Yes, I think martial arts would probably be more useful in a case like that. Also, I don't mean to imply that people who own guns are all hill-billies or outlaws. I guess the whole thing is just a clash of cultures. Guns are obviously part and parcel of American culture, whereas in Europe we do things a little differently... we just start a humongous war and drag the rest of the world along with us (although lately we've been a bit better in that respect).
Actually, I'm going to take this seriously and express my amazement. I just find it utterly unfathomable how or why guns are apparently so embedded in American culture. How did that happen? Is it the Wild West or what? I just don't see the appeal of owning a gun at all.
And as for defending oneself against criminals... isn't that what the police is for?
My pistol has a faster response time then the sheriff's department halfway across town. What's the response time like where you live?
Anyway, guns tend to be very important in your country when it was born of a violent revolution. The ability to destroy tyranny is what led to legal guarantees for American gun ownership in the first place.
Having rolled it over in my mind, I don't think seeing a random law-abiding citizen with a holstered handgun would particularly bother me (albeit, given that said citizen doesn't look creepy, suspicious or associated with such as a gang).
I think it would bother me if I went to a location/event/place of business (that was not itself gun-related) where the majority of citizens were to be seen carrying a gun. I admit, however, that such an occurrence may either be more in the realm of the hypothetical or else would probably be a seedy place that I wouldn't visit in the first place.
I'm against them on the principal of keeping the fear that there might be gun owners about as a genuine deterrent.
ALLEGORY: There's a thicket in an environment infested with poisonous snakes. Do you walk through the thicket to your destination or around it, where you can clearly see the ground?
Now imagine that you're a criminal. Do you rob a store near a shooting range, knowing that the people nearby might be CCing on their way back from shooting or do you go rob the store that proudly announces itself to be a "gun-free" zone?
Add to that the fact that, as you said, a lot of innocent people get nervous around guns and you can see why CCing makes the most sense.
Yes, I think martial arts would probably be more useful in a case like that. Also, I don't mean to imply that people who own guns are all hill-billies or outlaws. I guess the whole thing is just a clash of cultures. Guns are obviously part and parcel of American culture, whereas in Europe we do things a little differently... we just start a humongous war and drag the rest of the world along with us (although lately we've been a bit better in that respect).
Oh, how I do not look forward to seeing how the EU collapses. You can't just eject Greece, they're never going to repay their loans, and they're dragging down Germany, France, and Great Britain.
Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this. Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.
My pistol has a faster response time then the sheriff's department halfway across town. What's the response time like where you live?
It depends. I think there's a legal limit of, what, 15 minutes or something? Of course a bullet will always be faster, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where people are allowed to execute others without trial.
Anyway, guns tend to be very important in your country when it was born of a violent revolution.
Why? That revolution happened centuries ago. Are you saying time stood still in the US? No progress at all? That's rather sad, actually.
The ability to destroy tyranny is what led to legal guarantees for American gun ownership in the first place.
Okay, so the reason you're allowed to carry guns is so you can kill the President if you don't like them... but ironically, that has nothing to do with shooting criminals.
Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this.
As is pepper spray, for instance (at least with the majority of the population that isn't immune to it). Also, a well-placed punch or kick can incapacitate anyone. And hey, if it's just about incapacitating an attacker, why not use rubber bullets?
Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.
I completely agree with you there. My issue with guns is not that criminals can be harmed, but that it's so easy for innocent people to get hurt, especially when guns aren't kept securely. And yes, that does happen. Not everyone who owns a gun handles it responsibly, so no, I don't trust other people with guns just like that. If they must own a gun, they'd better follow an extensive course on things like gun safety, but also psychology, like, how to read people (how can you be sure an attacker is an attacker before he makes his first move? and by then it might be too late to react). Nobody should ever be able to just walk into a shop and buy a gun, and personally, I think only trained professionals should be able to use one.
It depends. I think there's a legal limit of, what, 15 minutes or something? Of course a bullet will always be faster, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where people are allowed to execute others without trial.
