shoulda hadda gun?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Guns don't kill people, homosexuals homosexual sex does

FTFY

DON'T HATE THE PERSON, HATE THE ACT

[bedub1]

And, sorry, but the majority don't own guns, hunt or target shoot.

By Majority if you mean 47% to 53% then you are correct. But I bet you think of majority to be more like 10% to 90%.

Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property.

The system allowed him to get the tools he needed to go out and murder or injure 50+ people. This doesn't sound like a problem to you?

This isn't a problem at all. the system allows you to buy a car and go kill thousands of people with it. Just get enough speed and start running them over. Think we should ban all cars? Of course not.

surely the actions of a few crazies who might blow up some buildings cannot justify restricting the rights of the rest of society!

Correct. Just because a few crazies do something, doesn't mean that everybody has to loose their rights. Just cause your 1 year old can't eat a steak, doesn't mean they should be banned. Just because some kids are allergic to peanuts, doesn't mean we wipe them off the face of the planet.

If anything random crazies are a very good reason to restrict access to firearms.

No. Random crazies are a reason for mental health clinics, training, education etc. You attack the CAUSE, not the result.

[Lootifer]

Yeh but as they have just shown with their awesome infectious disease analogy; its a grey area.

Hunting and sports rifles and home protection handguns/shotguns, to me, fill your constitional rights; anything more seems a bit absurd. I mean Im not saying ban them; but everyone who wants a semi-auto rifle or equally destructive piece of equipment should have to undergo some pretty rigorous competency and psychological testing.

Arguably being a neuroscience post-grad of some kind prob means this particular shooter could have still aquired the guns required, however generally speaking, it would ensure that most of the time crazies were prevented from owning highly destructive guns.

[Woodruff]

The fact that you have to tell the government when you buy a gun means there are already plenty of restrictions on getting a gun.

No. This is no different than getting a permit to hold a rally.

We should not be basing our laws on the fact that some people go out and commit evil actions. You punish people who do wrong; you do NOT punish every citizen in an attempt to stop wrong from happening.

I agree with this.

[bedub1]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

[Woodruff]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

Unless you get a majority of the U.S. military revolting also (a scenario I find highly unlikely), that won't make a dent.

[GreecePwns]

Exactly. As I said before, gun control only eliminates the chance of armed revolution. A merited argument.

But let's be honest, the argument that guns reduces crime rate? Given American culture, the Swiss comparison does not apply. Don't cherrypick data that goes against a correlation. I thought you Constitutionalists would stress the revolution against tyranny aspect more than anything else.

Edit: Fastposted.

[Night Strike]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

Unless you get a majority of the U.S. military revolting also (a scenario I find highly unlikely), that won't make a dent.

Irrelevant to whether or not it is your right to have them. It doesn't matter how effective something will be: it's still your right to do/have it.

Hunting and sports rifles and home protection handguns/shotguns, to me, fill your constitional rights; anything more seems a bit absurd. I mean Im not saying ban them; but everyone who wants a semi-auto rifle or equally destructive piece of equipment should have to undergo some pretty rigorous competency and psychological testing.

Did you (and others) realize that the Colorado shooter's semi-automatic assault rifle actually jammed extremely early in his assault? Most of the injuries/deaths were caused by a shotgun.

[Woodruff]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

Unless you get a majority of the U.S. military revolting also (a scenario I find highly unlikely), that won't make a dent.

Irrelevant to whether or not it is your right to have them. It doesn't matter how effective something will be: it's still your right to do/have it.

As long as you accept that it is simply a pointless gesture, then you shouldn't be using it as the reason/excuse (using "the general you" here, not the "specifically you you").

[BigBallinStalin]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

Let's enter the Conjecture Zone:

How useful would semi-automatic small arms be against the helicopters, tanks, UAVs, jets, advanced weaponry, command and control systems, tactics, training, discipline, etc. of the United States Armed Forces?

I don't think such weapons would be at all effective. Of course, it depends on how willing the non-militia civilians are willing to help the resistance and reject the US govt. forces... And it depends on morale. As a US soldier, killing American civilians in mass numbers may prove too much.

[/Conjecture Zone]

[BigBallinStalin]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

Unless you get a majority of the U.S. military revolting also (a scenario I find highly unlikely), that won't make a dent.

Irrelevant to whether or not it is your right to have them. It doesn't matter how effective something will be: it's still your right to do/have it.

