107 replies to this topic

[darkravenntk]

I will stress the point yet again:

The militia does not fail because of guns. A civilian militia can have the most advanced guns available in the world, which is what you're suggesting. It's not about the guns. It's the fact that guns alone will not win you a war with the US government. You need tanks, air superiority, and naval forces to stand a snowball's chance in hell. And it's about training, because it will take months to year(s) to get your people ready to use such equipment and not have them accidentally kill themselves. That is why your militia will fail. The traditional militia you are thinking of is outdated and ineffective, just as it was in the era of muskets and cloth jackets. A nation that has routine conscription, however, is a more "modern" militia that stands a vague chance.

If you're serious about your argument (making sure civilians can overthrow the government), you should be just as worried about training and the whole scope of the war. Conscription of all 18 year olds in good health should be just as important to you as the guns, because professional training is the only way to keep the citizens of America ready for just such an emergency. A traditional militia is almost certainly doomed to fail. So what is the case? If you really want people to be able to overthrow their government, you should be for conscription or formal training of some kind. Otherwise it mostly seems like an excuse to keep high powered weapons in your home. Because like I said: Just having a gun doesn't mean anything in a real war if you don't have the training and a well rounded army. Just handing someone a rifle isn't being serious or at all realistic.



However, the argument for gun ownership in the event of a zombie apocalypse is still quite strong.


Still, if I had my way, I'd limit gun ownership to hunting and basic self defense. But preferably tasers or other non-lethal close range weapons for self defense. A gun is only really effective if you have enough time to get it and load it before you're attacked. Which, if you're caught off guard (as is the case with murder attempts and many break ins), is not terribly likely. I keep a knife by my bed instead of a gun. Less time needed to get ready, less noisy, no ammo, easier to conceal, and still quite deadly. Sure, guns might be left to the 'evildoers' of society in this scenario, but if they get their gun trained on you before you can get to any of your weapons, having a gun of your own doesn't matter. You're screwed either way.

If things are going south, who's to say that people wont start training? If I felt that the government was going the wrong way I would go out and join up with an established militia for training. Hell, even now we have PMCs (even though they aren't used for that purpose) and that industry is growing and has currently reached a worth of 100 billion a year. But, all the training in the world will not matter unless you have weapons.

If you're using a gun for self-defense you keep it loaded with the safety on. Yes, but (by your argument) if that person has a bat, you're screwed, if that person has anything with a longer reach than your knife, you're screwed, if that person has a gun, you are most screwed. Therefore we should ban all use of knives in the terms of self defense, except under strict regulation, because they are useless and outdated and sure, they might be left to the "evildoers" of society but if they knife you before you can get to your knife, having a knife of your own doesn't matter. You're screwed either way.

[Selena]

If things are going south, who's to say that people wont start training? If I felt that the government was going the wrong way I would go out and join up with an established militia for training.

I've already addressed this - by this time the militia training program is too late to the party. A truly tyrannical government wouldn't tolerate the training of a civilian army that could hold their ground. Your revolution is then crushed before it can start. If conscription was a tradition, however, you'd have at least two generations pretrained and young enough to fight from the get-go. Then your only challenge is how to acquire air superiority fighters... unless those are also available on the market.

There doesn't seem to be any consideration for actual strategy (or realistic warfare) here, so I've mostly been wasting my breath. And I'm getting quite sick of repeating myself. So I'm going to bow out of the debate now, while there's still a chance of doing so with dignity.



And for the record, by my argument, if the criminal wishes to do you harm and sees you before you notice them, you're done for no matter what kind of weapon you have. A baseball bat to the head will knock you out before you can get your gun if you're unaware of the criminal's presence. Nor did I strictly oppose the ownership of guns for self defense. I'm actually quite fond of guns. It's just that they can be cumbersome if you only have a few seconds to spare. Many people keep guns unloaded because they don't want their kids to accidentally shoot themselves, given how easy it is to turn the safety off. Which can happen regardless of how well you educate them.

[Poore]

A gun is a gun. Things are things. The meaning, nature, and use of them are not defined by any intrinsic value of the thing itself, but by their social contexts, and by the individual use thereof of said artifacts.

Laws should never focus on things. Laws should focus on people. Any law that restricts the use or existence or use of a physical instantiation of an artifact is inherently flawed, as it addresses the unobservable objective inherent flaws of an object that only acquires meaning through its interaction with humans rather than the misuses of said artifacts by humans.

Edited by Poore, 08 March 2009 - 02:46 AM.

[SOAP]

Well for what it's worth, I just heard on the local news that politicians in Texas are seeking to overturn the ban. Which is exactly what I expected they would. Agree or disagree with them, it's all the same to me. But my fellow Texans are being hypocritically by defending the second amendment like it's some sacred, untouchable thing when not too long ago this same state had an anti-gay sex ban. Mind you it was a ban on anal and oral sex between same sex couples only. Heterosexual couples could have all the anal and oral sex they wanted. Maybe I'm just weird but I find it glaringly strange that right to arms is valued more by my state than the right to have consensual sex with another adult. Texans talk about having smaller governments and preserving the people's right to govern themselves but they themselves have infringed on that right in the past. Since the supreme had to come in tell them they can't do that, I wonder just how long the Texas government would have continued to infringe on that right. They have no room to speak as for as THIS Texan is concerned.

