2012-08-01, 19:20
|
Link #141 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone
Maybe I'm a coward, but I'll take the loss of my wallet ahead of blood loss from a bullet/knife wound. If they're that close, I'd just give them what they wanted (most robbers are only in it for the money). If you showed your gun they might panic and seriously injure you (particularly if they have a gun). The idea here is to THINK before you use it! If they have the drop on you and want your wallet, don't give it to them toss it past them! Thus creating a distraction giving you the time to either run or pull your gun, knife, base ball bat, sai, katana, boomerang, whatever and light them up! The deadliest weapon in the world is the human mind, but it won't work if you don't know how too use it! |
|
|
|
2012-08-01, 20:26
|
Link #142 | |||
|
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The only decisive factor I can see is how rural/urban a population is. What makes DC unique is that it's the only territory that is 100% urban, with no rural population. Compare that to a rural state like Wyoming, or Vermont with a rate of 2.0 and 1.3 respectively. There are also likely other factors as well. If you looked at states there that had permissive and restrictive gun use laws, you'd find no meaningful correlation in murder rates, provided you looked at states with similiar demographics and geography. More interesting would be to see the percentage of murder victims that own/carried a gun and see how that compares to national gun ownership rates. Criminals getting murdered might skew it upwards a bit, as criminals are more likely to carry a weapon, and also more likely to get murdered. If you excluded things like that, I'd say murder victims have roughly the same likelihood of carrying a gun as the general population. Until we see statistics, of course, it's difficult to really know. It would also be interesting to know how frequently people get killed with their own weapon, be it through accident, misuse, or an assailant turning it on them. Certainly I think statewide statistics shows that being allowed to carry(and use) a gun does not necessarily make you safer. Case statistics would make things even more certain. Quote:
Quote:
To go back somewhat to what started all of this (the Aurora, Colorado massacre), I don't think Gun control will stop the most determined crazies from getting the weapons they need to commit their massacres, though it may hinder the less resourceful ones (teen mass murderers in particular, who likely don't have much money or contacts). My main concern is the common criminal and organized crime. To put it simply, gun control prevents common criminals from getting guns, while reducing the number of guns organized crime can acquire. In reducing the firepower of criminal elements the likelihood of a robbery or assault ending in a murder is reduced, while it also allows the police to do their work more cheaply and easily as there are less police casualties over all. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-01, 21:29
|
Link #143 | |||||||
|
Pretentious moe scholar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I’m thinking it’s because he didn’t want a weapon that would be harder to conceal and deploy without notice or suspicions. Chances seem pretty damn good he would have used a lower capacity handgun mag and caused less damage had he not had the high capacity mag. I’m not going to limit my inquiries to why he did it because I’m not a pro-gun fundamentalist, recognize that you’re never going to stop every guy like him, and identify other ways to limit the damage. Quote:
Quote:
CCW? I haven’t said anything about what utility it would have had in Aurora and don’t intend to. It’s not the issue I’m commenting on. I'm also calling BS on it being harder to hit a target with a rifle than an 9mm in a situation like the one Holmes was involved in because he wasn't using an automatic weapon and wouldn't have the controlability issues that entails. If you're going to try and impress me with your extensive firearms knowledge, you're going to have to make it more relevant. Quote:
I don’t buy into this “he would have found another way to be as effective it anyway” stuff. History says these guys aren’t any more rational, intelligent, or foresightful than the rest of humanity is. Quote:
I’m not the one basing my arguments on the assumption that nutjob shooters have limitless resolve, knowledge, and intelligence.
