Obviously you've never heard of the AR-15.
Why legalize assault weapons?
#241
Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:13 PM
Obviously you've never heard of the AR-15.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#243
Posted 23 April 2009 - 12:14 AM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#244
Posted 23 April 2009 - 12:25 AM
Surely a registry would do SOME good? Doesn't fingerprinting help resolve crimes? Keeping in mind that one needs to have an arrest record in the first place in order for a fingerprint record to exist ...
#245
Posted 23 April 2009 - 12:34 AM
This reminds me of when Michael Moore got that gun from the bank after he opened an account (he got it 2 weeks after he opened the account by the way) and he was making a fuss about how dangerous it would be to "hand out guns in a bank" yet he doesn't ask himself why the hell would anyone would rob a bank with a gun registered to their name.
This post has been edited by Deucaon: 23 April 2009 - 12:35 AM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#246
Posted 23 April 2009 - 01:59 AM
The Michael Moore thing was silly yes; he was just trying to make a comment on the gun culture of the US. It was a decent place to start his movie, since the image of guns and banks is pretty much firmly fixed in the tradition of the so-called "Wild West." The idea of a bank giving guns to people for opening accounts is a bit crazy, but no crazier probably than giving out any other sort of sports gear, like say a crab net or cross trainers.
If all you want to talk about is close-range house-to-house defense against criminals, armed with assault rifles and only vulnerable to assault rifles, we have been there and we have done that. You in fact already conceded the point that criminals are not staging house-to-house close-range city warfare for your precious jewelry and DVD collection, although in the meantime I set up ICMBs that I can launch from my panic room. So I am covered even if they do. Unless of course they escalate to some sort of anti-missile battery or strategic defence initiative. Time will tell.
#247
Posted 23 April 2009 - 02:19 AM
As for this nonsense of the AR15, I still have no idea why a civilian would need that, and please don't bring CQB back into this. This debate was already over, whyh dont you start some new absurdity you can try to convince us about?
Quote
#248
Posted 23 April 2009 - 01:23 PM
The Michael Moore thing was silly yes; he was just trying to make a comment on the gun culture of the US. It was a decent place to start his movie, since the image of guns and banks is pretty much firmly fixed in the tradition of the so-called "Wild West." The idea of a bank giving guns to people for opening accounts is a bit crazy, but no crazier probably than giving out any other sort of sports gear, like say a crab net or cross trainers.
If all you want to talk about is close-range house-to-house defense against criminals, armed with assault rifles and only vulnerable to assault rifles, we have been there and we have done that. You in fact already conceded the point that criminals are not staging house-to-house close-range city warfare for your precious jewelry and DVD collection, although in the meantime I set up ICMBs that I can launch from my panic room. So I am covered even if they do. Unless of course they escalate to some sort of anti-missile battery or strategic defence initiative. Time will tell.
If everyone in ethnic and racial enclaves across the US had an AR-15, do you honestly believe those areas would be plagued with crime as they are now? And if everyone in areas plagued with civil war had an AR-15, do you honestly believe atrocities would be as widespread as they are or that tyranny would reign as it does? More guns among law abiding citizens is the solution, not the problem.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#249
Posted 23 April 2009 - 01:36 PM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#250
Posted 23 April 2009 - 01:45 PM
Now they've been making some of the usual politicial fuss over banning killer-computer-games and even forbade one of the electronic-sports-league matches here in Stuttgart, whilst simultaneously allowing those stupid traditional Schützenfests ("Marksman festival", a get-together with guns and beer, lovely combination), but nevermind about that.
There's a new initiative which calls for partial amnesty if you turn in your illegally owned weapons. Not sure how that's gonna work out, mentality towards weapons isn't as loving as it is in the States, but I like the general idea.
Quote
#251
Posted 23 April 2009 - 02:17 PM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#252
Posted 23 April 2009 - 02:23 PM
Quote
#253
Posted 23 April 2009 - 05:19 PM
You are saying that "SHORT OF turing every house into a fortress ... it's ... more efficient if every household is armed" (elision and emphasis mine). So rather than turn every household into a fortress, we should turn every household into a fortress. And all to fight a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. I DO NOT own an assault rifle, and I walk about unarmed in dark and daylight every day. I have NEVER SEEN roaming gangs of armed thugs, let alone been attacked by one. I don't read about them in the papers either. So nope, no need here for assault rifles in every home.
Before you cite that one example we all know of, or find another less known, or manufacture something out of an absurd hypothesis: NO, there is no need to go to extreme lengths to eradicate a minor problem. The extreme lengths you propose are unecessary. All that was necessary to prevent the attacks on Columbine was a gun protocol in the school, and armed guards at the entrances. Many schools have these now; no need for every student to be walking around with an AR-15. Disarmament is more efficient than armament; besides, arming everyone will nto remove tyranny. It will only demand that the tyrants be more lethal, and the tyrany will be of those who are better shots. Again, what cleaned up Dodge City was not MORE guns, but FEWER.