[Raien]

Laws should never focus on things. Laws should focus on people. Any law that restricts the use or existence or use of a physical instantiation of an artifact is inherently flawed, as it addresses the unobservable objective inherent flaws of an object that only acquires meaning through its interaction with humans rather than the misuses of said artifacts by humans.

The problem with this argument is that the law only comes into effect after the crime has already been committed. Most people want preventative action, and there's no better way to prevent a shooting than by removing the weapon.

Is this about Bush? No, it is not.

Bush is just an example to prove a point. You're telling us that we should sacrifice our lives to protect principles, yet Bush proves that not only are most people not willing to fight for their principles, but that it's a completely pointless activity in the first place thanks to self-regulation.

What the fuck does Glenn Beck have to do with this argument of the weapons ban?

Beck is another example to prove a point. Right now, the Second Amendment lends weight to paranoid civilian militias who threaten to overturn the government; people who are led to paranoia by the right-wing pundits. You're telling us all to observe a non-existent threat, thus justifying the Second Amendment, but you're completely ignoring an actual threat to human life (and which has already taken human life), which is a good reason why the Second Amendment should be amended.

All you've really done is come here and trash the republican party and say that all of them are violence screaming, warmongering, hate group attending, criminals.

I have said nothing about the Republican Party. I have referred to the right-wing pundits, because they are outspoken fearmongerers. I have referred to paranoid civilian militias, because they are respondents to this fearmongering. This is all well-documented activity, unlike the non-existent government takeover threat.

Edited by Raien, 08 March 2009 - 07:42 AM.

[darkravenntk]

Well for what it's worth, I just heard on the local news that politicians in Texas are seeking to overturn the ban. Which is exactly what I expected they would. Agree or disagree with them, it's all the same to me. But my fellow Texans are being hypocritically by defending the second amendment like it's some sacred, untouchable thing when not too long ago this same state had an anti-gay sex ban. Mind you it was a ban on anal and oral sex between same sex couples only. Heterosexual couples could have all the anal and oral sex they wanted. Maybe I'm just weird but I find it glaringly strange that right to arms is valued more by my state than the right to have consensual sex with another adult. Texans talk about having smaller governments and preserving the people's right to govern themselves but they themselves have infringed on that right in the past. Since the supreme had to come in tell them they can't do that, I wonder just how long the Texas government would have continued to infringe on that right. They have no room to speak as for as THIS Texan is concerned.

They actually tried to ban that? Holy shit that is bad.

[Dizzy]

I have said nothing about the Republican Party. I have referred to the right-wing pundits, because they are outspoken fearmongerers. I have referred to paranoid civilian militias, because they are respondents to this fearmongering. This is all well-documented activity, unlike the non-existent government takeover threat.

Your personal perceptions of those 'Right Wing Pundits' have absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand; no matter how you might try to weave it into relevance.



The right to protect one's property with firearms should stand.
This is coming from someone who lives in that kind of rough neighborhood. Without some sort of ability to protect my home from others who do obtain firearms illegally, I am a sitting duck.

So sure.

You could ban guns.

You could try your damnedest to overturn the second amendment in the US.

But what's to stop the kind of criminals who truly wish to obtain a firearm from seeking out those connections and receiving one?
How can we manage to enforce this kind of widespread ban when we already have so little to work with in terms of law enforcement and manpower?

You want to propose a nationwide gun ban, then fine.

Tell us how you plan to enforce it in the major cities who seriously lack in law enforcement, as well as the minor ones who have no local law enforcement?
Give us an idea as to how you'll keep the streets safe with so little funding and officers to work with.


Edited: Because that sounded a little harsh.

Edited by Enjeru, 08 March 2009 - 04:43 PM.

[Raien]

Enjeru, I can't give you a detailed strategy because I do not have the experience of someone working in law enforcement. But what I can say is that gun control has been proven to work in other countries, regardless of their economic situation and areas rife with crime. It's a myth that you will be in more danger from criminals under gun control laws. It's a myth that criminals will have the same access to guns under gun control. Not one bit of evidence to support it. AT. ALL.

Edited by Raien, 08 March 2009 - 05:03 PM.

[Egann]

I have said nothing about the Republican Party. I have referred to the right-wing pundits, because they are outspoken fearmongerers. I have referred to paranoid civilian militias, because they are respondents to this fearmongering. This is all well-documented activity, unlike the non-existent government takeover threat.

Five words words: Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas. Interpret these as you will, but conservatives tend to interpret these as examples of governments ruling by scape-goating and fear, and why they should not be trusted. (Oh, and if you didn't know, scape-goating and making public spectacles was one of the primary reasons the KGB was so feared by the Soviet people.)

