| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Guns in the US
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Guns in the US

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 13:02
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

You realise the American army is made up of American people.


Yes. What's the difference with any other army?
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


And yes, I can imagine stiff public resistance if anyone invaded the US. It's the whole national ethos.


If invaded, of course. But if theirs own military oppress the people matters would be different.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 15:20
If invaded, of course. But if theirs own military oppress the people matters would be different.
 



Edited by drgonzaga - 18 Jan 2011 at 15:24
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 15:58
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


For now.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 16:22
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 16:24
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

If invaded, of course. But if theirs own military oppress the people matters would be different.
 



I think he meant if the US military were used to enforce martial law domestically.


Edited by Zagros - 18 Jan 2011 at 16:25
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 17:35
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
 
Weren't the democrats the reason why them ruskies managed to find the brave gun owning Americans and round them in concentration camps?
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 17:53
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Dear Captain, the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan. The civilians are using weapons made in owner-operated workshops, they have no airforce, no armour, limited artillery, and only the intelligence that they can get with nothing more than a computer with a net connection and sandals.
 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.
 
To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
Why Americans needs to be able to access weapons of that calibre (ok, RPGs are not permitted in America while they are in Pak) is a completely different question, because they aren't under constant threat from invasion by everyone.
 
 

I agree with you Omar, in that I think the US (and the rest of NATO) will pull out of Afghanistan. But I don’t think this will constitute a military defeat in the usual sense of the term. It doesn’t take much in the way of resources or intellect to plant a bomb somewhere, or take a few shots at someone, and then run away. This is pretty much the case in many of these types of conflicts. What then occurs is a contest of wills- who has the most motivation and assuredness of purpose. As has been stated above, some proponents have had more strength of purpose in the past. Britain for example did moderately well in Malaya and in Northern Ireland. The US eventually gave up on Vietnam, for pretty much the same reason it will give up on Afghanistan. The original reasoning for entering these conflicts was murky and not well thought out, and some years down the road they looked even less rational. Insurgents of this type cannot possibly win a military conflict, but they can indeed test the will of opponents who do not have a verifiable sense of purpose.

 

In regard to the US, all this is hypothetical to the point of absurdity. What possible force would attempt to storm the beaches of California in their teeming millions, after presumably conscripting every ship and aircraft on the planet to get there, overwhelm US regular forces, the National Guard, and one would presume NATO forces as well (as they would be required to help)? After this event you raise the bizarre vision of NRA gun nuts with homemade bullets, picture of Charlton Heston in their wallets, rolling back this massive army with the aid of sporting rifles, handguns, and the odd M-14. This is great material for a comic book, but has little relevance in real life.

 

What is real and has no comic value whatsoever is the high number of Americans killed every year due to the adolescent attitudes towards guns and gun control in the US. Guns may be exciting in the movies, but at the end of the day, actors go home and crack open a brew and relax. Real life is much more gritty, and those that interact with guns find themselves maimed or dead, and being the good guy is no protection at all from harm.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 18:01
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


I think he meant if the US military were used to enforce martial law domestically.


Exactly. I was thinking in a coup. Americans are very naive believing that couldn't happened there.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 18:55
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 But I don’t think this will constitute a military defeat in the usual sense of the term.


Then you haven't been keeping up with terrorist literature have you? Terrorizing any populace too their will is what they do.

Quote
 What then occurs is a contest of wills- who has the most motivation and assuredness of purpose. As has been stated above, some proponents have had more strength of purpose in the past. Britain for example did moderately well in Malaya and in Northern Ireland. The US eventually gave up on Vietnam, for pretty much the same reason it will give up on Afghanistan. The original reasoning for entering these conflicts was murky and not well thought out, and some years down the road they looked even less rational. Insurgents of this type cannot possibly win a military conflict, but they can indeed test the will of opponents who do not have a verifiable sense of purpose.


No purpose? Less rational? 9-11 wasn't a good enough final reason? Iraq in hindsight for lack of WMD, sure, but Afghanistan? No if anything that has confused the purpose then i would say it has been the muddled thinking and many conspiracy theories from within international & domestic academia!Angry

 


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 19:59
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.
 
Nonsense. A state where the people need guns is a tyranny.
 
The US is far more of a police state nowadays than any country in Europe, just as it is more militaristic, and the situation has been getting worse for the last decade or so.