Most states do require a trial if someone kills someone in self defense. The only state I'm aware of that doesn't is Florida (other states have stand your ground laws, but Florida is the only state that stipulates "immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force". This is likely to change after the Trayvon Martin case, though, since it put worldwide negative attention on that law).
Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this. Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.
I think that the idea that guns would help in a self-defense situation is adorable. If someone's going to attack you, they probably aren't going to project their intentions from a distance great enough to get your gun out. If someone grabs you by your shooting arm, it's going to be difficult to get a bead on them. That's what I'm saying
Also, martial arts doesn't mean "nonlethal". There is quite a bit is designed to not instantly kill the opponent (which gives you flexibility to respond to someone trying to steal your purse vs. someone trying to steal your head), but I know people who can crush a man's sternum with a well-placed kick. Or break someone's nose with so much force that the bone fragments penetrate the brain. And a lot of martial arts defenses are designed to make a fight end as quickly as possible with the other person completely incapacitated as well as being able to get out of situations that would otherwise cause your own incapacitation.
Not really "/thread", considering we were talking about firearm enthusiasm and not the practicality of it. Besides, having the skill to send bone fragments into the brain is a lot less doable for most people - including me, a paraplegic - than defending yourself with a gun is.
Yeah, sorry, I probably shouldn't have picked this thread for this debate anyway. I'll hand it back to the actual gun enthusiasts now, but not without first leaving you all with something both funny and relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBNd24-0VRQ
Not really "/thread", considering we were talking about firearm enthusiasm and not the practicality of it. Besides, having the skill to send bone fragments into the brain is a lot less doable for most people - including me, a paraplegic - than defending yourself with a gun is.
No, you could probably just crush their hand into powder or something as you dragged them into face-smashing range.
And while not everyone can do the bone fragment thing, they can instead rely on the fact that an attacker is likely to be male and do the old slap, grab, twist, and pull. If they're not down by the end of that, it's unlikely a bullet would stop them anyways.
At what point does a man become sufficiently evil that you're allowed to point a gun at him? And how good does a man need to be to earn the right to carry a rifle?
At what point does a man become sufficiently evil that you're allowed to point a gun at him? And how good does a man need to be to earn the right to carry a rifle?
When he's physically threatening you or another innocent person OR when he's trespassing in your home. How good does a man need to be to carry a weapon? Good enough to hit his targets, sane enough to know what his targets should be, and sure enough not to hesitate - lest the aggressor overcome him.
I went up to Colorado the other week and a buddy of mine let me fire his AA12. Awesome gun.
Awesome! That's gun is like the Desert Eagle though, in that while it's awesome I really don't see the utility or practicality. I mean, in what combat situation would either be relevant? The AA12 seems like a fragile, yet overpowered cudgel whilst the Desert Eagle would be much better as a carbine with its cartridge and bulk.
When he's physically threatening you or another innocent person OR when he's trespassing in your home. How good does a man need to be to carry a weapon? Good enough to hit his targets, sane enough to know what his targets should be, and sure enough not to hesitate - lest the aggressor overcome him.
Okay, that actually sounds reasonable. The one problem is sanity, which is quite hard to test. Even with very strict rules, some loonies slip through the cracks. The question is, is that a risk we all should take?
I'm inclined to say no, but the solution is not to give any civilian guns, and that's something that probably will never happen.
Okay, that actually sounds reasonable. The one problem is sanity, which is quite hard to test. Even with very strict rules, some loonies slip through the cracks. The question is, is that a risk we all should take?
I'm inclined to say no, but the solution is not to give any civilian guns, and that's something that probably will never happen.
I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out. Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.
At the end of the day, that's what the second amendment is all about. Politicians and Internet debaters can go on and on all they like about hunting and self defense, but really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people. It's unfortunate that people forget this, as it's a very noble sentiment.
In a combat situation, I would prefer to use the AA12. Enemies can be very afraid of loud noises, especially shotguns. Also, with 360 blistering rounds a minute, I would be like freakin’ Rambo.
True, but there are so many better and more durable shotguns. Hell, a decent pump action will be an order of magnitude more reliable and just as effective at its task.
I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out. Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.
