Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[P3nT4gR4m]

i have known many gun owners and have never met one who is gives cold war escalation as a reason for the guns they own.
you seem to be under the common misperception that guns (or certain types of weapons) are some how inherently evil, they are not its the hands they are in that determines the use they are put to, the street gangs (criminals ) who are at war with each other and who assault civilians during the commission of crimes should not have assault weapons,  but they are criminals  make a law against the weapons and they will ignore it. the gun owners i know would pose no more risk to their families neighbours local shop owners or any one else if the gun they owned was an  assault rifle than they do with the guns they own now. 

Sorry bout that. I should have explained that I live in one of those non-american countries that finds the whole situation hilarious. In a nutshell we see americans on teevee bemoaning the fact that their friends and family keep getting shot and are convinced the only solution is more guns.

If you want empirical evidence look at the statistics. In countries where very few people have guns, very few people get shot. It may sound bizarre to an american but all I can say is trust the statistics, most of the rest of us get the logic.

[Kai]

There are countries like Canada where many people own guns and few people get shot.


I really don't know what to think of people owning assault weapons but rifles, shotguns and pistols for protection and hunting, non automatic, seems perfectly reasonable. I'm just not into guns myself.

[Elder Iptuous]

I really don't know what to think of people owning assault weapons but rifles, shotguns and pistols for protection and hunting, non automatic, seems perfectly reasonable. I'm just not into guns myself.

You keep using that word.....
I do not think it means what you think it means...

[Kai]

I really don't know what to think of people owning assault weapons but rifles, shotguns and pistols for protection and hunting, non automatic, seems perfectly reasonable. I'm just not into guns myself.

You keep using that word.....
I do not think it means what you think it means...

I probably don't.

Why don't you enlighten me?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

i have known many gun owners and have never met one who is gives cold war escalation as a reason for the guns they own.
you seem to be under the common misperception that guns (or certain types of weapons) are some how inherently evil, they are not its the hands they are in that determines the use they are put to, the street gangs (criminals ) who are at war with each other and who assault civilians during the commission of crimes should not have assault weapons,  but they are criminals  make a law against the weapons and they will ignore it. the gun owners i know would pose no more risk to their families neighbours local shop owners or any one else if the gun they owned was an  assault rifle than they do with the guns they own now. 

Sorry bout that. I should have explained that I live in one of those non-american countries that finds the whole situation hilarious. In a nutshell we see americans on teevee bemoaning the fact that their friends and family keep getting shot and are convinced the only solution is more guns.

If you want empirical evidence look at the statistics. In countries where very few people have guns, very few people get shot. It may sound bizarre to an american but all I can say is trust the statistics, most of the rest of us get the logic.

It's true:

Look, here we have Bob and Tom. Tom slept with Bob's wife and gave them both VD. Bob flips out, gets a gun and shoots Tom. If Tom had a gun, the situation would be: A) Same, because his gun was in the closet when Bob showed up. B) Different, He shot Bob first... of course, still we have dead human from Gun. C) They both get shot.

Obviously, if neither had guns, the situation might go like this:

Look, here we have Bob and Tom. Tom slept with Bob's wife and gave them both VD. Bob flips out, gets a knife and stabs Tom. If Tom had a knife, the situation would be: A) Same, because his knife was in the closet when Bob showed up. B) Different, He stabbed Bob first... of course, still we have dead human from Knife. C) They both get stabbed.

So we need to outlaw knives as well... most of the world gets this logic too. And Bob and Tom would be all better, see:

Look, here we have Bob and Tom. Tom slept with Bob's wife and gave them both VD. Bob flips out, gets a club and beats Tom. If Tom had a club, the situation would be: A) Same, because his club was in the closet when Bob showed up. B) Different, He clubbed Bob first... of course, still we have dead human from clubbing. C) They both get clubbed.

