Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 30 by brianbbs67]

brianbbs67: "1. I wanted to know specifically what he meant. Lot of people voted for Trump."

Evidently, those were the people he meant.

brianbbs67: "2. Obedience should never trump Liberty. Free people will never give to this. Sheep will."

People aren't sheep, but they will usually do what those in authority tell them to do. That is called "government", "leadership" or "fuerherprinzip".

brianbbs67: "Today in America, I can safely fire any weapon I own whenever I want. I own and live on private land."

You can if the law allows you to do so.

brianbbs67: "The consensus of 'reasonable people' means no thing to me."

As long as they tolerate you, you don't notice how much it means. If the the people in power decide, they will take your guns, your land and even your life away. You live at the sufferance of the powerful. They can take you out with a drone and you'll never see it coming. It might get a headline on page three, and it might be mentioned as just an unfortunate propane tank explosion. Or, they could charge you with "domestic terrorism" and haul you to Guantanamo without "habeas corpus" and send you off to some dark hole for "enhanced interrogation" or to be "neutralized". You are only as "free" as you are allowed to be by the folks who run things.

brianbbs67: "People in Dueschtland" (That's: Deutschland.) "70 years ago hauled off Jews for extermination. must have been ok, as many agreed to it?"

As in most cases, some thought it was OK, and some didn't, but those who didn't mostly kept their opinions to themselves. Even sheep wouldn't bleat if they thought polite silence would save their lives. Some people are nearly as smart as sheep. Just so, you didn't hear many people protest dragging US citizens off to concentration camps and confiscating their property.

brianbbs67: "3. The Militia became an army over time. It was a slow process(1774-1792). That's why a militia was required of every free state. There were even laws that required how much ammo and what type of rifle you had to maintain as a citizen.'

The military arms of the militia were kept in armories and maintained by the state. The militia didn't become the army. Individuals could join the army. The militia was employed at the Battle of Cowpens, where they were supposed to fire two volleys, but they only managed one before they ran away.

brianbbs67: "The french did help greatly at the end with a naval blockade driving Cornwalis into a cave in Yorktown."

There was a French army at Yorktown. The Continental army was not militia. And without the French blockade and bombardment Cornwallis would have probably kept fighting.

brianbbs67: "If the militia hadn't carried its weight, France would have never lost money and wealth to help drive the British army out. British public didn't want any more loss either. So, it came together as a perfect storm and here we are.'

The point was: It wasn't militia that won the war. It was armies and politicians and diplomats.

With the war won, the former colonists were free to cross the Appalachians and buy land from the Virginia planters who had surveyed and claimed it. Of course then they were subject to taxation without representation. (See: "The Whiskey Rebellion")

[AgnosticBoy]

"Liberty and obedience are not mutually exclusive."

To gain some liberties, we must give up others. And those who have made a life's work of studying psychology and sociology have determined that those who identify themselves as "conservative" value obedience over liberty, while "liberals" tend to go the other way. It is almost a defining characteristic.

I acknowledge your opinion but this doesn't show that obedience and liberty are mutually exclusive, in principle. Try to think beyond or outside of politics. I assume that you would now that it would only be your opinion which liberties should be given up and which should be kept.

"The majority of lawful gun owners in the U.S. are law abiding citizens.

And would they be law-abiding if the law said they couldn't have guns? Will they only obey the laws they approve of?

Some would and some wouldn't. It's odd that you have such a black-and-white view of 'conservatives'. If I brought up a hot topic issue that liberals tend to value, should I also presume that every single liberal would engage is disobedience?

"I don't look to Germany for solutions. As a law abiding US citizen, I'm able to carry a concealed firearm for my own security from those who commit violent crime."

In an average year, Germany has 1.01 gun deaths per 100,000. The US has 11.96 gun deaths per 100,000.
Gun homicides in Germany 0.07 per 100,000, suicides 0.84 nper 100,000, and unintentional gun deaths per year 0.01 per 100,000.
In the Us there are 4.62 gun homicides per 100,000, 7.10 gun suicides per 100,000 and 0.15 "unintentional" gun deaths per hundred thousand.
An of course, Germany is not the safest by far. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

Who have you protected yourself from so far, AgnosticBoy? Who will protect the rest of us from some panicky adolescent scattering bullets around, when even trained police under fire can't seem to get many rounds anywhere near the target, unless the target is running away?

AgnosticBoy: "Militias also fought the British during the Revolutionary War. Please present all of the facts and not just those that support your side."

Oh, Concord and Lexington?! Colonials with hunting rifles pot shotted the British column from cover. The did this while protecting the armory where the muskets, the faster loading war machines of the day were locked up.

It wasn't the militia that bottled up Cornwallis at Yorktown, it was the combined forces of a combined Continental and French army and the French navy. If the militia served any purpose at all in a battle, it was to fire one volley before they ran away. Unless they are facing unarmed and peaceful protesters, militias almost always funk.

[AgnosticBoy]

'

"Liberty and obedience are not mutually exclusive."

