AR Master on 18/4/2007 at 18:37
.
fett on 18/4/2007 at 18:48
Yes, clearly we should only discuss this issue when no one gets shot.
Instead, lets all discuss fair zoning for moral high ground in public places.
TBE on 18/4/2007 at 18:49
Quote Posted by steo
And as has been said before, what use is even a high powered rifle against tanks and F-16s.
Uhhh, do you think someone would go up against a tank or fighter jet? No, they would go up against the person operating it prior to them operating it, or after they get out of it. Anyone in the world could have taken pot shots at me and pilots from the road next to the airbase I was stationed at in 2003. The road had Iraqi trucks bringing goods to other countries. I'm sure someone, or people, with a will could have taken out the people at the base, therefore rendering the equipment useless.
You see in Iraq daily how people with a will can take on the world's most powerful military. IEDs can take out many vehicles. Do you think I know how to make an IED? Yes, I do. Many others do.
SubJeff on 18/4/2007 at 18:51
Quote Posted by AR Master
Good game guys, good game
Yeah, it's bad isn't it. I feel guilty now (although what I said is what I believe). I've just been reading about this, in the Sun of all things, and it's just really sad and makes me quite angry.
Jonesy on 18/4/2007 at 19:00
If you don't have a criminal record or a history of
documented mental illness, you can get a gun. He didn't have either. He operated within the realm of the law with regards for his purchases. The government cannot control a person's actions no matter how much conspiracy theorists say differently.
The Alchemist on 18/4/2007 at 19:14
Dats the problem with you bunch of mongs. You yanks are a fucked up lot, and whenever something happens as a consequence you don't want to talk about why. It's all OH HAVE RESPECT FOR THE DEAD, so nothing gets DONE about it. In my country, we sit around on our computer chairs and criticize EVERYTHING online, RIGHT AWAY, thats how we produce RESULTS.
No really, I think the gun laws here are a consequence of the way of life back when they were established (I'd like to say it was more reasonable back then but I'd be talking out of my ass), and now we just don't have a choice because our society was built as such. I don't own a gun and I hate violence but even if guns were outlawed I wouldn't feel any safer. If three thugs broke into my home at night I wouldn't be any more comforted by the fact that "they're just carrying bats and machetes" even if I have a claymore to defend myself with. Guns themselves are a false sense of protection: assuming they came in with knives and I owned a gun then sure I'd be relatively safer than I would otherwise, but if they came in with guns, owning a gun myself only severely increases the chances that they'll resort to using them. Otherwise I might get lucky and they only have them to protect themselves and/or intimidation. But if I pull a gun on them and they have guns, that's it, someone's going to get shot. And I'm a bit of a hippie so I'm definitely of the "violence only begets more violence and will never be a true solution to anything because you'd have to kill basically everyone to come to a point where no more violence would occur in the future" type opinion. It's a consequence of human nature I'd say, if we had no gun technology whatsoever then it might work for us on an even ground, but the fact that we can and do create such destructive weapons means that somewhere, someone, for some circumstance is going to use it against someone else, and their best defense is A) diplomacy??? (but my God tells me to KILL you) and B) having the same ability to destroy. The state of nuclear weaponry is a good example of this, I think. We never use them, but having them gives us power, and other people having them too balances that power, so they remain unused.
Muzman on 18/4/2007 at 19:15
Quote Posted by fett
Jay and Muz - I think you're both naive if you think that individuals within the government will self-restrain because of the Constitution or because of checks and balances. Obviously this system has worked for many years, but if an individual or group decides to override those checks and balances, or 'reinterpret' the Constitution (as Bush has done with the Geneva Conventions) how else will they be stopped? Not by citizens writing nice letters about the checks and balances or a protest of people waving copies of the constitution. They *should* be stopped at the voting booth, but failing that, they will be stopped with force of arms.
Didn't you guys ever get your ass kicked on the playground? I got pounded one time by this huge black guy - he probably weighed about 100 lbs. more than me and was at least 3 years older. All his friends were gathered around and I was on my own (being a skinny little white kid).* I could have yelled all day about the school rules, fair engagement, him getting expelled, etc. but we all know that wouldn't have changed a damn thing. However, if I could have suddenly grown 2 ft. taller and put on 100 lbs. to match or at least challenge his strength, I would have had a chance to defend myself. Shitty analogy maybe, but all the arguments I hear in favor of gun control (or banishment) usually assume that the authorities will always do what's right, and that the police and military will always protect the people rather than oppress them, when history shows this not to be the case at all.
The point is that they don't have to "self restrain", they don't break the law. The US, of all places!, expects those seeking or in authority to behave like self centred righteous arse holes. Since there's no real safeguard against that sort of person the solution being; If we get enough of them... If they do break the law they get screwed up. If they try and change the law in some unpleasant way, it doesn't get passed in the parliament. If they do change the law so they can get away with it, the supreme court throws it out and possibly fires them. Then if they're a little too slow, the states kick up a fuss. And so on, and not necessarily in that order. These are checks and balances. Yeah there's always the odd flare up, or creeping changes in policy and so on that keeps people on their toes. But this civic psychology, lets call it, of oversimplifying complex processes and institutions until you're always on some slippery slope, two steps away from sandbagging your house (and not that you posess it with great vehemence personally), or fighting some playground gorilla. Well, it's perplexing.
Anyone who looks at the miasma of government and sees only some monolithic horror they have to defend themselves against with deadly force isn't living in reality. Yeah its messy, it goes wrong, it lashes out in dumb ways, yeah third world dictators, yeah nazi Germany, we know. But this whole attitude is supposed to be about civics and citizenship and upholding the tenents of our forefathers and all that. Instead it's so simplistic and stupid that it's actually the absence or avoidance of that.
steo on 18/4/2007 at 19:18
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
You see in Iraq daily how people with a will can take on the world's most powerful military.
The Iraqis are still much better armed than US law currently permits its citizens to be and I still stand that a nationwide workers strike and civil disobedience would be much more effective a weapon than any guns.
fett, so if the americans are allowed guns then the fight is between the not quite so skinny white boy and the 80 pounds heavier, 1.5 feet taller and two years older black guy and his mates.
Martlet on 18/4/2007 at 19:27
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
You see in Iraq daily how people with a will can take on the world's most powerful military.
And also how many innocent civilians die.
Stitch on 18/4/2007 at 19:55
Quote Posted by Muzman
Anyone who looks at the miasma of government and sees only some monolithic horror they have to defend themselves against with deadly force isn't living in reality.
^^^^^this
I understand the concept of being armed for such purposes
in concept, but in reality I can't even fathom a situation in which it would be either necessary or practical.
Having said that, I'm not for banning guns or anything, but I do think we should be honest about why we want guns as opposed to flinging around this greater-good-against-an-evil-government horseshit.