At the end of the day, that's what the second amendment is all about. Politicians and Internet debaters can go on and on all they like about hunting and self defense, but really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people. It's unfortunate that people forget this, as it's a very noble sentiment.
Okay, so if the sole reason to own guns is to counterbalance the government's power, then you need to lock up those weapons and only bring them out in case of a revolution. Leave the shooting of criminals to the police, and leave the hunting to predatory animals.
Okay, so if the sole reason to own guns is to counterbalance the government's power, then you need to lock up those weapons and only bring them out in case of a revolution. Leave the shooting of criminals to the police, and leave the hunting to predatory animals.
It's one of the reasons. However, hunting and self defense are rights recognized within the United States by the vast majority of states and citizens. Therefore, I really don't see your point.
It's one of the reasons. However, hunting and self defense are rights recognized within the United States by the vast majority of states and citizens. Therefore, I really don't see your point.
You stated the reason for owning guns is to make sure the government doesn't get more powerful than the people, implying that the other reasons might be useful applications for guns, but not the reason for owning them.
(Incidentally, that reason seems rather silly to me, as 1) the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, helicopters and so on, so it has a vastly larger amount of power than the people with their flimsy guns, and 2) it seems barbaric and drastic to anticipate an armed rebellion in a supposedly democratic country, where the pen is mightier than any sword, or, indeed, gun.)
You stated the reason for owning guns is to make sure the government doesn't get more powerful than the people, implying that the other reasons might be useful applications for guns, but not the reason for owning them.
I stated that that was simply the original reason. In time, it evolved to include other purposes. However, the original intent behind allowing the first citizens of the US to own guns was to throw off tyranny, lest it rear its head again.
(Incidentally, that reason seems rather silly to me, as 1) the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, helicopters and so on, so it has a vastly larger amount of power than the people with their flimsy guns, and 2) it seems barbaric and drastic to anticipate an armed rebellion in a supposedly democratic country, where the pen is mightier than any sword, or, indeed, gun.)
1) They didn't when the second amendment was passed. Besides, militaries rarely remain cohesive in rebellions. Any war against the proletariat of the United States would inevitably see swaths of the military join us.
2)
> United States
> Democratic
> Pick one
The law says we're a Republic, first off. If we're any sort of democracy it's a representative democracy which is hardly a true democracy. In any case, what few choices we have are presented to us by the media - owned by the rich and the corporations. What illusions of freedom we have that aren't quickly vanishing are presented to us by the vile traitors who bought our government and are intent on seeing themselves grow richer and richer.
It doesn't matter if you have the best pen in the world, really. If the government has all the guns and the media is controlled for the most part by the enemy, you're quite insignificant. This is why I'm glad I own guns, you see. Some day, people will be pissed off at the status quo. The time will come to serve our enemies their due. When that day comes, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll gladly join in.
Yeah, the means by which the Japanese oppress their people with their police state is just awful.
That's a different cultural context, though. I mean, the Japanese government isn't oppressive now, sure, but just because they aren't doesn't mean that the governments of the United States, The Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and scores more aren't oppressive.
The government has an army. The people don't even really have militias.
The government has drones.
The government has bombs, nuclear and otherwise.
The government has access to biological weapons.
The government has tanks.
The government has fighter jets.
The government has automatic firearms that can't be legally owned.
The government's yearly "Defense" budget has more than doubled from over 300 billion dollars to over 700 billion dollars.
They're slightly more powerful than Billy Joe Bob and his shack of old pistols and rifles.
See my prior comment on military desertions in rebellions. Notice what's happening in Syria with their military right now, or think back in history to how basically every competent officer - save for a few - and a large chunk of enlisted men deserted the United States army to join the Confederacy and you'll see my point. If the proletariat can legitimize their rebellion, members of the armed forces will join in. Hell, even if they don't, most soldiers I know would refuse to fire on their countrymen.
Oh, and you can legally own an automatic weapon. It's just unreasonably expensive since civilian legal automatic weapons have been legally barred from production thanks to a sneaky last minute amendment to the NFA passed in 1986.