Damnation, we need to outlaw clubs too, bats, tree limbs.... But! Now, Bob and Tom won't kill each other! Let's watch:

Look, here we have Bob and Tom. Tom slept with Bob's wife and gave them both VD. Bob flips out, gets a brick and throws it at Tom's head. If Tom had a brick, the situation would be: A) Same, because his birck was in the closet when Bob showed up. B) Different, He threw his brick at Bob first... of course, still we have dead human from Brick To The Head. C) They both get conked by bricks.

Well, it looks like we need to get rid of bricks too... better get rid of wooden houses, someone will tear off a chunk of siding with nails in it. Of course, that means we need to go back to huts made of branches. Oh damn, a branch might get used like a spear... we'd better just go back to living in the trees.

DAMNIT! THE TREES HAVE BRANCHES!

I guess we're fucked.

[Cain]

Of course, you do know there is only three ways to defeat a security dilemma, right?  And make no mistake, this is a classic security dilemma.

Technically, there are four ways, but the last one is cheating.

[Kai]

i have known many gun owners and have never met one who is gives cold war escalation as a reason for the guns they own.
you seem to be under the common misperception that guns (or certain types of weapons) are some how inherently evil, they are not its the hands they are in that determines the use they are put to, the street gangs (criminals ) who are at war with each other and who assault civilians during the commission of crimes should not have assault weapons,  but they are criminals  make a law against the weapons and they will ignore it. the gun owners i know would pose no more risk to their families neighbours local shop owners or any one else if the gun they owned was an  assault rifle than they do with the guns they own now. 

Sorry bout that. I should have explained that I live in one of those non-american countries that finds the whole situation hilarious. In a nutshell we see americans on teevee bemoaning the fact that their friends and family keep getting shot and are convinced the only solution is more guns.

If you want empirical evidence look at the statistics. In countries where very few people have guns, very few people get shot. It may sound bizarre to an american but all I can say is trust the statistics, most of the rest of us get the logic.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Fixed.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You raise a valid point. Okay, so given that even if we reduced you guys to having to use sticks to kill each other, in defense of your constitutional right or whatever, we can assume that it would only slow you down a bit since it takes slightly longer to wipe out a hundred people with a stick than it does with a semi automatic rifle and a pocket full of bullets.

The issue seems to be more about how we can control or suppress america's mass homicidal urges.

Or do we want to. Strikes me if enough people are supplied with enough weapons the problem will take care of itself 

[Cain]

How do we historically solve arms races in an anarchical international system with no overarching power?

[Vene]

How do we historically solve arms races in an anarchical international system with no overarching power?

Kill everybody.  No humans, no arms race, no law.

[Elder Iptuous]

You keep using that word.....
I do not think it means what you think it means...

I probably don't.
Why don't you enlighten me?

It was originally used in the German 'sturmgewehr' StG44 which was the result of Germany realizing that combat had evolved from shooting over long distances of no man's land to shooting shorter distances in urban settings.  They developed a medium strength cartridge of smaller caliber and made the rifle select fire (meaning it can shoot fully automatic).  So, those are the features of an assault rifle.
In the AWB of 1994, they used the term 'assault weapon' which they defined as a gun on a 'bad list' or having over a minimum amount of some features which they deemed evil:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Folding stock
        * Conspicuous pistol grip
        * Bayonet mount
        * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        * Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
        * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
        * Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
        * Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
        * A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
        * Folding or telescoping stock
        * Pistol grip
        * Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
        * Detachable magazine

They were essentially dictating against aesthetics, and none of these met the actual definition of 'assault rifle' because none of them are fully automatic.
They can all be used for whatever purpose you want.  So to say "...people owning assault weapons but rifles, shotguns and pistols for protection and hunting, non automatic, seems perfectly reasonable" doesn't fly because they are declaring wide swaths of them to be assault weapons.  and they are used for protection and hunting.  This last weekend, when i went out hunting i used a Remington R-25 which would be banned under the current ban legislation in the pipe (which is more restrictive yet) even though it was specifically designed for hunting.