__________________
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-01, 23:42
|
Link #144 | ||||
|
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for the ability to resell, I see zero reason why the government should have the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their personal possession in this case, as this would be yet another area where they'll just be able to tack on even more costs to gun owners. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 00:01
|
Link #145 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
Violence is a right of intiation with most of them. Quote:
You've shown me that in Ireland there isn't much in the way of gang violence or violent crime period. While here in the US, guns or no guns, we have a serious problem with gang violence and violent crime in general. Gun control cannot and will not stop that. Quote:
For me it happened with almost no one around, so I imagine different times of the day and different areas would have a wide variety of frequency of crime at gas stations. Quote:
I'm lucky those are all that happened. Quote:
I don't know much about Ireland. Are you more or less likely to get stabbed/hurt by cooperating or resisting? Here there is no way to know. You could hand over your wallet and still get knifed/shot/blungeoned depending on the neighborhood and person mugging/robbing you. Quote:
However, that too is a personal choice that each person should be able to make. The government should not be making it for you. Quote:
We here in the US are, and I wouldn't want it any other way. The 2nd amendment is simply an extension of Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution. Because of that, we have the right to keep, bear, and own military style weapons. This was decided in US vs Miller by SCOTUS. Also, are your police armed with machine guns, grenades, use APCs, or have assault rifles in their patrol cars? Ours do. Quote:
We had a high-cap magazine ban, and it didn't stop the North Hollywood bank robbers. In fact they had FULLY AUTOMATIC REAL assault rifles from China. All this AFTER armor piercing bullets were illegalized, FULLY AUTOs were illegallized without a license, new large-cap mags were illegalized for sale, carrying a rifle in public in CA was illegal, robber was illegal, shooting at cops is illegal, shooting in public is illegal. And how do the cops stop them...they go to a local gun shop and get AR-15s! Why? Because they were LEGAL! Gun laws don't stop or deter crime. Every study posted on this thread has shown that. The 1994-2004 ban didn't stop Columbine, it didn't stop the DC Sniper, it didn't stop diddley squat. Putting it back in place will only make things worse. Stop deluding yourself. Quote:
Had he gone in there with the same shotgun that James Holmes used...it would have been much worse than it was IMO. Quote:
 Very concealable, and more deadly at close range than any pistol or rifle. Quote:
Two 7 shot magazines, fired, and reloaded in .2 seconds. The idea that Laughner would have done any less damage simply by taking away the 33 round mag is totally ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding about guns. Let me give you another example. This time nothing but old single-action weapons. How fast you can shoot a SINGLE shot pump-action shotgun (5 shots), single action revolver (12 shots, 6 each pistol), and lever-action rifle (10 shots) and HIT EVERY FRIGGIN TARGET in 41 seconds flat: The reason I'm showing you this is so that you realize that a low-capacity doesn't mean less death. All it means is the shooter has to get more creative, and you yourself just admitted these mass shooters are creative. Here's a guy with a shotgun reloading at lightening speed. And what a revolver can do: Now I don't expect a mass shooter to be a speed shooter, but they don't have to be to make my point that you are wrong with your statement that Laughner wouldn't do as much damage with lower capacity clips. That is a complete bunk and I just proved it. Quote:
 Quote:
You act like that AR-15 shoots full auto or something. There is NO difference between the way the handguns shoot (semi-auto) and the AR-15. In fact, the 9mm is a .36 caliber round that is heavier and at close range has greater stopping power than a .223 caliber rifle round. The reason for this is due to the fact that the 65 Grain, 5.56mm at 3100 fps, overpenetrates targets at ranges of less than 50 meters. Unless you get a really "lucky" shot and hit bone (which will shatter) a 147 GR, 9mm Jacketed hollowpoint at 1200 fps is much more effective. It is a rifle caliber, not a pistol or shotgun and is thus meant for long-range combat not CQB. In laymans terms it would be like trying to swat flies with a chop stick. Quote:
It is a .22 caliber round that is very accurate, but not in the dark, with a drum that unbalances that light rifle and makes hitting with it hard in broad daylight let alone a smoke filled room. See, unlike you, I've actually fired an AR-15 with a 100 round drum and know accuracy sucks with it and can't hit crap when fired from the shoulder. Prone position isn't bad as it holds the gun down. On a bench, sighting in a new AR or new barrel (after work has been done), it is a great tool to have and very little can compare to it for that purpose. It's also great fun to fire at paper targets (or the like) down range when you want to improve your skills. But using it to try and hit moving targets, in darkness, with smoke filling the room, with a gas-mask on, and from the shoulder? Impossible, from the hip, pure shit luck if he were to hit. Unless people were huddling in large masses, and he were at point-blank range (litterally on top of them) then he might have had a chance to hit a few of them from pure chance. Quote:
James Holmes was a neuroscientist, are they not more rational, intelligent and foresightful? Quote:
__________________
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 00:31
|
Link #146 | |
|
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Shooting from the shoulder, with vests and gas mask on, is a major pain even in broad daylight. Do that in the dark, with a loldrum magazine, smokes, and on moving targets no less? any hits would have far more to do with pure luck than anything else, and if he was firing from the hip, he may as well have been firing blind. And yes, I actually do have experience in similar scenarios (minus the loldrum mag). |
|
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 01:55
|
Link #147 | |
|
ARCAM Spriggan agent
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada/Quezon City, Philippines
 |
Quote:
Same goes with special units like the Special Detective Unit and other plainclothed units.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 02:15
|
Link #148 | |||
|
Pretentious moe scholar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 37
|
I’m getting extremely tired of having to wade through all the side tracks that don’t address the points I’ve been arguing and constant underestimating of what I know about firearms and associated tactics, so I’m going to keep this short. I’m also not going to stick around if you don’t start addressing the points I made instead of spamming talking points and belittling the opposition.