Secondly, the primary reason you don't believe your own side is guilty of fear-mongering is because you've bought into them at those points. Global warming is an appeal to fear. (OK, everybody knows that the planet's actually cooling now, despite the models, so they switched it up with "climate change" and hoped that no one would notice the weaseling.) If you doubt, google-search "Katrina and Global Warming" and look at the hit-count to see how many people connect the two even though it's logically impossible to do so with any degree of certainty.

It's not like this isn't true of me, either. I've bought into the appeal to fear that the trillion dollar bailout will either end in draconian taxes or a huge spike in inflation. Am I supposed to think that anyone with a basic sense for accounting would realize that? Probably.

[/off topic]

In general, assault weapons are
semiautomatic firearms with a large
magazine of ammunition that were
designed and configured for rapid fire
and combat use....

In 1993 prior to the passage of the
assault weapons ban, the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(ATF), reported that about 1%
of the estimated 200 million guns
in circulation were assault weapons.
Of the gun-tracing requests received
that year by ATF from law enforcement
agencies, 8% involved assault
weapons.
Assault weapons

Assault weapons and homicide
A New York State Division of Criminal
Justice Services study of homicides
in 1993 in New York City found that
assault weapons were involved in
16% of the homicides studied. The
definition of assault weapons used
was from proposed but not enacted
State legislation that was more expansive
than the Federal legislation. By
matching ballistics records and homicide
files, the study found information
on 366 firearms recovered in the
homicides of 271 victims. Assault
weapons were linked to the deaths of
43 victims (16% of those studied).
A study by the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services reviewed
the files of 600 firearm murders that
occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989
to 1991. The study found that handguns
were used in 72% of the murders
(431 murders). Ten guns were
identified as assault weapons, including
five pistols, four rifles, and one shotgun.

Source

Admittedly, 1% of the gun population but 16% of homicides is a disproportionate figure, but let's think critically.

Will the removal of the high-powered firearms used in ~16% of homicides prevent those homicides from occuring?

Probably not. What we are talking about here will reduce the availability of firearms by less than 1% (less because the ban does nothing about guns already privately owned.) The intent of this bill is not to prevent crime, nor is it to even take these guns "off the street," but to make the weapons available for purchase less powerful.

Also, take special note of the huge disparady between the percentages of assault weapons in the general population and those used for homicide. While it may be explainable by other factors, such as preferred use of assault weapons if given the choice, the most simple explanation is that assault weapons are already more available to criminals than they are to law-abiding gun-owners. Quite simply, the statistics imply the presence of a large black market. The bill will almost certaintly only exacerbate this situation further by forcing all assault-weapons into the black market (where only the criminals go.)

Edited by Egann, 08 March 2009 - 05:09 PM.

[Raien]

Five words words: Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas. Interpret these as you will, but conservatives tend to interpret these as examples of governments ruling by scape-goating and fear, and why they should not be trusted. (Oh, and if you didn't know, scape-goating and making public spectacles was one of the primary reasons the KGB was so feared by the Soviet people.)

As distressing as these incidents sound, two isolated incidents do not justify the argument that the government are in a general habit of repressing the population. It's this sort of targeting that leads to distorted arguments and consequent fearmongering.

Secondly, the primary reason you don't believe your own side is guilty of fear-mongering is because you've bought into them at those points. Global warming is an appeal to fear. (OK, everybody knows that the planet's actually cooling now, despite the models, so they switched it up with "climate change" and hoped that no one would notice the weaseling.) If you doubt, google-search "Katrina and Global Warming" and look at the hit-count to see how many people connect the two even though it's logically impossible to do so with any degree of certainty.

This is a classic example of false equivalence (along the lines of "Bush lied about Iraq, but then Clinton lied about his affairs"). Whether or not the fear of global warming is justified, the consequences of that fear are limited to people recycling more and conserving energy. This is completely different from people threatening the President's life (and already taking civilian lives) because they believe he will forcefully destroy them under a fictional "socialist" banner. Of course, if you can find a group of people willing to kill over global warming, then I might accept some level of equivalence between the two examples.

Edited by Raien, 08 March 2009 - 05:31 PM.

[Khallos]

Secondly, the primary reason you don't believe your own side is guilty of fear-mongering is because you've bought into them at those points. Global warming is an appeal to fear. (OK, everybody knows that the planet's actually cooling now, despite the models, so they switched it up with "climate change" and hoped that no one would notice the weaseling.) If you doubt, google-search "Katrina and Global Warming" and look at the hit-count to see how many people connect the two even though it's logically impossible to do so with any degree of certainty.

I shan't argue for or against global warming here, but I just google searched "Jeremy Kyle and Satan". There was 15,900 search results, which means roughly 16000% of people believe these two people are one and the same. OK, I'm being a little bit over the top, but that's a poor argument for people actively believing that Katrina was a direct result of global warming. It's also an unscientific and arrogant one where one hurricane that hits your country suddenly becomes evidence of global warming; people are irrational and stupid about many things and those who are so blind to believe that a disaster specific to their country is key evidence for such a thing are hardly good evidance of expert opinion for the existance or non-existance of anything.