To gain some liberties, we must give up others. And those who have made a life's work of studying psychology and sociology have determined that those who identify themselves as "conservative" value obedience over liberty, while "liberals" tend to go the other way. It is almost a defining characteristic.

It would only be your opinion which liberties should be given up.

Also, you seem to think that conservatives would make decisions based only on conservatism. The fact is that people make decisions based on MANY factors beyond political party.

'

"The majority of lawful gun owners in the U.S. are law abiding citizens.

And would they be law-abiding if the law said they couldn't have guns? Will they only obey the laws they approve of?

Again, life is not simply based on political party. If I were a conservative and guns were banned, I would not break the law just because i'm a conservative. I'd also factor in the CONSEQUENCES of break the law. And personally, I would not break the law, although I'm sure some would fight the law through legal process.

'

"I don't look to Germany for solutions. As a law abiding US citizen, I'm able to carry a concealed firearm for my own security from those who commit violent crime."

In an average year, Germany has 1.01 gun deaths per 100,000. The US has 11.96 gun deaths per 100,000.
Gun homicides in Germany 0.07 per 100,000, suicides 0.84 nper 100,000, and unintentional gun deaths per year 0.01 per 100,000.
In the Us there are 4.62 gun homicides per 100,000, 7.10 gun suicides per 100,000 and 0.15 "unintentional" gun deaths per hundred thousand.
An of course, Germany is not the safest by far. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

A fair comparison would be gun crimes committed by lawful gunowers in the US vs. gun crime in Germany. In the US, when you factor in WHO (lawful vs. unlawful gun owers) is committing the gun crimes, you'd notice that the overwhelming majority are done by criminals who are not supposed to have guns in the first place. That shows that theproblem is access to guns, rather than the guns themselves.

Also consider that cops and military carry guns, yet we don't hear of high gun crime among those groups.

'
Who have you protected yourself from so far, AgnosticBoy? Who will protect the rest of us from some panicky adolescent scattering bullets around, when even trained police under fire can't seem to get many rounds anywhere near the target, unless the target is running away?

I've only had to resort to my gun only once during an attempted violent crime on me. Luckily I didn't even have to use the gun, just showing it was a deterrent.

And when you ban effective means of self-defense, you're left to hiding under tables or being stabbed which is what occurs in England. I'm not for passing out guns to everyone, especially adolescents. I'm for passing out guns to GOOD and trained/disciplined people who a means of self-defense.

'

"Militias also fought the British during the Revolutionary War. Please present all of the facts and not just those that support your side."

Oh, Concord and Lexington?! Colonials with hunting rifles pot shotted the British column from cover. The did this while protecting the armory where the muskets, the faster loading war machines of the day were locked up.

The point is not that the militias won the war or played a big part. It is just as Brianbb brought up that regular ARMED citizens (besides just the army and the French) helped fight for our freedom from the British.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 32 by AgnosticBoy]
Agnostic Boy: It would only be your opinion which liberties should be given up.

You are given the rights and liberties society chooses to give you. Those rights and liberties can and will be withdrawn according to circumstances.

Agnostic Boy: Also, you seem to think that conservatives would make decisions based only on conservatism. The fact is that people make decisions based on MANY factors beyond political party.

Conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, et al. are not bases for decisions, they are simply terms for patterns of behavior. The behaviors themselves are indications of underlying biological processes.

Agnostic Boy: Again, life is not simply based on political party. If I were a conservative and guns were banned, I would not break the law just because i'm a conservative. I'd also factor in the CONSEQUENCES of break the law. And personally, I would not break the law, although I'm sure some would fight the law through legal process.

Very commendable.

Agnostic Boy: A fair comparison would be gun crimes committed by lawful gunowers in the US vs. gun crime in Germany.

In Germany very few people own guns.

Agnostic Boy: In the US, when you factor in WHO (lawful vs. unlawful gun owers) is committing the gun crimes, you'd notice that the overwhelming majority are done by criminals who are not supposed to have guns in the first place. That shows that the problem is access to guns, rather than the guns themselves.

No one is a criminal until they commit a crime. So, to argue that only criminals commit crimes is kind of ... naive(?).

Agnostic Boy: Also consider that cops and military carry guns, yet we don't hear of high gun crime among those groups.

The army locks up the guns. If you discharge your weapon, or even brandish it outside of the line of duty you face court martial. And scarcely a day goes by that some cop who felt threatened doesn't shoot some unarmed civilian/perp.

Agnostic Boy: I've only had to resort to my gun only once during an attempted violent crime on me. Luckily I didn't even have to use the gun, just showing it was a deterrent.

So you've used your gun one more time than most cops. Congratulations!

Agnostic Boy: And when you ban effective means of self-defense, you're left to hiding under tables or being stabbed which is what occurs in England.'

So, in England a guy with a knife kills four and wounds four more. In the US a guy with a rifle kills ten or twenty or thirty, then shoots himself. And such violence happens far more more often in the US.

Agnostic Boy: I'm not for passing out guns to everyone, especially adolescents. I'm for passing out guns to GOOD and trained/disciplined people who a means of self-defense."