You are the one writing nonsense in that first sentence. 

In your opinion (for the six years I have been on AE), the United States is a combination of the Kingdom of Prussia and a first edition of 1984.

That is, and has been, hyperbolic nonsense as well, and you know it.  Wink
That would be hyperbolic nonsense, and I've never implied it. The US is certainly more militaristic than any current European country - i.e. it doesn't oonlx spend way more on its military, much of it for show rather than actual defence, but it id filled with rituatlistic, almost religious, attitudes towardrs the military. (This was not true when I was younger: it only really seems to have emerged in the last 20 years or so.)
 
In what iother country do you see soldiers habitually wearing uniforms? In what orther country would the army be permitted to simply take over airlines' check-in desks at civilian airports for use for their own deployments? No Europeans genuflect before their military as much as Americans have done in the 21st century. Catch-22, Brandywine's War, and M*A*S*H were a long time ago.
 
No European country has the Patriot Act. There may be one or two where habeas corpus no longer holds sway, but the equivalent does in any country I know anything about.

In any case, what I said was nonsense was the assertion that "A state where the people need guns is a tyranny." My counter-assertion waas designed to show the nonsensical nature of both statements.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 20:07
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

[QUOTE=pinguin] [QUOTE=Akolouthos] 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
 
-Akolouthos

Weren't the democrats the reason why them ruskies managed to find the brave gun owning Americans and round them in concentration camps?
 
Al-Jassas
 
I don't think there's a party political issue in this. In Sinclair Lewis's 'blueprint' for the subjugation of the US to dictatorship, 'It Can't Happen Here', it's worth noting it is a Democratic populist who uses the 'well regulated militia' to enforce his takeover. Anyone else found with a gun was imprisoned. Or shot out of hand.
 
After all, the SS and the SA were well regulated militias.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 20:51
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos


WHAT? Red Dawn was pure fiction? Well, i declare...
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 20:58
Just change the russians for american soldiers killing their own people, and you'll get an idea what is a coup.

God keep prosperous the U.S.... Otherwise, who knows?
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 22:28
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

No purpose? Less rational? 9-11 wasn't a good enough final reason? Iraq in hindsight for lack of WMD, sure, but Afghanistan? No if anything that has confused the purpose then i would say it has been the muddled thinking and many conspiracy theories from within international & domestic academia

No, 911 was not a good enough reason.
I mean, I would never have expected the US to act any differently, but it was an invasion of rage against a country that wasn't quick enough to avoid it. A rational response to 911 would have been more careful, planned, and pushed diplomacy first. Even if it did result in an invasion it would never have resulted in occupation.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 22:33
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Certainly. Because Americans are more easily fooled. You play the Yankee Doodle and all Americans dance to the tune. Just imagine a people chosing an idiot like George Bush Confused

So, there is no need of dictators there, giving the fact that people is already controlled quite well. Only rebelious people had dictators.
 
 

Although I am sure the penguin intended this as a handy and rather superficial shot, I think if we examine the statement in greater detail, it will be of bearing here.

 

One of the great fears in the US, one that almost seems embedded in the culture, and extending back to the days of the revolution, is the angst around a powerful, malevolent central government that will ride roughshod over individual rights. It has certainly been a favorite theme in recent years, and many politicians have made a nice living off of it.

 

It is one of the prime justifications for gun ownership- the rather fanciful notion of righteous citizens driving off power grabbing, money sucking, left leaning government bureaucrats at rifle point. As long as there is a gun in every household, those folks in Washington will have to keep their act together, and behave in a reasonable and democratic way, so the reasoning goes.

 

Yet in recent years, we have seen, in the full glare of the media, a very privileged and well connected, if very small, portion of America drain a disproportionate share of the wealth into their own (sometime offshore) accounts. Government has been subverted to its will to the extent that the president is sent, cap in hand, to try and sell more treasury bills to China, while at the same time this group’s personal representatives in Washington engineer yet another tax break for themselves, further increasing an already shocking polarization of wealth in a country previously proud of its large middle class.

 

I am not saying this is a coup d’etat, or a conspiracy driven takeover, but I am saying that in a roundabout fashion, those fearful historical dreams have come true. The power of government has indeed been usurped by a power hungry caste, to a large extent. But it is not the communists, the UN, those colored folk, or a fascist dictatorship that are threatening the well being of average, everyday, working Americans, but simply the most affluent and influential in the land.