As hilariously funny as armed vigalantism is, and don't get me wrong I'm a rough supporter of it, but it seems to be unhelpful in upholding the law by in turn breaking it. In the home defence thing I'd have no qualms about commiting GBH upon anyone who broke into my home, the second you trespass you forfeit your life. However I do find my beliefs on this matter rather repulsive and self harming, after all if burglars know that they'll have to face a nutter with a bayonet when they rob a house they'll likely be well armed. Swings and roundabouts, sometimes you win and keep your possesions and life, other times you lose it all. The only differance to me is that lack of firearms makes it that just a little bit less dangerous.

[SOAP]

Well for what it's worth, I just heard on the local news that politicians in Texas are seeking to overturn the ban. Which is exactly what I expected they would. Agree or disagree with them, it's all the same to me. But my fellow Texans are being hypocritically by defending the second amendment like it's some sacred, untouchable thing when not too long ago this same state had an anti-gay sex ban. Mind you it was a ban on anal and oral sex between same sex couples only. Heterosexual couples could have all the anal and oral sex they wanted. Maybe I'm just weird but I find it glaringly strange that right to arms is valued more by my state than the right to have consensual sex with another adult. Texans talk about having smaller governments and preserving the people's right to govern themselves but they themselves have infringed on that right in the past. Since the supreme had to come in tell them they can't do that, I wonder just how long the Texas government would have continued to infringe on that right. They have no room to speak as for as THIS Texan is concerned.

They actually tried to ban that? Holy shit that is bad.

Banned it only between same sex couples. A male and female were still allowed to do all those same things. Something about the ban was to protect the "sanctity of marriage" in which anal and oral sex is supposedly some sacred thing only for straight couples.

Also, Texan politicians were whining about the federal courts butting into how they were running things when they themselves were butting into how adults conduct themselves morally in the privacy of their own homes. And they had the audacity to base the justification on the ban on religious grounds when not every Christian is religious and further more they called an act worse than rape.

Edited by SOAP, 09 March 2009 - 01:15 AM.

[Egann]

Secondly, the primary reason you don't believe your own side is guilty of fear-mongering is because you've bought into them at those points. Global warming is an appeal to fear. (OK, everybody knows that the planet's actually cooling now, despite the models, so they switched it up with "climate change" and hoped that no one would notice the weaseling.) If you doubt, google-search "Katrina and Global Warming" and look at the hit-count to see how many people connect the two even though it's logically impossible to do so with any degree of certainty.

This is a classic example of false equivalence (along the lines of "Bush lied about Iraq, but then Clinton lied about his affairs"). Whether or not the fear of global warming is justified, the consequences of that fear are limited to people recycling more and conserving energy. This is completely different from people threatening the President's life (and already taking civilian lives) because they believe he will forcefully destroy them under a fictional "socialist" banner. Of course, if you can find a group of people willing to kill over global warming, then I might accept some level of equivalence between the two examples.

Source.

At least two of these extremist groups have carried out terrorist actions; ALF and RCALB. Admittedly, most cases are arson, but still, any time a list STARTS with the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement," you should probably think twice about it not being extremist in the worst sort, even if the group itself is "officially" non-violent. With a doctrine that extreme, violence will eventually result when they feel like they aren't having any effect because no matter how you cut the cheese, they love the planet more than they love other humans.

I have no problem with going green. 90% of the time that's just the responsible thing to do. But can you really say that the Discovery Channel's "Project Earth" program is even using it's air-time wisely when it covered a method of fighting global warming by shrink-wrapping glaciers in polypropylene?

First there was acid rain, which is virtually nonexistent, now. Then there was Ozone depletion...which you don't hear about anymore because scientists figured out that Chlorine radicals (let alone whole CFC molecules) are too heavy to even get to the ionosphere...not to mention that Ozone's halflife is so brief (15 minutes) that the turnover rate would be changed virtually inconsequentially, anyways. Now there's global warming, which pretty much tells us we'll either have to castrate our economy or all drown in rising sea levels.... Mind if I take your side's alarmism with the same dose of salt you've taken mine?

Edited by Egann, 09 March 2009 - 08:02 AM.

[darkravenntk]

The problem with this argument is that the law only comes into effect after the crime has already been committed. Most people want preventative action, and there's no better way to prevent a shooting than by removing the weapon.

A shooting, but if a person is determined to rob or kill, they are going to use what is around them. Like I posted before, when the ban was first put into place, it did next to nothing to lower the crime rate and assault weapons are rarely used in actual crimes as they are to large and unwieldy.

Beck is another example to prove a point. Right now, the Second Amendment lends weight to paranoid civilian militias who threaten to overturn the government; people who are led to paranoia by the right-wing pundits. You're telling us all to observe a non-existent threat, thus justifying the Second Amendment, but you're completely ignoring an actual threat to human life (and which has already taken human life), which is a good reason why the Second Amendment should be amended.

Just like Obama is using collapse of the economy to pass his spending bills? Or Al Gore is using global warming to try and pass more restrictive regulations? All politics come down to "fear mongering" as you put it because all politics are based upon trying to react to situations to best preserve the citizens.