I'll fire on my countryman in a heartbeat. If they come near my house or pull a gun on me or so much as call me a name I'll open fire faster than Dick Cheney on a hunt. If I see some asshole on the street abusing a woman or one of my family members steps out of line and gets to abusing their kids or some shit I'll open fire on their ass. Don't be talking to me about whether or not people will open fire. I'll shoot you in the ass.
That's why I don't own a gun, because I'm trigger happy.
I doubt it. For one, groups that believe in nonviolent resistance would disagree with you. (If anything, they would want to see no group armed, as opposed to more than one group.)
See my prior comment on military desertions in rebellions. Notice what's happening in Syria with their military right now
And how did that revolution start? With peaceful demonstrations. Not with civilians brandishing guns. Of course it has degenerated into a civil war now, but that almost always happens with revolutions in some degree. And guess what? I doesn't matter if people own guns before it starts, because they'll be supplied with weapons anyway one way or another. In Syria, surrounding countries are supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, and together with parts of the army that have defected, I'd say there's never a need to own weapons in peacetime, if your reason for doing so is an expected revolution.
(Incidentally, I can't help wondering... have you ever considered emigration? Clearly you don't like the way things are going in your country, and I'm sure there must be other idyllic places in the world where the government is more to your liking.)
If the proletariat can legitimize their rebellion, members of the armed forces will join in. Hell, even if they don't, most soldiers I know would refuse to fire on their countrymen.
You just made the perfect point against civilians owning guns in the face of governmental oppression.
I'll fire on my countryman in a heartbeat. If they come near my house or pull a gun on me or so much as call me a name I'll open fire faster than Dick Cheney on a hunt. If I see some asshole on the street abusing a woman or one of my family members steps out of line and gets to abusing their kids or some shit I'll open fire on their ass. Don't be talking to me about whether or not people will open fire. I'll shoot you in the ass.
That's why I don't own a gun, because I'm trigger happy.
I applaud your honesty, and your decision not to own a gun for that reason. If everyone thought like that, we'd live in a perfect world.
I doubt it. For one, groups that believe in nonviolent resistance would disagree with you. (If anything, they would want to see no group armed, as opposed to more than one group.)
Oh, yes. Peaceful rebellion in the face of tyranny always works so very well. You know, like Tienanmen Square and Occupy and... Oh, wait...
And how did that revolution start? With peaceful demonstrations. Not with civilians brandishing guns. Of course it has degenerated into a civil war now, but that almost always happens with revolutions in some degree. And guess what? I doesn't matter if people own guns before it starts, because they'll be supplied with weapons anyway one way or another. In Syria, surrounding countries are supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, and together with parts of the army that have defected, I'd say there's never a need to own weapons in peacetime, if your reason for doing so is an expected revolution.
You're welcome to you opinion, but I happen to believe that a population trained, pre-equipped, and proficient in the use of firearms is much less likely to be eviscerated by their overlords and are far more likely to prevail.
The likelihood of prevailing against a modern, industrial army is slim, admittedly, but such things have happened before. Conventional wisdom would have seen the ill equipped and ill trained American colonists or Russian and Chinese Communists defeated in their revolutions, but see how they turned out? It's unlikely, but not a futile thing to hope for.
(Incidentally, I can't help wondering... have you ever considered emigration? Clearly you don't like the way things are going in your country, and I'm sure there must be other idyllic places in the world where the government is more to your liking.)
I refuse to leave. I'd love to live, say, in Sweden; but the fact is that for all of my Communist and anarchistic sentiments, I am something of a patriot. I love America. I love the United States. I see no reason why I should leave the land my ancestors helped build to the designs of traitors and inhuman slime like lobbyists and corporatists. That avenue is retreat, and I refuse it.
You just made the perfect point against civilians owning guns in the face of governmental oppression.
I fail to see how I did. I said *most* soldiers. By the time the ones who would shoot start to shoot, I say weapons free and have at 'em. Lines are typically drawn at that point in revolutions and people are typically on the sides that they would gravitate towards. Typically. In any case, by the time lead starts to fly, it's basically a standard guerrilla war.