 

My point: How much use was individual gun ownership in all of this? What did it, or will it prevent? One of the central fears of the gun advocates may well come to pass, indeed is about two thirds there already, and so far all those guns are for naught. In a large, complex, and technical society, media manipulation and high power spin have proven to be more destructive than depleted uranium bullets.

Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 22:40
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
 
Weren't the democrats the reason why them ruskies managed to find the brave gun owning Americans and round them in concentration camps?
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
 
Quite possibly, although first-hand accounts differ. It was a dark and trying time for our nation, and there was precious little time to keep records.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 00:17
Every thread like this is always personal opinion. Though if you think about it; a hunter who uses an AK 47 and "unnecessary" amount of rounds isn't going to have the same abilities and skills as a soldier and even if they do form a "militia" thats all they have is that group while governments have unlimited resources and even if one group is rampaging unchecked like Spartacus and his slaves they aren't going to have the discipline to openly confront lets say the US rangers or the Marines; nor the survival skills or the warrior training of even though your hungry, tired or thirsty you fight on. I honestly think the only way a "revolution" or something of this nature would come about would be through sheer force of will and large numbers of military men leaving the military to rebel. Not just some ragtag BS guys with hunters or whackjobs who buy a hundred guns for no reason. Though America was founded by hunters and skirmishers so to speak and many hunters have extremely specialized weapons like comparable to a Porsche while the army just gets the Volkswagen. I know a guy with a AK-47 with a foregrip about ten pre ban magazines and a holographic scope and for hunting he has a .300 winchester magnum rifle. The idea that the leaders of the revolution were anything other than extraordinary is insane James madison was a lawyer who knew greek and latin, ben franklin was a scientific genius, George washington an able military general and inspirational leader and ETC..

Though I agree with Vancouver about the ridiculousness of the rich in this nation and their control of washington and that is the flaw in the capitalist system. Unrestrained riches is the route of all evil and time and time again through out history the rich always wanna become richer and maintain their "social status" today being rich is associated with being famous and the rich promote an illusory trash culture in which people are famous for their image and rich for no reason. Like IE The situation guy from the jersey shore apparently he made ten million dollars in 2010 off of his illusory image and trash culture of look how women i bang and how jacked I am and how tan my pecks are oh i'm the man. The rich and famous are a scourge of America.

The republican party has extended the tax cuts for the rich in the trickle down BS that failed during Reagan. Now I agree with cutting social spending and less government but tax cuts for the rich is the enemy. I agree with stephen colberts view on it; I'll drink the beer and then piss in your mouth.


Edited by Joe - 19 Jan 2011 at 00:22
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 02:23
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 But I don’t think this will constitute a military defeat in the usual sense of the term.


Then you haven't been keeping up with terrorist literature have you? Terrorizing any populace too their will is what they do.

Quote
 What then occurs is a contest of wills- who has the most motivation and assuredness of purpose. As has been stated above, some proponents have had more strength of purpose in the past. Britain for example did moderately well in Malaya and in Northern Ireland. The US eventually gave up on Vietnam, for pretty much the same reason it will give up on Afghanistan. The original reasoning for entering these conflicts was murky and not well thought out, and some years down the road they looked even less rational. Insurgents of this type cannot possibly win a military conflict, but they can indeed test the will of opponents who do not have a verifiable sense of purpose.


No purpose? Less rational? 9-11 wasn't a good enough final reason? Iraq in hindsight for lack of WMD, sure, but Afghanistan? No if anything that has confused the purpose then i would say it has been the muddled thinking and many conspiracy theories from within international & domestic academia!Angry

 


 
 

After the 9/11 attack, American sentiment called for nothing less than a significant pyrotechnical display. And frankly, who can blame them? Afghanistan was the target simply because it was available at low cost. The US could hit there with little blowback, other than the incitement of a few more terrorists. The claim is made that the country contained terrorist training bases, which of course is pretty much irrelevant. Terrorists can, and do, train anywhere and everywhere, in fact the more submerged in a reasonably civilized urban environment, the better. In the case of 9/11, the culprits trained in religious schools in Saudi Arabia, hotel rooms in Hamburg, and flight schools in the US. None of those places are appropriate targets for cruise missiles, for a number of reasons. Ultimately, this was an intelligence/law enforcement issue, but emotions at the time would not allow for this.