I have said nothing about the Republican Party. I have referred to the right-wing pundits, because they are outspoken fearmongerers. I have referred to paranoid civilian militias, because they are respondents to this fearmongering. This is all well-documented activity, unlike the non-existent government takeover threat.

There you are, you fear monger. You just stated that the "right-wing pundits" are fear mongers who are trying to lead the country into a revolution. I don't see you posting how Black Panthers, who support a separate black socialist state, came out to the polls in support of Obama and had to be taken away by police because of threatening violent actions at the polls, not to mention the illegal activities of ACORN stuffing the ballots. With your accusations you are using fear to try and draw people away from supporting those "right wing pundits".

[Raien]

A shooting, but if a person is determined to rob or kill, they are going to use what is around them. Like I posted before, when the ban was first put into place, it did next to nothing to lower the crime rate and assault weapons are rarely used in actual crimes as they are to large and unwieldy.

It's a myth that criminals retain the same mindset no matter what weapon they carry. It's actually well-documented that the psychology of criminals are affected by the weapons they carry. A man with a knife is generally not as confident as a man with a gun. That's one reason why crime rates have lowered in countries under gun control.

Just like Obama is using collapse of the economy to pass his spending bills? Or Al Gore is using global warming to try and pass more restrictive regulations? All politics come down to "fear mongering" as you put it because all politics are based upon trying to react to situations to best preserve the citizens.

So you're now resorting to making up your own definitions to prove your point? How typical.

EDIT: That's it. I am not talking to you if you refuse to see the difference between addressing a real threat (economic collapse) and addressing a bullshit threat (government takeover). I'm starting to repeat myself now, and I hate repeating myself.

There you are, you fear monger. You just stated that the "right-wing pundits" are fear mongers who are trying to lead the country into a revolution. I don't see you posting how Black Panthers, who support a separate black socialist state, came out to the polls in support of Obama and had to be taken away by police because of threatening violent actions at the polls, not to mention the illegal activities of ACORN stuffing the ballots. With your accusations you are using fear to try and draw people away from supporting those "right wing pundits".

The case for a government takeover threat is only being made currently by the right-wing pundits and militia groups, so of course I am only going to address the fearmongering amongst these people. Sure, other people fearmonger too, but they aren't relevant to your argument about a bullshit government takeover threat.

Edited by Raien, 09 March 2009 - 04:32 PM.

[Dizzy]

It's a myth that you will be in more danger from criminals under gun control laws. It's a myth that criminals will have the same access to guns under gun control. Not one bit of evidence to support it. AT. ALL.

Those myths you speak of has yet to be proven in the United States; a country that already clearly struggles with financial support for its law enforcement and less-than-effective legal system.
Find me some sort of unbiased evidence applicable for the United States that will support these myths.

----

What I want to know is, what are we hoping to prevent by enforcing an arms ban on semi-automatic weapons, let alone hypothetically including handguns?

Should we restrict access or even ban semi-automatic weapons, what's to stop our government from extending the decree to hand guns?

While I will agree, there could be a stricter set of regulations to gun access, it is clearly proven that disarming the lawful will not diminish crime rates, and it certainly will not make a country any safer.

If you try to quell one breed of crime, another will always be on the rise.

And if one government were to legally limit or prevent the civilian's ability to obtain a firearm, how will this also be applied to any career criminal who has the capabilities to receive a firearm illegally (and under the table)?

Consider our current gun control policies...
How will increasing said policies for the average citizen prevent illegal criminal access, when a nation has so little manpower to enforce the existing US laws?

My point is, what will happen, will happen with or without governmental permission, and with or without the not-so-long arm of the law enforcing these limitations. It is good that people are given access to weapons for self defense; especially in the regions where people must protect themselves without immediate law enforcement.

Maybe this will get my point across a little better...

Total Gun-Related Crime Rates Pre-Ban: UK
1995-------------13434
1996-------------13876
1997-98---------12805

Total Gun-Related Crime Rates Post-Ban: UK
1998-99-------------13874
1999-00-------------16946
2000-01-------------17697
2001-02-------------22400
2002-03-------------24070
2003-04-------------24094
2004-05-------------22896
2005-06-------------21521

(Keep in mind that total crime increases with a rising population, but I find this to be hardly relevant given the short time period between dates).
This is as good a statistic as any, considering everyone is so eager to compare the hypothetical gun-less US to any other providence experiencing a gun-ban.

You can see it for yourself.
The source is here.
Do I really need to say more?

It seems that even if you completely disarm a nation, that nation's criminals will still obtain its firearms (and other weapons); and if you're acting in response to a particular series of violent crimes, not only will this hinder the law abiding and help the criminal, it is also a moot political move.

A nation's crime rates may redistribute at first (sure), but an arms ban will not serve as a deterrent for career criminals or criminals on the rise.
You're deluding yourself if you really think that an arms-ban or arms-restriction will resolve the ever-present violent crime rates or gun crime rates in the United States, let alone to completely disarm criminals and resolve gun-related crimes toward individuals or businesses.