Well, I got my first rifle at age fourteen. I was already an excellent shot with an air rifle by age seven.

The fact remains, guns make a hard job, killing people, much easier. It facilitates the bypassing of impulse control. In the real old west among the first laws passed in most incorporating towns was a ban on carrying guns. Most folks get it: More guns lead to more violence. Certainly there would be violence without any guns, but it wouldn't be so deadly or so easy.
You carry the gun because you are frightened, but frightened people don't make good decisions. And of course, To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

It boils down to this: Fewer guns means fewer untimely deaths.

[AgnosticBoy]

In the US, when you factor in WHO (lawful vs. unlawful gun owers) is committing the gun crimes, you'd notice that the overwhelming majority are done by criminals who are not supposed to have guns in the first place. That shows that the problem is access to guns, rather than the guns themselves.

No one is a criminal until they commit a crime. So, to argue that only criminals commit crimes is kind of ... naive(?).

I mentioned "unlawful gunowners" which are those who have felonies on their record and are not eligible to possess a gun. This population is responsible for the majority of the gun crime in the US. They're criminals or UNlawful based off of their PAST record.

Agnostic Boy: I've only had to resort to my gun only once during an attempted violent crime on me. Luckily I didn't even have to use the gun, just showing it was a deterrent.

So you've used your gun one more time than most cops. Congratulations!

If you're being sarcastic, then I question why you'd have a problem with my action in this case. Are you against self-defense? Interestingly, you said nothing about the violent attacker but instead tried to find a wrong with my me (the victim trying defend myself).

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 34 by AgnosticBoy]

Agnostic Boy: I've only had to resort to my gun only once during an attempted violent crime on me. Luckily I didn't even have to use the gun, just showing it was a deterrent.

TSGRacchus: 'So you've used your gun one more time than most cops. Congratulations!'

Agnostic Boy: If you're being sarcastic, then I question why you'd have a problem with my action in this case. Are you against self-defense? Interestingly, you said nothing about the violent attacker but instead tried to find a wrong with my me (the victim trying defend myself)."

I know nothing of the circumstances of your encounter other than you admitted to feeling threatened and said that you pulled a gun. I note that you edited the part where you accused me of sympathizing with your "attacker". Since I had neither explicitly or implicitly indicated such sentiment, I wonder that you even made the charge.

What is clear is that you carry a gun because you are afraid. if the law allows it, I have no objection. I merely note that every fearful person carrying a gun, lawfully or unlawfully, puts everyone in more danger, so I would prefer to have the law changed and all the guns locked up with very limited access.

[AgnosticBoy]

So, in England a guy with a knife kills four and wounds four more. In the US a guy with a rifle kills ten or twenty or thirty, then shoots himself. And such violence happens far more more often in the US.

Guns can kill a lot more than a knife, but a gun is also effective at protecting from bad guys with knives and guns. In England, the citizens have no effective means of self-defense other than waiting for the cops to arrive minutes later, and by that time you're already severely injured or dead. There are solutions that would maximize the benefits (guns for self-defense) and decrease the negatives (guns being used for crime). Your solution to ban guns would take away the benefits and the negatives would take another form (instead of using guns for crimes, people would use knives, illegally obtained guns, and other weapons).

It boils down to this: Fewer guns means fewer untimely deaths.

But it does not mean less violent crime (crime committed with knives and other weapons) which is where the big point about self-defense comes right back in. Your side never talks about self-defense which will always be needed.

[/quote]

[bluethread]

I would prefer to have the law changed and all the guns locked up with very limited access.

How would you do that, since current laws do not insure that the currently illegal guns are locked up with very limited access?

[AgnosticBoy]

Here is the solution for school shootings (or really attacks of ANY kind):

Regarding school security in Israel...

JERUSALEM " When students, parents and teachers pleaded with President Trump this week to act against school shootings, they cited Israel, a place where guns are a familiar sight but where school shootings are virtually unheard of.

During a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, one parent correctly noted, for instance, that it is difficult for outsiders to enter an Israeli school. Most schools maintain only one unlocked entrance that is typically staffed by an armed guard.

He said the guards stationed at schools are under the authority of the police. In large cities, he said, the police and the local authority carry out security patrols around the educational institutions throughout the school day.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wh ... c925e073d7

[myth-one.com]

Here is the solution for school shootings (or really attacks of ANY kind):

Regarding school security in Israel...

JERUSALEM " When students, parents and teachers pleaded with President Trump this week to act against school shootings, they cited Israel, a place where guns are a familiar sight but where school shootings are virtually unheard of.

During a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, one parent correctly noted, for instance, that it is difficult for outsiders to enter an Israeli school. Most schools maintain only one unlocked entrance that is typically staffed by an armed guard.

He said the guards stationed at schools are under the authority of the police. In large cities, he said, the police and the local authority carry out security patrols around the educational institutions throughout the school day.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wh ... c925e073d7

It's a good idea to study how others resolve this similar problem -- especially places which have lots of guns.

You did