I’m less concerned about what organized criminals can acquire, mass murder isn’t their primary purpose and most mass murderers lack the necessary connections to get the stuff they do. Mass murders generally don’t seem to be speedy reloaders, Laughner outright screwed up his only shot at a reload. Trenchcoats probably aren’t the best outfit to wear if you’re trying not to attract suspicion and I’m not convinced he’s smart enough to think of a sawed off anyway. And aside from the fact that blind firing 100 rounds – or even 33 - has a much higher chance of hits than blind firing 10, your statements indicate to me that a prone shooter could go pretty far with a 100 round and a crowd, nothing illegal or messy explosives required. Quote:
Quote:
I have yet to be convinced that any of the guys I mentioned would have been as effective without their high cap mags – except Holmes, in whose case I wouldn’t count on a jam next time, and Lortie, whose targets didn’t show up because he mistimed his entry. You need to address that before you try and convince me I’m deluding myself. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 02:57
|
Link #149 |
|
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
"High Capacity" magazines depends on what you consider a lot of bullets. A 15 bullet or 20 bullet clip is fairly reasonable. A 50 to 100 bullet clip is bulky and many have jamming tendencies. Swapping clips on a rifle might take a second or two due to where the release is and the need to put in a larger clip. But a pistol clip can be changed really fast due to the ease of the release on the grip and the thin size of the clip.
Rifles are designed for ranged work in the 50+ meter range. Pistols are close in weapons. Because of this it is easlier to aim a pistol at a relatively close range and with moving target even in low light conditions. A rifle is more ungainly and needs more precise aim to hit a close in target or else you are just randomly sending out bullets that are probably just hitting the floor or ceiling or wall rather than what you are aiming at. If you are aiming properly with a rifle, you will be taking more time between shots than you would with a pistol. Also due to the nature of the bullets used in these different weapons, the pistol rounds are more likely to cause heavy damage as they tend to be designed to flatten out more when they hit a body. The rifle bullets tend to pass through a body more often due to the shape and speed. For close in work against a crowd, the shotgun is the most ideal gun (or Riot Guns as several militaries have been forced to call them due to international treaties). It can use loaded with a variaty of different rounds from a single solid slug, to a few small bullets, to a spray of BB sized pellets, to rubber rounds or plastic bean sacks. The spray of BB sized pellets will likely hurt the most number of people over a wider area per shot than anything else. The only chance these other nutjobs might have been less effective with smaller clips is if the split second it took them to notice they needed to reload and actually reload was enough for the police to down them. Otherwise, it would make no effective difference what size magazine they carried as long as they carried more than one that was loaded. The only kind of nutjob I can see the magazine capacity making a real difference are the ones in tunnel vision that bring one or more weapons and shoot until it runs out, than toss it aside to shoot the next one, rather than reload. Or the ones that tunnel vision and have only one gun...use every bullet of a single clip until it runs out and keep clicking until they break down (or save the last bullet for themselves). Such things don't effect the average criminal that likely isn't going to need to shoot his weapon, or if he does, probably only needs one or two shots before they run off into the night. Only gangbanging and shootouts with the police will they even need more bullets (or New Years when they spray bullets into the air to celebrate). Most run of the mill criminals that even have a gun likely have a 6 shot revolver or a small semiautomatic pistol that will have between 7 and 15 bullets in a clip (average tends to be 10). Some even carry smaller guns to hide them better...little two shot things or 4 shot .22 revolvers.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 03:19
|
Link #150 | |
|
Pretentious moe scholar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 37
|
I pretty much was just going on the 10 round threshold from the AWB and Vexx's analysis.
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by 0utf0xZer0; 2012-08-02 at 03:36. |
|
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 03:54
|
Link #151 |
|
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Even if it take a few seconds like it takes me (I'm not a high skilled shooter), the only difference is if that is enough time for the police to act.