Oh, yes. Peaceful rebellion in the face of tyranny always works so very well. You know, like Tienanmen Square and Occupy and... Oh, wait...
You've switched your point from any group who has been tryanized would have wanted guns opposing to their oppressors to peaceful rebellion is impractical. By abandoning your original point you demonstrate poor debate principles.
There are nonviolent groups who would not have the opinion you've hoisted onto them. Whether or not you find the idea practical has no bearing on whether or not it's an idea that they have.
The likelihood of prevailing against a modern, industrial army is slim, admittedly, but such things have happened before. Conventional wisdom would have seen the ill equipped and ill trained American colonists or Russian and Chinese Communists defeated in their revolutions, but see how they turned out? It's unlikely, but not a futile thing to hope for.
The American Revolution really has very little to do with an armed populace and more to do with circumstance and support.
The British were across the globe. With the speed of travel in those days, communication and coordination at higher levels was effectively impossible. We're talking about a political body where the nervous system takes months to get the mind to move a hand, and months for the hand to report that it's on fire.
The British had three OTHER wars to deal with, each providing a greater potential gain AND loss for the country than the American colonial rebellion.
The French supported the colonists early on.
The British were not in the best economic shape at the time.
The colonists had a few really lucky breaks, specifically in Washington and figuring out the whole Benedict Arnold thing before he split off New England and gave control of the Hudson to the British(and potentially handed Washington over on a silver platter, too).
The British were never fighting for the seat of their government. They were fighting for a new but already vestigial limb far from home.
Essentially, the colonists won largely by virtue of timing, circumstance, and luck.
The law says we're a Republic, first off. If we're any sort of democracy it's a representative democracy which is hardly a true democracy. In any case, what few choices we have are presented to us by the media - owned by the rich and the corporations. What illusions of freedom we have that aren't quickly vanishing are presented to us by the vile traitors who bought our government and are intent on seeing themselves grow richer and richer.
So what you're saying is, that you have a gun 1) for personal security, and 2) to maintain some semblance of personal control (or at least the feeling of control) over something that the government and the rich haven't taken over yet.
So what you're saying is, that you have a gun 1) for personal security, and 2) to maintain some semblance of personal control (or at least the feeling of control) over something that the government and the rich haven't taken over yet.
You've switched your point from any group who has been tryanized would have wanted guns opposing to their oppressors to peaceful rebellion is impractical. By abandoning your original point you demonstrate poor debate principles.
There are nonviolent groups who would not have the opinion you've hoisted onto them. Whether or not you find the idea practical has no bearing on whether or not it's an idea that they have.
You'll find that I never really switched my point. I merely added that peaceful rebellion is impossible. I maintain that the oppressed would, in the vast majority of circumstances, find solace in the ability to defend themselves.
I wonder how things would have turned out had we been able to arm the Jews, gypsies, and others the Nazis disliked before Hitler rounded them up? I wonder what would have happened if we armed the Manchurians against the Japanese? Unit 731 might not have found things so easy, then. Just things to consider.
The American Revolution really has very little to do with an armed populace and more to do with circumstance and support.
The British were across the globe. With the speed of travel in those days, communication and coordination at higher levels was effectively impossible. We're talking about a political body where the nervous system takes months to get the mind to move a hand, and months for the hand to report that it's on fire.
The British had three OTHER wars to deal with, each providing a greater potential gain AND loss for the country than the American colonial rebellion.
The French supported the colonists early on.
The British were not in the best economic shape at the time.
The colonists had a few really lucky breaks, specifically in Washington and figuring out the whole Benedict Arnold thing before he split off New England and gave control of the Hudson to the British(and potentially handed Washington over on a silver platter, too).
The British were never fighting for the seat of their government. They were fighting for a new but already vestigial limb far from home.
Essentially, the colonists won largely by virtue of timing, circumstance, and luck.
Oh yes, because the United States has no enemies at all now and are certainly never bound to be overburdened again. After all, the United States military is just so good at counter insurgency operations, aren't they? I mean, it's done a splendid job ever since Vietnam, right?