 

And so Afghanistan it was. It was a reprehensible place anyway, so no one would be upset over some remote camps inhabited by intellectually stunted radicals and murderers being incinerated. Honor was served.

 

Al Qaeda has long since left, and taken up residence in Pakistan, so that is not much of an issue any more. But in accordance with what is becoming an American tradition, the US soldiers on, mission uncertain. There is a tribally based civil war, a corrupt government, a healthy opium crop, and all of these things are seemingly unable to be contained. And aside from the opium crop, they are of little importance on the world stage. Well meaning people there are attempting to drag Afghanistan, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century. But this is a dubious prospect, in the short term anyway. In a sense it is a replay of Vietnam, in that to simply withdraw would look foolish and weak, and make a number of politicians look like idiots. It would also make all those deaths since 2001 all the more tragic and indefensible. And so on it goes, with priorities shifting every few months, in an effort to find a face-saving end. Murky and not well thought out? I think those terms apply.

Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 03:35
Yeah but all al queda groups aren't centralized its more they just carry the banner in name. Like the leader of the Iraqi al queda who did those beheading videos and was killed with a predator drone. He wasn't with osama planning the down fall of america more just a banner leading his band in iraq to establish his own control. Its been a decade we've failed with Al queda.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2012 at 10:46
I thought I'd start this thread after seeing a documentary about the recent cinema shooting in Colorado.  I'm still groggy, so apologies for any poor writing.

It is practically electoral suicide for the majority of US political candidates to propose any form of gun control in the US (not least because of the power of the NRA), even in the wake of the horrific atrocities commited by mentally unstable characters such as James Holmes.  Conversely, rather than a reduction of guns in circulation amongst civilians, there has been increased proliferation with many gun outlets reporting a tripling in sales in the wake of the Cinema shooting; increased numbers seeking firearms training; and a massive increase in applications for concealed carry licenses.

At face value, this seems completely counter intuitive, illogical and ultra paranoid.  Rather than calling for better restrictions on gun purchases, or at least serious enforcement of existing restrictions - people arm themselves to the teeth.

The idea that civilians (or the milita have the right to bear arms) is fine, I have nothing against it, it is a big part of being American - but one of the ludicrous arguments for it is this thing about being able to overthrow an oppressive government by everyone owning a rifle or a handgun.  It wouldn't work in this day and age, maybe 200 years ago, but not today. Remember Waco, Texas?

If someone says America to me, one of the first things I think of is gun (not in a bad way) - it is just such an intrinsic part of American culture and if I lived in America I would probably own one too.  But what bothers me though is that there is practically no intellectual or political debate in the US about the gun problem there - which as consistently demonstrated over the last 15 years is still very real.

How for example would carrying a hand gun have helped in the cinema when some nutjob jumps in with a shotgun, handgun and semi automatic rifle on a premeditated rampage?  If you didn't happen to duck/run for cover in fear of your life and had the presence of mind to unleash your piece (1) wouldn't you make an obvious target for the gunman (2) wouldn't you have a tiny bit of a problem identifying who the gunman was in the dark (3) what if someone else also pulled out their gun and he mistook you for the gunman or vice versa (4) what if you shot and killed innocents fleeing for their lives in the confusion?

Surely the answer rather than proliferating guns further is assessing the mental stability of those wanting to buy such things as automatic or semi-automatic rifles and other high power/performance firearms?  It wouldn't be fool proof, but nutters like holmes could have relatively easily been identified and perhaps hundreds and thousands would have been saved from tragedy?

Another thing that I find frightening about concealed firearms is what if someone's having a bad day and you get into some sort of confrontation with them over a traffic incident or something?  I've had it and I am most others have also where the other party comes across as somewhat psychopathic and actually tries to physically harm you, but nothing serious comes of it - but what if they were carrying a gun?  Would we still be here?

Anyway - the thing that bothers me is the lack of intelligent conversation about the issue in the US, rather than gun ownership - because like I said, I would probably own one or a few myself if I lived there.


Edited by Panther - 23 Aug 2012 at 23:24
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2012 at 11:23
My thoughts on carrying a concealed piece is that it is good for limited self defense away from home and maybe gives a false sense of security in a larger setting as you had elaborated in your post. Like trying to counter a 150mm howitzer with a pea shooter.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2012 at 21:17
Never thought i would say it, but here is an honest thief that needs to be commended, not punished.