Edited by Enjeru, 09 March 2009 - 05:46 PM.

[Raien]

Those statistics are interesting, Enjeru, as the actual drop in gun-related crimes coincides with a large government-driven gun amnesty in 2003. So perhaps (and more sensible, now I think about it), if we want to lower gun crime, the government is going to have to make a consistent effort to keep guns out of criminals' hands. In that context, why shouldn't such schemes work in America? American criminals aren't alien from British criminals; as long as the schemes have the right direction, they should have similar results.

Edited by Raien, 09 March 2009 - 06:16 PM.

[darkravenntk]

It's a myth that criminals retain the same mindset no matter what weapon they carry. It's actually well-documented that the psychology of criminals are affected by the weapons they carry. A man with a knife is generally not as confident as a man with a gun. That's one reason why crime rates have lowered in countries under gun control.

In a city where there are no guns, and you have a knife, you're still top dog.

http://www.thisislon.....e'/article.do

http://armsandthelaw...fe_crime_in.php

http://en.wikipedia....#United_Kingdom

So you're now resorting to making up your own definitions to prove your point? How typical.

EDIT: That's it. I am not talking to you if you refuse to see the difference between addressing a real threat (economic collapse) and addressing a bullshit threat (government takeover). I'm starting to repeat myself now, and I hate repeating myself.

My own definitions? It's the truth, and if you're too blind to see it, then you can remain as you are.

It all depends on what your definition of bullshit is.

The case for a government takeover threat is only being made currently by the right-wing pundits and militia groups, so of course I am only going to address the fearmongering amongst these people. Sure, other people fearmonger too, but they aren't relevant to your argument about a bullshit government takeover threat.

My argument (Haven't you read anything?) is that the weapons ban is infringing on the Second Amendment and antiquating American weapons systems to the point that /IF/ there was a tyrannical threat, nothing could be done. And then you come in and call me a fear monger despite the fact that it is exactly /why/ the Second Amendment was put into place. You call them fear mongers, yet among the shows I listen to (and you have named some of them by name) none of them call for violence, they call for an increase in political activism. If militia activity is on the rise, it isn't the first time. During the Cold War militia activty rose due to the threat of the Russians. And during the Clinton administration.

http://books.google....result#PPA42,M1

[Raien]

My own definitions? It's the truth, and if you're too blind to see it, then you can remain as you are.

Okay, "fearmongering" is used within two contexts:
1) The repetition of real threats.
2) The exaggeration and/or repetition of minor or non-existent threats.

The consequences of these two different types of fearmongering are radically different based upon whether the threat is real or false. If the threat is real, you get detailed statistics, expert opinion and developed strategies. If the threat is false, you can get none of these because the threat doesn't exist. The only purpose a false threat can serve is to exploit the people, which actually has the potential to make them dangerous. The Knoxville shooting is just one example of a man killing "liberals" due to this exploitation. But if you want wider proof, you've just reminded me that there is a known pattern:

If militia activity is on the rise, it isn't the first time. During the Cold War militia activty rose due to the threat of the Russians. And during the Clinton administration.

Under recent Democratic administrations, there has been a rise in civilian militias. Under recent Republican administrations, there has been a decline in civilian militias. Are Democrats more likely to forcefully takeover the nation? No, because it's a lie. Therefore, what we have is a clear case of exploitation.

Edited by Raien, 09 March 2009 - 07:54 PM.

[darkravenntk]

It's not the truth, because no one uses that definition of "fearmongering". If a notice says "Look out for falling rocks.", do people refer to it as fearmongering? Of course not; it's a bullshit definition. When people refer to fearmongering, they do so in the context of the exaggeration of minor or non-existent threats. If people say Obama is fearmongering, they do so because they believe the economy is not as bad as Obama says. Except the economic trouble is actually proven, unlike the government takeover argument which is complete bullshit. Even Al Gore's global warming scares have at least some credible backing.

Complete bullshit? It's complete bullshit enough to be put into our damn Bill of Rights. And it is "fear mongering" at least by your definition, because if it creates any kind of awareness of what /could/ happen, then its fear mongering.

What did Clinton do to justify increased militia activity? Why do you think that there's a pattern of militias rising under recent Democratic Administrations, and a decline under recent Republican Administrations? Are Democrats more likely to forcefully take over the country?

I didn't say that, and if you don't know, the cold war was under a lot of president's terms. Clinton increased gun bans and so (apparently) is Obama. Militia activity increases when the people feel the need to defend the rights given to them, or when they feel that those rights are under attack.

Hold on- since you redid your post, I have to add on.

Okay, "fearmongering" is used within two contexts:
1) The repetition of real threats.
2) The exaggeration and/or repetition of minor or non-existent threats.

There's a clear difference, though. Real threats exist and act regardless of who uses it to create fear. If someone with the wrong ideology makes a mistake, they will suffer the consequences. But if the threat is a complete lie, then there is no immediate disproof. Thus whoever holds the apparent solution to the fake threat is in a state of control over the masses. You pointed out a good example of this yourself:

Here's where we see a pattern. Under recent Democratic administrations, rises in civilian militias. Under recent Republican administrations, declines in civilian militias. Are Democrats more likely to forcefully takeover the nation? No, because it's a lie. Therefore, what we have is a clear case of exploitation.