Incidentally, I see that you didn't dispute the successes of comrades Lenin and Mao. Interesting.
I wonder how things would have turned out had we been able to arm the Jews, gypsies, and others the Nazis disliked before Hitler rounded them up?
I wonder how things would have turned out if other European countries would have intervened earlier? I wonder what would have happened if the German government didn't make such an epic ******** mess of things when they could have seen trouble brewing from miles ahead. I mean, those Nazi weirdos had their own party army, for goodness' sake!
A lot of things went wrong there, but the arming of Jews and other oppressed groups wasn't the best possible solution. European leaders just completely bungled and majorly misjudged the situation, including German politicians before Hitler came to power.
To get back on topic though, sure, you can arm oppressed groups, but then it turns into a war, and it's about who can hold out the longest. Like a game of chess, if you will, but with human pawns. Sometimes outside intervention, with actual trained soldiers, is better. But in the end, there are only losers in a situation like that.
But this discussion is pretty useless, since most people who own guns do so for the kicks, not to prepare against possible oppression.
Comments
My pistol has a faster response time then the sheriff's department halfway across town. What's the response time like where you live?
Anyway, guns tend to be very important in your country when it was born of a violent revolution. The ability to destroy tyranny is what led to legal guarantees for American gun ownership in the first place.
I'm against them on the principal of keeping the fear that there might be gun owners about as a genuine deterrent.
ALLEGORY: There's a thicket in an environment infested with poisonous snakes. Do you walk through the thicket to your destination or around it, where you can clearly see the ground?
Now imagine that you're a criminal. Do you rob a store near a shooting range, knowing that the people nearby might be CCing on their way back from shooting or do you go rob the store that proudly announces itself to be a "gun-free" zone?
Add to that the fact that, as you said, a lot of innocent people get nervous around guns and you can see why CCing makes the most sense.
By the Nine, I can't believe I agreed with you.
Oh, how I do not look forward to seeing how the EU collapses. You can't just eject Greece, they're never going to repay their loans, and they're dragging down Germany, France, and Great Britain.
Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this. Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.
Why? That revolution happened centuries ago. Are you saying time stood still in the US? No progress at all? That's rather sad, actually.
Okay, so the reason you're allowed to carry guns is so you can kill the President if you don't like them... but ironically, that has nothing to do with shooting criminals.
As is pepper spray, for instance (at least with the majority of the population that isn't immune to it). Also, a well-placed punch or kick can incapacitate anyone. And hey, if it's just about incapacitating an attacker, why not use rubber bullets?
I completely agree with you there. My issue with guns is not that criminals can be harmed, but that it's so easy for innocent people to get hurt, especially when guns aren't kept securely. And yes, that does happen. Not everyone who owns a gun handles it responsibly, so no, I don't trust other people with guns just like that. If they must own a gun, they'd better follow an extensive course on things like gun safety, but also psychology, like, how to read people (how can you be sure an attacker is an attacker before he makes his first move? and by then it might be too late to react). Nobody should ever be able to just walk into a shop and buy a gun, and personally, I think only trained professionals should be able to use one.
I think that the idea that guns would help in a self-defense situation is adorable. If someone's going to attack you, they probably aren't going to project their intentions from a distance great enough to get your gun out. If someone grabs you by your shooting arm, it's going to be difficult to get a bead on them. That's what I'm saying
Also, martial arts doesn't mean "nonlethal". There is quite a bit is designed to not instantly kill the opponent (which gives you flexibility to respond to someone trying to steal your purse vs. someone trying to steal your head), but I know people who can crush a man's sternum with a well-placed kick. Or break someone's nose with so much force that the bone fragments penetrate the brain. And a lot of martial arts defenses are designed to make a fight end as quickly as possible with the other person completely incapacitated as well as being able to get out of situations that would otherwise cause your own incapacitation.
No, you could probably just crush their hand into powder or something as you dragged them into face-smashing range.
And while not everyone can do the bone fragment thing, they can instead rely on the fact that an attacker is likely to be male and do the old slap, grab, twist, and pull. If they're not down by the end of that, it's unlikely a bullet would stop them anyways.
