.

More often than not, once guns become outlawed or difficult to get, the government rapidly gets more corrupt as they can mow over citizens easier once the population is disarmed. America won't be disarmed, at least not without a fight.

 

[dust1n]

 

[Wirey]

While an armed resistance couldn't defeat the military, it could still be costly and problematic enough to serve as a deterant.

If a situation arose where the members of the US military, most of whom are the same people we're talking about, decided that they had to take over for the good of the US, how many dissidents would you expect there to be? If the Army is in, most gun owners would be, too. Gun ownership would not be a deterrent. If it was an illegal attempt at a military coup, the soldiers would revolt and gun owners would be irrelevant.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If a situation arose where the members of the US military, most of whom are the same people we're talking about, decided that they had to take over for the good of the US, how many dissidents would you expect there to be? If the Army is in, most gun owners would be, too. Gun ownership would not be a deterrent. If it was an illegal attempt at a military coup, the soldiers would revolt and gun owners would be irrelevant.

In my state there would be quite the armed resistance. We are much stronger than some of the northern states. We could, if we wanted, take the I-95, take the beltway around DC and totally conquer Connecticut before the weekend was out.

 

[SkylarHunter]

[QUOTE="Theweirdtophat, post: 4340504, member: 55763" All of those gun laws that makes it difficult to own one only ends up hurting the innocent who whishes to defend themselves. Which is why gun crimes happen so much. Gun laws only disarm the innocent. It's been shown time and time again. We know it doesn't work, so there's no point in doing it.[/QUOTE]

Are you for real??? So, we should distribute more guns in order to prevent crime because the more guns the better people can defend themselves and that somehow equals less gun crime?

You showed you that time and again? Please provide sources of that ridiculous idea.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

[QUOTE="Theweirdtophat, post: 4340504, member: 55763" All of those gun laws that makes it difficult to own one only ends up hurting the innocent who whishes to defend themselves. Which is why gun crimes happen so much. Gun laws only disarm the innocent. It's been shown time and time again. We know it doesn't work, so there's no point in doing it.

Are you for real??? So, we should distribute more guns in order to prevent crime because the more guns the better people can defend themselves and that somehow equals less gun crime?

You showed you that time and again? Please provide sources of that ridiculous idea.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you look up the sources online? Look up the big cities that have strict gun laws and lots of them will have lots of crimes related to guns. Chicago is a big example. This isn't difficult to comprehend. Criminals aren't likely going to attack someone if they know they are disarmed. How many muggers would you see if people had concealed carry guns walking down the street. How many houses would get robbed if the robber knows the person is armed. This is common sense here.

The Founding Fathers wanted people to be armed for a reason, not just for fun. It's not making more guns, it's allowing people to have their guns and not have to go through absurd regulations and jumping through hoops just to get one. Some countries in Europe will be heavily armed and have little crime in general. As I said, criminals don't go after armed people. They'd rather go for defenseless people. There's an old saying "An armed society is a polite society."

 

[Father Heathen]

Most law enforcement and military personel tend to be conservative

If a situation arose where the members of the US military, most of whom are the same people we're talking about, decided that they had to take over for the good of the US, how many dissidents would you expect there to be? If the Army is in, most gun owners would be, too. Gun ownership would not be a deterrent. If it was an illegal attempt at a military coup, the soldiers would revolt and gun owners would be irrelevant.

I've thought about that. Most law enforcement and military personnel tend to be conservative. Also, I remember that a lot of anti-government militia types loved Bush, and the government under him was at it's most corrupt.

A left-leaning government flying off it's hinges wouldn't have the support of the police and military to impose it's will, and a right-leaning government flying off it's hinges would probably be popular with your typical pro-gun anti-government types, so it's probably moot either way.

 

[Revoltingest]

If a situation arose where the members of the US military, most of whom are the same people we're talking about, decided that they had to take over for the good of the US, how many dissidents would you expect there to be? If the Army is in, most gun owners would be, too. Gun ownership would not be a deterrent. If it was an illegal attempt at a military coup, the soldiers would revolt and gun owners would be irrelevant.

That is one scenario which is certainly possible.
But what matters is that there are alternative scenarios wherein private gun ownership could make a difference.
As L Pasteur said....
"Chance favors the prepared mind."
OK, that's somewhat irrelevant, but it sounds really intellectual.
We're just playing the odds with guns.
We know that a "plan B" might never be useful.

 

[Wirey]

That is one scenario which is certainly possible.
But what matters is that there are alternative scenarios wherein private gun ownership could make a difference.
As L Pasteur said....
"Chance favors the prepared mind."
OK, that's somewhat irrelevant, but it sounds really intellectual.
We're just playing the odds with guns.
We know that a "plan B" might never be useful.

Realistically gun ownership is irrelevant. Canadians own lots of firearms as well. The attitude toward the use of them is what has to change. I have never heard of an unattended firearm making the decision to kill someone.