The Cold War lasted from 1945 to 1990. That includes the terms of four Democratic presidents and five Republican presidents.


http://www.adl.org/l.......d=4&item=19

http://faculty.maxwe...BS_militias.htm

http://www.newcomm.o...t/view/1742/93/ (That's 2001, under Bush's presidency.)

And you have given links to rise in Militia activity recently.

Militia activity will rise when people feel that their rights are threatened (in Clinton and Obama's cases because of gun bans) no matter who is president.

Edited by darkravenntk, 09 March 2009 - 08:11 PM.

[Raien]

I actually massively edited my last post while you replied, because I realised I was in the wrong with regards to how people refer to fearmongering. I'll repost my edited response here:

"Fearmongering" is used within two contexts:
1) The repetition of real threats.
2) The exaggeration and/or repetition of minor or non-existent threats.

The consequences of these two different types of fearmongering are radically different based upon whether the threat is real or false. If the threat is real, you get detailed statistics, expert opinion and developed strategies. If the threat is false, you can get none of these because the threat doesn't exist. The only purpose a false threat can serve is to exploit the people, which actually has the potential to make them dangerous. The recent Knoxville shooting is just one example of a man killing "liberals" due to this exploitation.

As for your point about Clinton taking guns, okay, I give up. I've got nothing more to say.

Edited by Raien, 09 March 2009 - 08:00 PM.

[Khallos]

Maybe this will get my point across a little better...

Total Gun-Related Crime Rates Pre-Ban: UK
1995-------------13434
1996-------------13876
1997-98---------12805

Total Gun-Related Crime Rates Post-Ban: UK
1998-99-------------13874
1999-00-------------16946
2000-01-------------17697
2001-02-------------22400
2002-03-------------24070
2003-04-------------24094
2004-05-------------22896
2005-06-------------21521

I know little of British gun control but the ban in 1997 wasn't much of a ban, getting a gun licence was incredibly difficult and even my father who had served as an officer in the Territorial Army was never allowed to have one despite several attempts over the years. Self-defence has not been a good enough reason to own one since the end of WW2, and the British attitude to guns is generally negative. Gun crime simply wasn't a massive issue in the past and perhaps because of the earliness of our revolution when a pike was still considered a proper weapon the belief of every citizen's right to bare a gun just isn't that strong; also the fact the emblematic British Bobby does not wield a gun means that you probably won't get shot down by the first police to the crime scene.

A better table of gun crime statistics would go back to the 70s or further. Gun crimes do tend to be better reported these days, in fact all violent crimes are but an increase in the reporting of crimes started probably before 1997, and then was fuelled by the introduction of the mobile phone as a normality making its effect on these results minor. One thing these statistics don't highlight properly is that [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of violent crime is gang related, and most people who commit gun crime are gang members with ties to the criminal underworld. Most people who recieve a bullet to their head are also gang members. Apart from those stray bullets that hit innocents and the wealth of other crimes related to gangs, there's a definite attitude that the gangs can keep their guns and perhaps will kill each other's members so that the Met police just has to mop them up.

In a city where there are no guns, and you have a knife, you're still top dog.

http://www.thisislon.....e'/article.do

http://armsandthelaw...fe_crime_in.php

http://en.wikipedia....#United_Kingdom

One of the major problems with knife crime is that many people carry knives 'in self-defence', if they didn't carry one, someone might stab them. Due to most people not being trained in knife fighting, this is of course a silly idea. However it's a real one, and so on occasion when someone's hammered out of their mind and has a dirty look thrown at them they draw their blade in premptive self defence and murder. I know someone who I certainly won't use the word friend one, but lives nearby who has a throwing knife concealed in a small box on his person when he leaves the house as a method of self defence, he interestingly would love to own a real gun, but has to use the next best thing in terms of 'legal' ranged combat. Considering he has been mugged 6 or so times and me never despite living in the same area I do question his carrying of a knife as he hasn't got the courage up to kill some one yet. There are many people like him in London and all of Britain, although I hope aren't so creepily violent and militaristic. Or at least aren't arming themselves with throwing knives in self defence. Knife crime occurs because people carry knives to commit crimes or 'defend' themselves, banning knives is clearly impossible. The answer seems to me is how we deal with crime and society in general, you can't remove knives from people's lives, but you can remove the desire to control crime. And I'd probably rather face a knife than a pistol, even though you can deal with the gun wielder much more easily at a close range, at least you can run away from someone with one (unless it's of the throwing variety).

As I mentioned the attitude to guns in Britain is differant, so perhaps it will never work in America. Personally I'd love to own a gun and shoot anyone who does anything to me, my family, friends or general honest looking passerby, but I realise my romantism of defending my piece of land is romantic and impractical in a city where everyone else will want the same thing as me.