When he's physically threatening you or another innocent person OR when he's trespassing in your home. How good does a man need to be to carry a weapon? Good enough to hit his targets, sane enough to know what his targets should be, and sure enough not to hesitate - lest the aggressor overcome him.
About time.
Not until I'm sighted on a target. :P
Awesome! That's gun is like the Desert Eagle though, in that while it's awesome I really don't see the utility or practicality. I mean, in what combat situation would either be relevant? The AA12 seems like a fragile, yet overpowered cudgel whilst the Desert Eagle would be much better as a carbine with its cartridge and bulk.
Neither gun really makes sense.
I'm inclined to say no, but the solution is not to give any civilian guns, and that's something that probably will never happen.
I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out. Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.
At the end of the day, that's what the second amendment is all about. Politicians and Internet debaters can go on and on all they like about hunting and self defense, but really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people. It's unfortunate that people forget this, as it's a very noble sentiment.
True, but there are so many better and more durable shotguns. Hell, a decent pump action will be an order of magnitude more reliable and just as effective at its task.
It's one of the reasons. However, hunting and self defense are rights recognized within the United States by the vast majority of states and citizens. Therefore, I really don't see your point.
(Incidentally, that reason seems rather silly to me, as 1) the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, helicopters and so on, so it has a vastly larger amount of power than the people with their flimsy guns, and 2) it seems barbaric and drastic to anticipate an armed rebellion in a supposedly democratic country, where the pen is mightier than any sword, or, indeed, gun.)
1) They didn't when the second amendment was passed. Besides, militaries rarely remain cohesive in rebellions. Any war against the proletariat of the United States would inevitably see swaths of the military join us.
2)
> United States
> Democratic
> Pick one
The law says we're a Republic, first off. If we're any sort of democracy it's a representative democracy which is hardly a true democracy. In any case, what few choices we have are presented to us by the media - owned by the rich and the corporations. What illusions of freedom we have that aren't quickly vanishing are presented to us by the vile traitors who bought our government and are intent on seeing themselves grow richer and richer.
It doesn't matter if you have the best pen in the world, really. If the government has all the guns and the media is controlled for the most part by the enemy, you're quite insignificant. This is why I'm glad I own guns, you see. Some day, people will be pissed off at the status quo. The time will come to serve our enemies their due. When that day comes, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll gladly join in.
Any group?
The government has an army. The people don't even really have militias.
The government has drones.
The government has bombs, nuclear and otherwise.
The government has access to biological weapons.
The government has tanks.
The government has fighter jets.
The government has automatic firearms that can't be legally owned.
The government's yearly "Defense" budget has more than doubled from over 300 billion dollars to over 700 billion dollars.
They're slightly more powerful than Billy Joe Bob and his shack of old pistols and rifles.
Yes, any.
See my prior comment on military desertions in rebellions. Notice what's happening in Syria with their military right now, or think back in history to how basically every competent officer - save for a few - and a large chunk of enlisted men deserted the United States army to join the Confederacy and you'll see my point. If the proletariat can legitimize their rebellion, members of the armed forces will join in. Hell, even if they don't, most soldiers I know would refuse to fire on their countrymen.
Oh, and you can legally own an automatic weapon. It's just unreasonably expensive since civilian legal automatic weapons have been legally barred from production thanks to a sneaky last minute amendment to the NFA passed in 1986.
That's why I don't own a gun, because I'm trigger happy.
And how did that revolution start? With peaceful demonstrations. Not with civilians brandishing guns. Of course it has degenerated into a civil war now, but that almost always happens with revolutions in some degree. And guess what? I doesn't matter if people own guns before it starts, because they'll be supplied with weapons anyway one way or another. In Syria, surrounding countries are supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, and together with parts of the army that have defected, I'd say there's never a need to own weapons in peacetime, if your reason for doing so is an expected revolution.
(Incidentally, I can't help wondering... have you ever considered emigration? Clearly you don't like the way things are going in your country, and I'm sure there must be other idyllic places in the world where the government is more to your liking.)