Yes. There would be far more assault-rifle-related crimes, for sure. We have already had this discussion, and you conceded: your argument was that criminals will ALWAYS be better armed than the populace. you said that if the populace had nothing, the criminals would have knives and baseball bats. That if the populace had knives and baseball bats, then the criminals would have pistols. That if the populace had pistols, then the criminals would have shotguns. That if the populace had shotguns, then the criminals would have assault rifles. The you concluded that if the populace had ARs, that the criminals would have no recourse. I retorted that the criminals might then have IEDs, grenade launchers, rockets, landmines, tanks and tanktraps, howitzers, jet fighters, advanced weapons training and cross-continent communication. In fact, as follows from your argument, whatever the populace had, the criminals would be one step ahead of that. So I said that if that's true, then I would rather the people had nothing, because then the criminals would only have knives and baseball bats. And you conceded. Feel free to present the same logic and I will come to the same conclusions.
Yes I do. Unless the civilians had the communication and discipline of the armies, they would be no match for their armed invaders. And you are jumping streams here, insisting that we tacitly accept atrocities if we desire a populace not armed with these AR-15s you praise so highly. The military of a country is there to defend against invaders, and we are talking about the cities of The United States of America, not some Third World example of atrocity and injustice. The US military would be on hand to defend against an invading army, and it is unnecessary for it to defend against well-armed and disciplined gangs, because such entities do not exist. You can't get from areas worldwide suffering under civil war to the conclusion that the citizens of Baltimore need to be armed with AR-15s. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW.
No it is not.
#254
Posted 23 April 2009 - 05:31 PM
Cobnat's second-to-last post: Civ already responded to you, but ok, let's just do away with all laws. They just hinder people who would follow the law anyway, right?!
Cobnat's last post: That's an utter non-sequitur. No, because you mentioned Germany after Bert... Gobbler did does not make your accusation coherent, relevant, or based on any facts.
#255
Posted 23 April 2009 - 07:28 PM
Having an assault rifle in your safe isn't the same as boarding up every window of your house. Now the reason why you can walk around is because there isn't a lot of crime at your location. Good for you. Many, especially those living in poorer areas, don't have that luxury. Now since your area doesn't have a problem with crime, you don't really need a gun. However, if and when every citizen in the crime ridden areas has an assault rifle then criminals might move onto your crime free paradise.
1. Having entire areas of cities engulfed in strife and warfare isn't a "minor problem". Having drugs easily available on the streets in said areas isn't a "minor problem". Having kids drop out of school in order to join gangs isn't a "minor problem". There is a reason why the Black population in the US has decreased by 1/3rd since the end of segregation.
2. So even though schools don't get enough funds to pay their teachers a decent salary, you believe they are supposed to pay for high tech security measures and security guards?
3. Comparing Dodge City and ethnic/racial enclaves of today is like comparing the War of American Independence and the Vietnam War. The guns of yesteryear aren't the guns of today. Guns back then weren't mass produced thus weren't as plentiful thus weren't as cheap as they are today. Nor was Dodge City plagued by same problems said enclaves are today. Nor is Dodge City or any contemporary city on the same societal, environmental, economical or political pedestal.
Obviously British citizens not having weapons has saved them from an increase in crime rates. Or perhaps outlawing knives is in order?
Now this argument is about assault rifles (and to a larger extend, guns in general) so I "conceded" that I wasn't in support of people having explosives. I also "conceded" that I wasn't in support of people having shotguns for the same reasons. As I pointed out earlier, you can't compare assault rifles to explosives/shotguns because one is concentrated firepower and the other isn't. That aside, it's easy to produce pipe bombs and petrol bombs. And IEDs are just that, "Improvised Explosive Devises".
Though if you want to look at an example of what would happen if gangsters had more/better weapons than the establishment then look at the strife in Mexico, Columbia and the countries between those two. Now the thing about that is that if the government fails (and it probably will) then there is nothing to stop the citizens being at the mercy of the gangsters. In fact there is nothing stopping them being at the mercy of gangsters now. Of course if they were armed, then this wouldn't be an issue.
Militiamen can be easily trained. The important thing is that there is a lot of people who have guns and know how to shoot. No one in their right mind would try to commit an atrocity against people who are armed and determined. Deterrent is the best weapon. An important note is that weapons among citizens not only protects citizens from foreign armies but also from their own government (which usually commits the atrocities).
Yes, it is.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.