But effectiveness (and the goals of effectiveness) do matter--regardless of one's Constitutional rights, which can be construed as supportive or against certain goals. For example, the slavers of the US used the Constitution repeatedly to maintain the institution of slavery.

[GreecePwns]

A hypothetical revolution would likely be fought in the same guerilla style that got the US military kicked out of Vietnam and soon Afghanistan. And given the cause and the growing number of libertarians in the military (as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Ron Paul), I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of the rank and file joined the side of the rebels.

And American pro-gov't soldiers killing American civilians would only increase sympathy for the rebels.

[Woodruff]

A hypothetical revolution would likely be fought in the same guerilla style that got the US military kicked out of Vietnam and Afghanistan. And given the cause and the growing number of libertarians in the military (as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Ron Paul), I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of the rank and file joined the side of the rebels.

This doesn't take into account what the soldiers themselves are being told. See, I've lived this and I KNOW that the troops are told whatever they need to be told in order to get them to willingly take on the mission. So in such an instance, I could easily see the troops simply being informationally misled.

And American pro-gov't soldiers killing American civilians would only increase sympathy for the rebels.

This would probably be the biggest tipping point, in my view.

[GreecePwns]

Maybe this needs its own thread.

[bedub1]

Did you (and others) realize that the Colorado shooter's semi-automatic assault rifle actually jammed extremely early in his assault? Most of the injuries/deaths were caused by a shotgun.

From what I heard, and it's second-hand, was that he had an after-market cheaper 100 round high capacity magazine in the assault rifle, and it jammed like 3 rounds into the clip.

I also heard he had a like 50% hit ratio, which is unheard of for an activity of this sort. Most trained marines etc apparently have like 25-27% hit ratio.

[IcePack]

Did you (and others) realize that the Colorado shooter's semi-automatic assault rifle actually jammed extremely early in his assault? Most of the injuries/deaths were caused by a shotgun.

From what I heard, and it's second-hand, was that he had an after-market cheaper 100 round high capacity magazine in the assault rifle, and it jammed like 3 rounds into the clip.

I also heard he had a like 50% hit ratio, which is unheard of for an activity of this sort. Most trained marines etc apparently have like 25-27% hit ratio.

After market mag yes, dont know about hit ratio.

[bedub1]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

Unless you get a majority of the U.S. military revolting also (a scenario I find highly unlikely), that won't make a dent.

Incorrect

A hypothetical revolution would likely be fought in the same guerilla style that got the US military kicked out of Vietnam and soon Afghanistan. And given the cause and the growing number of libertarians in the military (as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Ron Paul), I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of the rank and file joined the side of the rebels.

And American pro-gov't soldiers killing American civilians would only increase sympathy for the rebels.

As a US soldier, killing American civilians in mass numbers may prove too much.

Correct.

Resistance is NOT futile. Don't let the Borg convince you otherwise. If Americans are dying fighting their military, it will have a psychological effect on the soldiers and cause them to defect/revolt themselves.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can all conversation regarding future American revolutions please be diverted to:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175379

???

kthxbai!

[Lootifer]

Hunting and sports rifles and home protection handguns/shotguns, to me, fill your constitional rights; anything more seems a bit absurd. I mean Im not saying ban them; but everyone who wants a semi-auto rifle or equally destructive piece of equipment should have to undergo some pretty rigorous competency and psychological testing.

Did you (and others) realize that the Colorado shooter's semi-automatic assault rifle actually jammed extremely early in his assault? Most of the injuries/deaths were caused by a shotgun.

Yeh I wasnt addressing the recent shootings, as gun laws - lax, restrictive or otherwise - had little to do with the "issue" (cue repeated comment: its about him being batshit insane and society not picking up on it).

[Woodruff]

Keep in mind that part of the right to bare arms, is to be used as a militia to over-throw the federal government when they become too oppressive and authoritarian. Guns are our protection against an oppressive government. Semi-automatic "assault" type weapons would be very useful in this instance.

Unless you get a majority of the U.S. military revolting also (a scenario I find highly unlikely), that won't make a dent.

Incorrect

A hypothetical revolution would likely be fought in the same guerilla style that got the US military kicked out of Vietnam and soon Afghanistan. And given the cause and the growing number of libertarians in the military (as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Ron Paul), I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of the rank and file joined the side of the rebels.