[Doopliss]

I completely agree with you, darkravenntk. Ordinary people in the country I live are not used to bearing arms, and it is not a right that many people would cliam. But I understand the importance of the people being able to stand against a tyrannic government, and I think it is great that Americans are aware of that.

I admire the principles upon which the United States were founded, and frankly I find it sad to see how such a strong country has given its government so much power. You are under the risk of becoming a disguised dictatorship.

[Raien]

I admire the principles upon which the United States were founded, and frankly I find it sad to see how such a strong country has given its government so much power. You are under the risk of becoming a disguised dictatorship.

What do you say about the fact that Obama has rejected and reversed the extra powers that Bush gave himself? Or that government investigations are underway into the unconstitutional ways in which the administration excused itself from criminal activities, such as torture? That doesn't sound to me like a risk of becoming a disguised dictatorship; quite the contrary.

Edited by Raien, 10 March 2009 - 06:32 AM.

[darkravenntk]

I actually massively edited my last post while you replied, because I realised I was in the wrong with regards to how people refer to fearmongering. I'll repost my edited response here:

"Fearmongering" is used within two contexts:
1) The repetition of real threats.
2) The exaggeration and/or repetition of minor or non-existent threats.

The consequences of these two different types of fearmongering are radically different based upon whether the threat is real or false. If the threat is real, you get detailed statistics, expert opinion and developed strategies. If the threat is false, you can get none of these because the threat doesn't exist. The only purpose a false threat can serve is to exploit the people, which actually has the potential to make them dangerous. The recent Knoxville shooting is just one example of a man killing "liberals" due to this exploitation.

As for your point about Clinton taking guns, okay, I give up. I've got nothing more to say.

Well, in that point, reading historical material would be fear mongering because the Founding Fathers said why the Second Ammendment was put into place. It's not fear mongering when you are basing your position off of what was put into place for that same reason. That would be like if I was talking about the First Ammendment and said that the government was retricting it and this could advance even further? Would you consider this fear mongering or supporting your rights? The man who commited the Knoxville shootings wasn't right mentally. I don't see how he was "exploited" when he was acting off of his own overwhelming emotions. What he did was wrong, but if a person is that radical, they are going to do what they want despite any reasoning, like Jonestown.

[Raien]

Well, in that point, reading historical material would be fear mongering because the Founding Fathers said why the Second Ammendment was put into place.

Dark, for the love of God, please use CONTEXT. The world two hundred years ago is not the same world today. The problems that plagued the world two hundred years ago do not exist today. You're citing a statement that was written at a time when the Americans believed the British or other empirical nations would try to take back their land, or that someone might try to create their own little empire. This stuff does not happen anymore; if you're going to refer to the founding fathers, you may as well just say you think the British are going to invade.

Edited by Raien, 11 March 2009 - 09:04 AM.

[Alastair]

This stuff does not happen anymore; if you're going to refer to the founding fathers, you may as well just say you think the British are going to invade.

Shhh! You're not supposed to tell them.

[darkravenntk]

Well, in that point, reading historical material would be fear mongering because the Founding Fathers said why the Second Ammendment was put into place.

Dark, for the love of God, please use CONTEXT. The world two hundred years ago is not the same world today. The problems that plagued the world two hundred years ago do not exist today. You're citing a statement that was written at a time when the Americans believed the British or other empirical nations would try to take back their land, or that someone might try to create their own little empire. This stuff does not happen anymore; if you're going to refer to the founding fathers, you may as well just say you think the British are going to invade.

It /still is/ in context. The reasons why it was put into place /remain/ the reasons we have it today. That did not change. The reasons for the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seven, Eight, Ninth, Tenth..(so on)... Did not change.

[Raien]

It /still is/ in context. The reasons why it was put into place /remain/ the reasons we have it today. That did not change. The reasons for the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seven, Eight, Ninth, Tenth..(so on)... Did not change.

The reasons have not changed, but they have become irrelevant. If the founding fathers wrote a law for the protection of people from witchcraft, you could argue that the reason for that law would remain the same today. Except it would ignore that we now know witches do not exist, thus making the law irrelevant. We can now establish that there will never be a government take-over due to increasing moral responsibility and constantly increasing practices of self-regulation. This is the context you are ignoring.

[darkravenntk]

It /still is/ in context. The reasons why it was put into place /remain/ the reasons we have it today. That did not change. The reasons for the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seven, Eight, Ninth, Tenth..(so on)... Did not change.

The reasons have not changed, but they have become irrelevant. If the founding fathers wrote a law for the protection of people from witchcraft, you could argue that the reason for that law would remain the same today. Except it would ignore that we now know witches do not exist, thus making the law irrelevant. We can now establish that there will never be a government take-over due to increasing moral responsibility and constantly increasing practices of self-regulation. This is the context you are ignoring.

Never is a long time, my friend.

The Second Amendment is a product of the need for self-regulation and you can not predict what will happen in the future or what circumstances may arise. Self-regulation does not mean anything if it does not have teeth to back it up, whether the teeth be voting and political activism or (in worst case scenario) weapons.