Florida man learns lesson when stolen gun returned with a message


With power & rights comes a heightened sense of a greater responsibility. Especially with all the shootings in the news lately. Kudos to the thief.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2012 at 15:14
Can't say I agree with that view at all on concealed firearms.  Anyway, news has just reached about yet another incident in the US, this time in NY at the Empire State Building.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4902
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 03:16
I've made my thoughts about the American "Gun Culture" known on other threads.
 
Imo, there is absolutely no justification at all for the population to have so easy access to such a range of weapons as in the USA.
 
The country, on hearing of a new mass shooting tragedy says a collective, "Oh dear, how sad? We must do something," and then forgets about it until the next mass murder.
 
The NRA has intentionally misquoted the American Constitution in relation to the entitlement to own weapons as meaning every individual, when in my mind it refers to "a well armed Militia" a Reserve Army able to be called upon in times of National Emergency.
 
No need to mention that arms manufacturing is big business in the USA.
 
It's all MADNESS!!!
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4902
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 03:23
I know this is an old thread, but there are so many similar threads, and they reoccur fairly often.
 
Do Mods or Admin consider that perhaps they should be consolidated under one thread, it would make keeping up with posts easier.
 
Thumbs Up
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4902
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 03:26
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quote To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
[QUOTE]

I remain baffled. Whom is the US in danger of being invaded from that civic firearm ownership will prevent>
ClapClapClap
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 11:59
I have merged the Guns II thread into this one - the posts from the other thread begins with Zagros post of 23 Aug 2012..

We have at least one other interesting thread related to this issue "The Culture of the Gun

~ North


Edited by Northman - 07 Mar 2014 at 12:00
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1054
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2014 at 12:27
Quote the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan.

Most Afghan civilians aren't involved in fighting foreigners (though as you might expect they would rather they went away). neither was the USA - or its allies - defeated at their hands. far from it. The withdrawal of British forces taking place this year has been made possible by a policy of training native forces to follow on and maintain security for themselves. Since the western forces were not there to 'invade', the defeat must therefore be connected with their stated objectives, which they have largely succeeded with.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4902
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 02:26
caldrail:
Slightly off thread, but I don't agree with you.
 
Afghanistan has it's own "gun culture", people carrying AK47's openly in public and using them as and when they feel like it-as they always have done.
 
It's far too early, imo, to say that Allied Forces have succeeded in their mission, which, by the way is War on Terrorism.
 
Five or ten years after all foreign forces have left Afghanistan will show whether or not the mission has been accomplished.
 
Personally, I think all that has gone will return, Afghan tribes will go to war against each other again, and the country will return to the days before the Russians and the Americans. 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 03:36
We have already laid to rest the image of Charlton Heston aficionados facing off with Russian paratroops within these pages. This sort of thing makes great Hollywood scripts, and of course is staple fodder for low brow TV entertainments, such as Fox News, and similar.

In real life, NRA members who get stoked on Rambo movies, and go down to Wal Mart and stock up on guns, do not make an army. Sorry about any crushed egos, but this is a fact. What they would make is target practice for any competent, professional force that happened to invade.

Places like Afghanistan or Syria are not good examples for what is proposed here re the US. For one thing, insurgents in those countries are armed with military grade weapons, have received training on them, and crucially, they have a supply train in place . When rebels there fire off ten thousand rounds in a firefight, another ten thousand is in the pipeline, which is why these things drag out.

In the fantasical vision of some invasion of North America that the NRA and fellow travellers like to promote, where is that supply train going to come from? It's a cinch they won't let Charlton Heston back into Wal Mart in order to re-stock.

For another thing, much of the violent edge to the conflict in Afghanistan, certainly, and other places to a degree, is that the fighters in question have a very limited education and world view. They believe that they are not really going to die if  shot, but just float up to somewhere nicer. This sort of thing can complicate armistice talks. How many Charlton Hestons (in real life) are going to commit suicide for Allah?

A slight case could be made that an untrained, or semi-trained militia with rifles was a match for a professional military, if we go back a couple of centuries. There are only so many tactics to learn with a flintlock. In today's technology driven military, there is no comparison between armed civilians, and a modern military.

These crazed statements about citizen armies tend to be just a cover for the various needs or fantasies of individuals
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.