An educated population is the answer to a tyranical government not an armed one
Gun control - US vs. rest of the world
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
An educated population is the answer to a tyranical government not an armed one
So there's some form of gun control that criminals will obey???
You truly are a liberal dreamer, ain't you, Spurious? ...LOL!
Baron Max
No law needs to be obeyed 100% for it to have a function. Even though there are speed limits some people drive too fast. Some drive much faster too fast than others. Many don't.
Imagine that there were no speed limits. More people would drive at speeds that are reckless causing more accidents. Not to say this would necessarily be a bad idea, but the main point is that the speed limits serves the function of decreasing the speed of the average motorist, and not of ALL.
This simple concept can be extrapolated to gun control, and sometimes even rednecks manage this simple task. The aim is not to rid the world of gun violence and death by means of gun control, ie denying guns to all people. The aim is to create a set of controls that limit the damage done by guns and still enjoy their presence.
needless to say if no positive function whatsoever can be derived from guns than there is no discussion possible for allowing guns in the first place.
And therefore we will assume that guns have some kind of positive effect on society.
From this perspective we have to examine what these functions are and focus the gun control laws on them.
If you need guns to protect the free state with well regulate militia such as is the case in Switzerland it is perfectly ok to have the fully automatic assault weapon at home with a reasonable supply of ammo. Since these guns do not have the function of blowing other citizen's brains out, they are kept locked away. People are allowed to take them into the public to take them to the shooting range, because a well trained militia is better than one that isn't well trained. Needles to say the gun control laws prohibit carrying ammo inside the weapon on your way to the shooting range. Ammo will be supplied at the shooting range. A perfectly sensible application of gun control.
And this is what you would call, baron max, a rational approach.
In the USA you have a myriad of problems mainly because you decide things by opinion alone. This can work, but unfortunately the educational system of the USA could also be described as an indoctrination system. Your reaction here and that of others are perfect examples of knee jerks.
You do not examine the problem. You do not try to find the cause. You do not try to find a solution that would benefit society. The most you people will do is examine your own desires.
The same can be said of the anti-gun people. They operate from the dogma that guns have no place in society. Although this is often the case, it is not always the case. One would have the examine each case separately.
And frankly in this kind of scenario where people exchange knee-jerks no discussion is possible.
I'm sure that there is a gun control option possible in the USA that will fulfill the function of the gun in the American society and at the same time reduce the illegal use of guns.
And I am not going to be impressed with statements such as 'I need guns for self defense' because I have already shown that these kind of statements are part of the typical arms race conflict, a progressive process where the costs are constantly increased with no increase in benefit.
So. Who is actually willing to really discuss this matter here? It will require effort.
What, ....they can throw books at them?
I'd ask you to think about the situation in Burma right now to see how well "peaceful" methods work against an armed government. Perhaps, just perhaps, you'll see that idealism fails miserably in the face of harsh reality.
Baron Max
James, in the bold print, what exactly do you mean by 'automatic'? Do you mean fully-automatic, or semi-automatic?
If you mean fully-automatic, there are stipulations for a private citizen to have them, but they're not illegal. I agree with banning fully auto weapons from private ownership; what does an ordinary private citizen need with an automatic weapon?
However, even banning fully auto weapons from private ownership won't do much. There are entirely too many people who know how to convert a semi automatic weapon into a fully automatic one.
I would also support the 2nd and 3rd proposal, but I think tracking all the ammunition would be a logistical impossibility. The last thing I need to worry about when I go to the gun range or my friend's house for target practice, would be to account for all the ammunition I fired.
I won't support the last proposal though. I have no valid reason to own a gun, other than home and personal protection, but I shouldn't have to provide a reason to own a gun. I spent 7 years in the Marines. I should know how to properly treat and handle a weapon.
It (the educated masses)worked in Russia and it seems to be working in China somewhat.
Personally, I'm not ready to discuss gun control at all. To me, all it is you trying to convince me to give up some of my rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Why not try to convince me to give up the Constitution?
Baron Max
I'm not asking you to give up anything. I am asking you to uphold your constitution.
It did? Russia is in far worse shape today than it was before! How do you measure "worked"???
As to China, I suppose the best way to respond to that is to laugh.
Baron Max
No, Spurious, you're asking me to give up my rights to self-defense.
And your interpretation of the Constitution is ....lame, at best!
Baron Max
I guess you forgot about the Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing back in 1989, didn't you?