And American pro-gov't soldiers killing American civilians would only increase sympathy for the rebels.

As a US soldier, killing American civilians in mass numbers may prove too much.

Correct.

Resistance is NOT futile. Don't let the Borg convince you otherwise. If Americans are dying fighting their military, it will have a psychological effect on the soldiers and cause them to defect/revolt themselves.

That really very much depends on what the soldiers are being told. You'd be amazed at what someone can be willing to do if they're convinced that they're doing the right thing ("terrorism" would be an easy one, as an off-the-top-of-my-head example). And in the case of an armed revolt that the U.S. Government is trying to quash with military force, I do believe they'd tell the military personnel whatever they needed to in order to make it happen.

[BigBallinStalin]

I wholly agree with Woodruff on this one. Disinformation is a powerful tool which shouldn't be underestimated and which should be acknowledged that it is used domestically or used on one's own soldiers.

[Baron Von PWN]

The system allowed him to get the tools he needed to go out and murder or injure 50+ people. This doesn't sound like a problem to you?

1.This isn't a problem at all. the system allows you to buy a car and go kill thousands of people with it. Just get enough speed and start running them over. Think we should ban all cars? Of course not.

surely the actions of a few crazies who might blow up some buildings cannot justify restricting the rights of the rest of society!

2.Correct. Just because a few crazies do something, doesn't mean that everybody has to loose their rights. Just cause your 1 year old can't eat a steak, doesn't mean they should be banned. Just because some kids are allergic to peanuts, doesn't mean we wipe them off the face of the planet.

If anything random crazies are a very good reason to restrict access to firearms.

No. Random crazies are a reason for mental health clinics, training, education etc. You attack the CAUSE, not the result.

1. Your car example is silly. A car cannot achieve nearly the same amount of death as a firearm or explosive. Find me one instance where someone has gone on a murder spree with a car. Also you are arguing against something I have not said. I did not say ban all guns, I said restrict access to certain kinds of guns such as automatic or semi automatic weapons.

2. So explosives should not be restricted? Anybody should be able to go to explodo mart and pick up a block of C-4 just like that? you see no problem with that?

3. sure have all that too. However what is enabling crazies to go on killing rampages? I would argue easy access to tools of extensive murder. such as semi automatic and automatic weapons.

[General Brock II]

Interestingly enough, the OP has it right. If somebody had have had a gun or some other weapon capable of firing a projectile, then perhaps not as many people would have died. Ever wondered why crime rates are low in the Texas countryside? Why people still feel comfortable keeping their doors unlocked?

Or in Columbia, which is generally a wild nation, the emerald mines are perhaps one of the safest places you can find in the nation. The reason - it's similar to the Wild West. Everybody totes a gun, and everybody protects themselves.

On the other hand, if somebody has a gun and nobody else has a gun, who is going to stop the gunman?

Lets face it, there will always be guns, and there will always be gunmen. So I see no real alternative to permitting everybody of reasonable responsibility to have a firearm.

Or, better yet, establish a rotating roster of obligatory enlistment, as Switzerland does - we never hear of infamous crimes in Switzerland. They respect the gun, and each responsible adult has one. As a result, violent offenders are rare.

In this society, the majority of people do not respect guns or treat them as a normal, every day implement... Since it's difficult to obtain them, there is mystique surrounding them and a surreal feeling of power. And then when somebody unstable or immature experiences that power, people die.

[patches70]

- we never hear of infamous crimes in Switzerland. They respect the gun, and each responsible adult has one. As a result, violent offenders are rare.

I agree with your post in the most part. This, however, you seem to forget Friedrich Leibacher back in 2001. No worries, everyone seems to forget about him. Of course, he was shooting politicians and journalists. Somehow not quite as bad as shooting up a theater of movie goers......

Just sayin' is all.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Ok, can someone tell me how exactly you envision things going down if someone else did have a gun?

Do you open fire as soon as a costumed weirdo enters the theater, despite probably half the theater also being in costume?
Do you open fire when he throws the gas canister, despite the fact that it could easily be a harmless smoke bomb from some kind of prank / publicity stunt ?
Or do you open fire once he starts shooting, i.e. in a dark theater with people running all around in a panic and with you holding a handgun versus his shotgun/automatic rifle + body armor ?

How exactly do you guys envision this going well ?