and, again.  the whole point of the 2nd amendment, is not for protection against criminals or for hunting. it is to act as a deterrent against gov tyranny.... we should be armed with the equivalent of an infantryman, in my opinion.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

i have known many gun owners and have never met one who is gives cold war escalation as a reason for the guns they own.
you seem to be under the common misperception that guns (or certain types of weapons) are some how inherently evil, they are not its the hands they are in that determines the use they are put to, the street gangs (criminals ) who are at war with each other and who assault civilians during the commission of crimes should not have assault weapons,  but they are criminals  make a law against the weapons and they will ignore it. the gun owners i know would pose no more risk to their families neighbours local shop owners or any one else if the gun they owned was an  assault rifle than they do with the guns they own now. 

Sorry bout that. I should have explained that I live in one of those non-american countries that finds the whole situation hilarious. In a nutshell we see americans on teevee bemoaning the fact that their friends and family keep getting shot and are convinced the only solution is more guns.

If you want empirical evidence look at the statistics. In countries where very few people have guns, very few people get shot. It may sound bizarre to an american but all I can say is trust the statistics, most of the rest of us get the logic.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Fixed.

Hyperbole

You raise a valid point. Okay, so given that even if we reduced you guys to having to use sticks to kill each other, in defense of your constitutional right or whatever, we can assume that it would only slow you down a bit since it takes slightly longer to wipe out a hundred people with a stick than it does with a semi automatic rifle and a pocket full of bullets.

The issue seems to be more about how we can control or suppress america's mass homicidal urges.

Or do we want to. Strikes me if enough people are supplied with enough weapons the problem will take care of itself 

IAWTC

[P3nT4gR4m]

You keep using that word.....
I do not think it means what you think it means...

I probably don't.
Why don't you enlighten me?

It was originally used in the German 'sturmgewehr' StG44 which was the result of Germany realizing that combat had evolved from shooting over long distances of no man's land to shooting shorter distances in urban settings.  They developed a medium strength cartridge of smaller caliber and made the rifle select fire (meaning it can shoot fully automatic).  So, those are the features of an assault rifle.
In the AWB of 1994, they used the term 'assault weapon' which they defined as a gun on a 'bad list' or having over a minimum amount of some features which they deemed evil:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Folding stock
        * Conspicuous pistol grip
        * Bayonet mount
        * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        * Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
        * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
        * Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
        * Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
        * A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
        * Folding or telescoping stock
        * Pistol grip
        * Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
        * Detachable magazine

They were essentially dictating against aesthetics, and none of these met the actual definition of 'assault rifle' because none of them are fully automatic.
They can all be used for whatever purpose you want.  So to say "...people owning assault weapons but rifles, shotguns and pistols for protection and hunting, non automatic, seems perfectly reasonable" doesn't fly because they are declaring wide swaths of them to be assault weapons.  and they are used for protection and hunting.  This last weekend, when i went out hunting i used a Remington R-25 which would be banned under the current ban legislation in the pipe (which is more restrictive yet) even though it was specifically designed for hunting.

and, again.  the whole point of the 2nd amendment, is not for protection against criminals or for hunting. it is to act as a deterrent against gov tyranny.... we should be armed with the equivalent of an infantryman, in my opinion.

The average infantryman has the ability to call in arty, an airstrike or just a couple of friendly gunships to back him up. The second amendment is bullshit because your government has bigger guns - they will win. It's not like the good old days when a couple of hicks with a horse and some black powder could take on the might of the british empire. Your guns are fucking useless against tanks so we're back to my original point - the only way the 2nd amendment would be feasible is if everyone in america had an ICBM in their back yard. I have sky news and a bigscreen teevee so I'm happy enough to support this legislation in any way I'm able.

[Vene]

I want a goddamn nuclear submarine.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's your constitutional right!