If they crack and had less rounds, then you have to ask the other question...would the average number of casualties be any different with ten rounds verses 33 rounds? Would they have been more selective with less and gotten more hits with less rounds? Were they spraying and praying with the high capacity, or were they picking targets? Would they just have a second gun to make up the difference? Finally is it warrented to make a law based on what the lunatics do? Doesn't that just punish the 99+% of the population for the crimes of less than 1% of the population that this crazy and packing? The rest of the criminal element usually doesn't matter if they have high capacity magazines or sometime even need to have bullets in their guns to get their crime committed. Having a high capacity magazine can be useful, but generally it makes one sloppier in the "oh I have more bullets, I don't have to aim" region. The primary objection to those restrictions is the abritary nature of them. Why 10 bullets or 15 bullets? Why not 20 bullets or three bullets? Handguns and rifles tend to be around the same general size relative to each other due to the needs to fit average sized human hands, arms, and shoulders. The main difference between them tendes to be the size of the bullets in length and diameter. The smaller the bullet the more can fit into the same relative space in the gun verses less larger bullets in the same general area. A a gun the size of a 5 shot .50 caliber revolver will likely be similar to a 15 shot .22 caliber revolver. A 7 shot .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol will be about the same size as a 15 shot 9mm semiautomatic pistol. For rifles you have more potental space for the ammunition because you usually attach it seperately from the handgrip. Also rifles tend to use longer bullets for more accuracy at range, or more stopping power against larger targets (deer, bears, and the like). Some can have small clips or large clips. Some have no clips. A Remington Nylon 66 has a tube in the stock of the rifle that carries 14 .22 caliber long rifle bullets and can carry a 15th in the chamber. It has no clip. Other bolt action rifles might not have a clip at all and can only have one bullet in it at a time. others might have a giant clip to feed the bolt action rifle...depending on the design. Others (level action) tend to have tubes under the barrel for bullets. Pump action and semiautomatic shotguns have these tubes as well. But your average criminal will likely have just a pistol as it is easier to hide. The evidence so far has not been conclusive to say that gun control reduces crime, nor does having more guns reduce crime. But neither option have been shown to raise crime either. The only difference is the catagory of "gun crimes" but the total number of crimes does not change...only the instrument used. Changing instruments when the crime is still successfully committed does not make for a good case as the crime is still there, as is the death. The difference is death by stabbing or death by blunt force trama verses death by gun wound. The operative phrase is still "death". It doesn't matter what the criminal uses to kill you as you are still dead.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 04:05
|
Link #152 | |
|
Pretentious moe scholar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 37
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 07:18
|
Link #153 | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
In continental Europe, but also in other countries, you have often have a Gendarmerie type military police that exist next to national and local police forces, with a mandate to police civilians. They have access to similar equipment as combat troops which gives them the means to enforce police duties even in conflict zones. The existence of this type of force is probably a necessity for the crime prevention requirement on the police. Last edited by Bri; 2012-08-02 at 08:21. Reason: spelling |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 08:14
|
Link #154 |
|
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
 Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
An underlying thread in the decline of the last few decades in violent crime in the US has been very basic - putting violent criminals in jail and *leaving* them there til they're too old to continue that behavior. As Ithekro notes, more or less guns, does not seem to have any real statistical effect on crime, whereas this correlation is a lot more solid.
One failure in the US has been that we happily put so many *non-violent* people in jail (suspicions on those outsourced private prison profiteering) that we're seeing violent felons being released early. Their release and almost immediate subsequent violent re-offending rates are very high (a kind of "duh" moment there). As for "shooting back", the biggest problem in a theater situation outside of lack of tactical training is that the "good guy" is trying to hit the Right Target in the pandemonium whereas the "crazy guy" is shooting at Any Target. As an example of how guns aren't 'magic', one of my wife's cousins (a police officer) took 5 slugs at point blank range (3 in the vest and 2 in the arm) and was still able to kill the thug with his own service firearm. Of course, he had to have extensive surgery/rehab and suffered PTSD... Homicides in the US run between 15000 and 20000 a year (out of a total population of 300 million) according to CDC statistics. That's 0.006%. Media hyper-focus and repetitive reporting often make it seem like 10% or worse. Murder-by-stupidity (also known as automobile fatalities) run 0.011% -- almost twice as high (40000 people a year roughly). I find it interesting that no such outrage heads in that direction since most accidents are due to lack of skill, lack of caring, lack of training, lack of sobriety. I would dearly like to see the majority of Americans not needing a car before I kick the bucket.
