Guns, Guns, Guns!!!

[suncowiam]

Thanks!

Now get back to bashing me on my views and non-sugar coated posts.

Edit: come to think of it, my job is probably WHY I say the things that I do. You have to grow some thick skin and laugh at death in order to be a CSI for any major city (I am in Birmingham, AL.).

I can understand that and I did think of that on our previous posts.

 

[Mindmaster]

Thanks!

Now get back to bashing me on my views and non-sugar coated posts.

Edit: come to think of it, my job is probably WHY I say the things that I do. You have to grow some thick skin and laugh at death in order to be a CSI for any major city (I am in Birmingham, AL.).

So, you're telling me you are not ever going to lose your job? Tough place.

 

[Neo Deist]

So, you're telling me you are not ever going to lose your job? Tough place.

We definitely have job security here.

 

[Neo Deist]

I can understand that and I did think of that on our previous posts.

Being a cop and being army infantry is why I have that alpha male, sheepdog mentality. I look at scenes and start analyzing things and running statistics in my head. Orlando for example...

One shooter in a club of 300 people. Rush his ***, take him to the ground and stomp a mud hole in him...then call the cops and send texts to mommy. Yes some people may die or be injured, but it is better that a few suffer vs dozens.

That is just how I look at things.

 

[suncowiam]

Being a cop and being army infantry is why I have that alpha male, sheepdog mentality. I look at scenes and start analyzing things and running statistics in my head. Orlando for example...

One shooter in a club of 300 people. Rush his ***, take him to the ground and stomp a mud hole in him...then call the cops and send texts to mommy. Yes some people may die or be injured, but it is better that a few suffer vs dozens.

That is just how I look at things.

You are trained to do such a thing. At least I would assume you are trained to do so.

I just don't see untrained citizens doing this effectively. I addressed this in one of my posts.

But let me ask. If there were say 20 folks that night with guns and everyone is in civilian outfit. How do you assess the situation after hearing that first shot. I would assume all 20 folks would pull out there guns. How do you assess who is criminal and who is not? Now extrapolate that to all the night club. Obviously, you're going to shoot people that are shooting at other people. But couldn't I just assume that a mistake could have happened in this chain of events?

 

[Palehorse]

 

[Neo Deist]

You are trained to do such a thing. At least I would assume you are trained to do so.

I just don't see untrained citizens doing this effectively. I addressed this in one of my posts.

But let me ask. If there were say 20 folks that night with guns and everyone is in civilian outfit. How do you assess the situation after hearing that first shot. I would assume all 20 folks would pull out there guns. How do you assess who is criminal and who is not? Now extrapolate that to all the night club. Obviously, you're going to shoot people that are shooting at other people. But couldn't I just assume that a mistake could have happened in this chain of events?

Well in that particular incident, I would have shot the ******* with the rifle, as having a rifle in a club is not the norm. That and the fact that he was actively shooting people. But let's not armchair quarterback the incident.

 

[Glaurung]

You really don't get it, do you?

Sub automatic weapons aren't that necessary. Mostly because the person will end up shooting innocent victims while taking down criminals. A simple gun will suffice and scares away most criminals anyway


They knew full well weapons would advance over time. Doesn't make sense to call them "assault" weapons. Every weapon is an assault weapon. You know how expensive a gun is? Most people aren't likely to own an automatic weapon anyway due to the cost.

But the founding fathers wanted us to have weapons to defend ourselves. It was never to hunt or go to a shooting range, it was specifically for preventing your own government from oppressing you.

There's nothing to get, it's ludicrous to allow any one person to pack enough personal firepower to kill dozens in minutes. I do not care whatsoever what you call the weapons capable of such a thing. In a sane country, no one has the "right" to that potential. As for protecting yourself from the government, you'll be doing no such thing. You are not fighting a professional, standing military no matter how many guns you have. There mere suggestion is absurd. But I leave you to your fantasies.

I'll continue to enjoy the fact that in Australia, the odds of having my life (and dozens of others) taken from me because some dysfunctional twit decides to go postal, is almost nil.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

While I agree with you and I do advocate for gun ownership, the concept of preventing the government from oppressing the people is outdated. Your privately owned AR-15 variant doesn't stand a chance against:

View attachment 13387

View attachment 13388

When everyone had the same weapons, sure it was a feasible notion. In this day and age...nah.

Any questions?

Yeah I have a question. Where did you get that idea?