No, Spurious, you're asking me to give up my rights to self-defense.
And your interpretation of the Constitution is ....lame, at best!
Baron Max
I think you are projecting things that are not true. I am willing to work with you on designing a gun control in the spirit of the constitution. I have not interpreted the constitution here. I have not asked you to give up anything.
shall we or not?
No, I didn't. But you seem to think it actually accomplished something. Can you tell me what?
Baron Max
it put the chinese people back into their place. Just below the value of a turd.
No, Dammit!!! I'm not going to talk to anyone about gun control until you get rid of all of the guns that the criminals have and use against the general public on a daily basis! When you have all of those guns, and no way for the criminals to get guns, then maybe, just maybe, I'll talk to you.
You're asking me to give up my rights to bear arms as guaranteed by the Constitution. And you're asking me to give up my rights to self-defense. No, Spurious, you're asking me to give up a lot ....while you seem to be giving up nothing!
Baron Max
Ahh, yes, .....and it proves the power of gun ownership, don't it?
If those Chinamen at Tia.... Square had all had guns, the outcome would have been totally different.
Baron Max
Ahh, yes, .....and it proves the power of gun ownership, don't it?
If those Chinamen at Tia.... Square had all had guns, the outcome would have been totally different.
Baron Max
Not really. They send in tanks. Guns don't do very much good against tanks.
I think you are a bit confused here. Gun control doesn't mean that you have to give up your arms. It means some people have to give up their arms. The ones that do not fulfill the criteria stipulated by your constitution.
I see no stipulation in the second amendment that specifies that guns should be used for defense against criminals. Maybe you could point it out to me?
Of course it is entirely possible that you use a gun that is assigned to you by the gun control laws for self defense. I'm sure that there are other parts in the constitution that directly or indirectly allow for the use of legal guns in cases of self defense or the defense of others. I am not disputing that at all.
I would like to talk to you how we can keep the guns away from the people that should not have them based on the constitution. Surely you are not suggesting that criminals, terrorists, and mexicans should be allowed to have guns in the USA? Imagine that. 5 million mexicans take a weekend trip to the US and bring their own guns or purchase them in the US, and then take over the nation.
Surely you desire the gun control that the founding fathers explicitly desired in their documents!
Guns work pretty well against the men driving the tanks, though!
And surely a highly educated individual such as yourself must know that tanks are almost helpless against armed infantry. Don't you know that tanks have to be protected by infantry troops?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey,
Uh, okey-dokey.
Where is this society located? What if he needs to take money from someone bigger than him?
You mean the law of supply and demand. Of course, one could always just sneak up behind a cop a pop him on the head with a brick. Gun available.
This reminds me of a quote by Will Rogers. Do you know the one?
So, criminals are stupid, correct?
I think the proper term is a job...
There's that stupid criminal again. Most criminals prefer to go into a house where the owner does not have a gun.
Then why did he take a gun into the house to begin with?
No, the criminal is the fox. He is trying to eat the rabbit. The rabbit must either run from the fox, or point a gun at the fox and say 'Stop right there'.
I think when you keep producing durable goods for decades, they will naturally increase in numbers. There are more TVs around than their was 60 years ago, bigger than ever, but I sure if I would call that a TV race. Perhaps it is just capitalism that makes us want the latest and best. Communist don't want the latest and best books and equipment, do they?
Yes, its true that arms are costly. We Americans could just sit back and call for others to defend us against our enemies, like some call for a cop. We are so well-liked, I am sure a gaggle of other countries would immediately come to defend us. You do realize that there are weapons in the world, don't you? (except in Finland, of course) You do realize that not all criminals are just teen-aged drug addicts trying to steal others property to trade for another high?
Uh, citation please.
Do the original weapons just disappear? Personally, it wouldn't affect me if the US gun makers never made another weapon. I already have mine.
So, you think the 'world of terrorism' is imaginary? Sure you do, sweety. Now just go back to chopping up rats and don't worry your pretty little head about such things. Buy the way S.A.M.2, I thought this thread was about gun control policy in the US????
Spurious, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about????
But it doesn't matter, I ain't giving up my guns, nor my rights to self-defense no matter what bullshit psycho-babble crap you try to pass off as "rational thinking" or some other bullshit, liberal terms you wish to throw out.
I told you before .......there is no discussion ....I ain't givin' up my guns to some government officials who deem that I have not passed some government criteria.
Baron Max