You just made the perfect point against civilians owning guns in the face of governmental oppression.
I applaud your honesty, and your decision not to own a gun for that reason. If everyone thought like that, we'd live in a perfect world.
Oh, yes. Peaceful rebellion in the face of tyranny always works so very well. You know, like Tienanmen Square and Occupy and... Oh, wait... You're welcome to you opinion, but I happen to believe that a population trained, pre-equipped, and proficient in the use of firearms is much less likely to be eviscerated by their overlords and are far more likely to prevail.
The likelihood of prevailing against a modern, industrial army is slim, admittedly, but such things have happened before. Conventional wisdom would have seen the ill equipped and ill trained American colonists or Russian and Chinese Communists defeated in their revolutions, but see how they turned out? It's unlikely, but not a futile thing to hope for. I refuse to leave. I'd love to live, say, in Sweden; but the fact is that for all of my Communist and anarchistic sentiments, I am something of a patriot. I love America. I love the United States. I see no reason why I should leave the land my ancestors helped build to the designs of traitors and inhuman slime like lobbyists and corporatists. That avenue is retreat, and I refuse it.
I fail to see how I did. I said *most* soldiers. By the time the ones who would shoot start to shoot, I say weapons free and have at 'em. Lines are typically drawn at that point in revolutions and people are typically on the sides that they would gravitate towards. Typically. In any case, by the time lead starts to fly, it's basically a standard guerrilla war.
There are nonviolent groups who would not have the opinion you've hoisted onto them. Whether or not you find the idea practical has no bearing on whether or not it's an idea that they have. The American Revolution really has very little to do with an armed populace and more to do with circumstance and support.
The British were across the globe. With the speed of travel in those days, communication and coordination at higher levels was effectively impossible. We're talking about a political body where the nervous system takes months to get the mind to move a hand, and months for the hand to report that it's on fire.
The British had three OTHER wars to deal with, each providing a greater potential gain AND loss for the country than the American colonial rebellion.
The French supported the colonists early on.
The British were not in the best economic shape at the time.
The colonists had a few really lucky breaks, specifically in Washington and figuring out the whole Benedict Arnold thing before he split off New England and gave control of the Hudson to the British(and potentially handed Washington over on a silver platter, too).
The British were never fighting for the seat of their government. They were fighting for a new but already vestigial limb far from home.
Essentially, the colonists won largely by virtue of timing, circumstance, and luck.
So what you're saying is, that you have a gun 1) for personal security, and 2) to maintain some semblance of personal control (or at least the feeling of control) over something that the government and the rich haven't taken over yet.
and 3) because it's fun.
Is that what you're saying?
You'll find that I never really switched my point. I merely added that peaceful rebellion is impossible. I maintain that the oppressed would, in the vast majority of circumstances, find solace in the ability to defend themselves.
I wonder how things would have turned out had we been able to arm the Jews, gypsies, and others the Nazis disliked before Hitler rounded them up? I wonder what would have happened if we armed the Manchurians against the Japanese? Unit 731 might not have found things so easy, then. Just things to consider.
Oh yes, because the United States has no enemies at all now and are certainly never bound to be overburdened again. After all, the United States military is just so good at counter insurgency operations, aren't they? I mean, it's done a splendid job ever since Vietnam, right?
Incidentally, I see that you didn't dispute the successes of comrades Lenin and Mao. Interesting.
Bet they don't have many visitors either.
Eh, I'd take the security. I prefer to meet strangers away from where I keep my pets and the majority of my valuables.
What about the Pizza man?
A lot of things went wrong there, but the arming of Jews and other oppressed groups wasn't the best possible solution. European leaders just completely bungled and majorly misjudged the situation, including German politicians before Hitler came to power.
To get back on topic though, sure, you can arm oppressed groups, but then it turns into a war, and it's about who can hold out the longest. Like a game of chess, if you will, but with human pawns. Sometimes outside intervention, with actual trained soldiers, is better. But in the end, there are only losers in a situation like that.
But this discussion is pretty useless, since most people who own guns do so for the kicks, not to prepare against possible oppression.
Is this thread Bizarro World?