The people have always wielded more power than the military. And the government knows that. Why do you think they are going through a lot of trouble trying to disarm you? For fun?

Because they know full well the entire might of an armed population can stop them? What about all those revolutions in the past, where the people overthrew their own government? Did everyone forget those times in history? Having fancier weapons doesn't guarantee victory you know. Some military members would actually leave the military if they were told to hurt and oppress innocents so you should take that into account. Same with police officers. You make it sound as if the military is invincible. Nevermind that the population of the country greatly outnumbers the victory. Even other countries remarked that it would be hard to overthrow America because citizens can carry guns. There have been times where an army that is more advanced had difficulty overthrowing a more less technological population.

 

[jeager106]

Yeah I have a question. Where did you get that idea?

The people have always wielded more power than the military. And the government knows that. Why do you think they are going through a lot of trouble trying to disarm you? For fun?

Because they know full well the entire might of an armed population can stop them? What about all those revolutions in the past, where the people overthrew their own government? Did everyone forget those times in history? Having fancier weapons doesn't guarantee victory you know. Some military members would actually leave the military if they were told to hurt and oppress innocents so you should take that into account. Same with police officers. You make it sound as if the military is invincible. Nevermind that the population of the country greatly outnumbers the victory. Even other countries remarked that it would be hard to overthrow America because citizens can carry guns. There have been times where an army that is more advanced had difficulty overthrowing a more less technological population.

Yes and at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering.
Viet Nam any one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The 2nd Amendment was about protecting us from our own government. It's that simple.

... that and placating the slave-holding states that the north wouldn't try to outlaw their militias, which would capture escaping slaves and put down slave revolts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the founding fathers wanted us to have weapons to defend ourselves. It was never to hunt or go to a shooting range, it was specifically for preventing your own government from oppressing you.

It was to serve your government.

When the Second Amendment was written, militia conscripts supplied their own weapons. Arming the people was their way of arming the state.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

It was to serve your government.

When the Second Amendment was written, militia conscripts supplied their own weapons. Arming the people was their way of arming the state.

Yeah and the founding fathers specifically mentioned that not just an armed militia, but an armed population was necessary to go against it when it went tyrannical. America or the colonies already went through tyranny and didn't want to go through it again. People will say it was for the militia, but it never mentioned it was only for militia to own.

2nd amendement was written so people wouldn't be oppressed. Founding fathers made that clear.

 

[Acim]

1. Millions of people smoke. Tobacco kills upwards of 500,000 people in the US each year, compared to 30,000 gun deaths. Why aren't those same anti-gun people making a fuss about tobacco, since it kills 17x more people? Because many of them smoke. Don't even think about saying smoking is a personal issue and does not hurt anyone else. Almost 54,000 people die each year because of second hand smoke. That is almost TWICE the amount of deaths caused by guns. Check the CDC if you like.

I have checked this data. It is not scientific. It is made up, pulled out of thin air. Secondhand smoke myth has been thoroughly debunked. Many times.

I do think guns are under more scrutiny this week than smoking, but in the last 50 years, I honestly think smoking has been under more scrutiny than any other product on the planet. I also think it is partially to mostly what has sprung the nanny statism that is alive and well today.

 

[fantome profane]

I do think guns are under more scrutiny this week than smoking,

But the U.S. Government is not allowed to fund studies on gun violence. The NRA will not allow that.

 

[Acim]

But the U.S. Government is not allowed to fund studies on gun violence. The NRA will not allow that.

I wish it were the case for smoking given how over the top the bias is, and how unscientific the research / analysis is.

 

[Neo Deist]

I have checked this data. It is not scientific. It is made up, pulled out of thin air. Secondhand smoke myth has been thoroughly debunked. Many times.

Apparently you did not check good enough.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Start there. Plenty of links.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah and the founding fathers specifically mentioned that not just an armed militia, but an armed population was necessary to go against it when it went tyrannical.

Which founding fathers?

Presumably none of the ones that supported taking arms away from the people, especially Washington.

 

[Acim]

Apparently you did not check good enough.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Start there. Plenty of links.

Yep, have visited all or most of these links before. Prepared to discuss them. Are you? Doesn't have to be this thread.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The whole "defense against tyranny" argument is only going to hold water when people start buying weaponized drones, Abrams tanks, and F-16s...

Until then, just admit that you want guns because you like guns. It's a much more intellectually honest foundation for your arguments.