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2012-08-02 at 08:35. |
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 08:17
|
Link #155 | |||||||||||
|
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. Not all police would be required to carry guns, or have gun training. 2. There would be less police casualties due to Police being much less likely to get shot in the line of duty, meaning less healthcare costs for Police, and less Police will be recuperating in hospitals. 3. Police would be more likely to confront criminals directly and be less likely to shirk duty due to not being afraid of being shot (your average cop would prefer not to be a "hero" and die in the line of duty...). 4. Less Police Deaths, and so less turnover. Every Police death/permanent injury is not only a tragedy, but also means you have to train up a replacement at great cost. Finally, you could also have the registration cost be borne by the person buying the gun, and not by the general population at large. Quote:
Instead, if you want to resell to an acquaintance, you should have to go through a licensed vendor who'll do the paperwork and background checks necessary for you. Quote:
With the control over new supplies you can then begin to crack down on the guns in circulation. Guns already in circulation would be "grandfathered", however the police would begin to offer amnesties allowing people to get rid of any guns they might own without any issues. You might also give out temporary cash rewards for registering grandfathered guns. They might also even buy up certain guns and dispose of them. You would reduce the number of guns in general circulation through a process of attrition. Over the course of ~50 years you would build a tighter control over the supply and flow of arms, throttling the illegal trade while allowing people to still own a restricted number of arms. As the rate of gun crime dropped, less people will feel a need to carry guns, and so will voluntarily get rid of them, further reducing the number of guns in circulation. You would not try to implement it instantaneously, but gradually. Quote:
(page 46, dividing by 46 to get crime per 100,000), in 2010 we had 51.6 sexual offences to 29.1 "rapes" in America, 70 robbery to the US's 119, 1668 thefts to the US's ~2200 thefts, 374 "Attempts/Threats to Murder, Assaults, Harassments" to 252 "aggravated assaults" in the USA. Ireland uses slightly different crime classifications though. Still, plenty of violent crime going on. I've never been shaken down, but a friend of mine has gotten a can thrown at him from a car(causing a pretty bad injury) ,and my mother on several occasions has gotten rocks through her car window. Scangers do these things just because they can. I once had one push me into the muck for the fun of it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nope, Ireland has no hope of defending itself, so we don't even try! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Overall, compared to the United States, most of the developed world has lower homicide rates (but not necessarily crime rates) , which I think is in large part due to the fact that our crimes are committed with knives and not guns. Gun Control doesn't cut down the number of crimes, but it makes it a whole lot less likely for crime to kill you. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 11:32
|
Link #156 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
There is no justification to punish 300,000,000 people for the actions of less than 1% of murderers over the last 100 years. Quote:
If we had mass shootings like the Russian Beslan School Massacre, maybe you'd have point, but we don't. Quote:
Quote:
It's because they don't happen often enough to get an idea of what causes them. Quote:
You know it took 90 seconds for the cops to show up in Aurora, I showed you a shooter who laid down 27 shots (62 bullets, due to shotgun) in less than 41 seconds all without a hi-cap magazine. So yes, you are deluding yourself if you think that any kind of ban is going to stop or lessen the numbers in a future mass killing. What will either increase or decrease the carnage will be the shooter's ability, the victims' immediate response, and the circumstances of the event itself (environment, etc.). Prevention of these events can only come through finding the perps BEFORE they act and getting them help. Quote:
You are spot on.  Quote:
Quote:
I agree that the media hypes these incidents up to the point of the facts getting skewed behind a mass of hyperbolic sensationalism. The result is SNAFU and nothing productive comes of it. The shooting back in the theater depends on a wide variety of factors. This is why there is no way to know what might have happened in there if one or more persons (say the 3 US servicemen) had weapons. We can speculate all we want, but it was just a really bad situation all around and no matter the weaponry would have had mass casualties. Quote:
We have a serious gang problem in the US. Quote:
Both are lethal, and a knife can be worse because no one will hear a shot, so help may take longer to find you. Quote:
In the US it is ILLEGAL to sell to someone you know is a felon. Again, showing our gun laws aren't followed in the US. Quote:
Quote:
Now they have been militarized to the point of looking like Army MPs. It's actually kinda scary when you compare them to the old German Gestapo. Quote:
It depends on where you are hit and how you are hit. Look at Rep. Gabby Giffords. She was shot in the head and survived. Some people get stabbed in the neck and die. Granted, a shotgun blast will probably kill you (high probability) but many people survive pistol wounds. Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps in Ireland it does, and if so, good for you all in the British Islands. Here, a criminal will stab you to death if they can.
__________________
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 11:39
|
Link #157 |
|
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Considering the level of trust Americans have towards their own govenment (very little), I don't think they will be able to take the gun away without a fight.
The gun owners will think they are being made into criminals by the new laws. The more extreme will think the govenment to breaking the Bill of Rights. If whatever adminitration is attempting to impliment these laws doesn't loose the following election, or the laws are set out by the beaurocracy that can't be removed from office...there will be a revolt. It might not be a full on Civil War, but it might as well be from what the results will be. The armed civilians will lose. Their guns will then be removed by force. the 2nd Ammendment will be repealed as being dangerous for the state in light of the revolt and the effect that there is no militia anymore. The surviving former gun owners will call it a police state or worse, even if they police only have batons and pepper spray. The amount of gun related deaths will eventually fall...but the damage will have been done to the nation. Be it for good or ill those that live during it will be sure the nation will fall because of it.
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-08-02 at 11:54. |
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 11:54
|
Link #158 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
You have to assume that ALL of the military and LEO will go along with such orders, and/or that the US government will be able to abandon all of its overseas commitments and bring home their forces. I think Mexico is a prime example of what it would look like if only a small fraction of people revolted (say 1% of gun owners or 800,00 people.), if more than that took up arms, it's over. No amount of technology can win against overwhelming numbers, especially if those numbers have morale and motivation. It would certainly all turn out bad no matter what side won. I can see us becoming either a total Facist state if the government won, or a total Theocracy if the other side won. Either way we're screwed.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 12:31
|
Link #159 | |||||||||
|
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2. Maybe this is a result of your unfamiliarity with the US, but this is really a reach here. You'd need to have daily shootouts for it to have anything remotely close to what you're suggesting here. 3. No, just no. It's when you get lax and complacent that things goes wrong. This includes assuming the person you're talking to is not armed, firearms or otherwise. Also, shirking duty? people who would "shirk their duty" because they're afraid of getting shot wouldn't want to be, and shouldn't be, be a police officer, and I resent your implication otherwise here. 4. From a cost perspective, it's really negligible. Cities pays out far more money in settling police brutality lawsuits than training replacement officers (which btw, is often paid for by those aspiring to be a LE officer themselves). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
 Quote:
Quote:
and no, the government don't, and shouldn't have the right to regulate the sale of private prop Quote:
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
2012-08-02, 13:37
|
Link #160 |
|
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
One of the main points for the Bill of Rights and the Ammendments to the Constitution are to limit the powers of the Federal Governement. It states what the Federal Government can and cannot do. This was done two protect two things. One the People, and two the State Governments.
Yes the United States of American is effectively a union of 50 semi-independant nation-states plus 6 territories under the protection of the Federal Government. Each state has its own laws and aside from thing covered by the Constitution are not to be interfered with by the Federal Governement by way of the Tenth Ammendment. In the last 235 years the rules have changed a lot. The Federal Governement does have more power following the Civil War in the 1860s and following multiple wars and national emergencies in the 20th century and now the 21st century. But the older laws and especially the Ammendment to the Constitution still stand (minus Prohabition which was added and removed via ammendments). With over 200 years of the Constitution being in place, their is a fairly deep seated desire to hold on to it. Now the Europeans may find that silly to want to hold on to our weapons because of a small, seemingly outdated ammendment to our Constituton, but that is how we are. Our Civil War, while ultimately being about slavery, was started due to the Southern states feeling the Federal Government was taking too much power away from the States. They feared that incoming President Lincoln would use Federal power to outlaw slavery (and thus take away the owner's private property). To them it was about property rights. To others it was about the freedom of a living being (some would still not call the slaves "human being" even if they desired them to be free). They made a mistake. They didn't wait for Lincoln to take office. Lincoln stated that he would do whatever to took to maintain the union. If that meant leaving slavery alone, he would have do that. The South broke away before he was even President...they forced his hand into reuniting the uion by force of arms. We don't want another Civil War, but there is always that chance something will happen that will divide the country so much that one will occur.
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-08-02 at 13:48. Reason: Civil War. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
