Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 137

Thread: Guns Kill

  1. #61
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not sure what you meant (which kinds of arms).

    I'm saying that you should not have regulation that effectively restricts access to commonly available arms that are effective for self defense.
    I am saying that regulation to restrict more exotic weapons that represent a significant advantage in a fight is reasonable.
    Right, and my question was would this regulation prohibit access to these types of arms to those with illegal intent?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Imagine a gun that you could guide with your eyes and kill people as fast as you could look at them with infinite ammo and which cost 1 billion dollars. Restricting it would not lessen the defenses of the average citizen since most could never own such a weapon.
    FYI, this type of weapon is loosely based on me. ;-)

    I think to refine my question above is what kind of regulation are we talking about? Making it illegal to own I think we both agree is probably ineffectual. So sales or production would be required.

    But to move this to another more paranoid level, beyond just self-defense, should people have access to weapons that would allow them to offer resistance to government agents?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Sure, but when it comes to killing people, we recognize its hard to actually find reasonable liability. So we create laws that preclude the event from occurring in as much as we can. We set a threshold of risk that no informed and reasonable person would wish to cross if they cared about such liability. So long as we are not practically denying someone the opportunity to defend themselves, I see no reason not to accept such precautions other than a sense of entitlement to do anything you like regardless of the danger it poses to others.
    Absolute liability can also extend to criminal action I believe. So if a demolition crew kills a child they can be found guilty (or at least lets propose that they could) of negligent manslaughter.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Right, and my question was would this regulation prohibit access to these types of arms to those with illegal intent?
    Ahh. Not necessarily but I think there are many reasons it is more likely.
    1. Rare weapons are much harder for criminals to afford and find than common ones
    2. Rare weapons are easier to track and monitor than common ones (since there are few manufacturers and the process is hard to hide)
    3. Highly valuable weapons are much less likely to be lost without note or attention and security on them is often much better (since it makes financial sense to protect such valuable items)

    F
    YI, this type of weapon is loosely based on me. ;-)
    No doubt!

    I think to refine my question above is what kind of regulation are we talking about? Making it illegal to own I think we both agree is probably ineffectual. So sales or production would be required.
    I think like most heavily controlled items you would need a licence to manufacture and have to carefully account for sales to licences buyers (generally the military). Owners would need to account for the weapon anally through some kind of inventory and report theft's etc... Nothing is foolproof of course.

    But to move this to another more paranoid level, beyond just self-defense, should people have access to weapons that would allow them to offer resistance to government agents?
    I don't think that is a realistic expectation if you are talking about resisting the US military or paramilitary like SWAT. If they want you done you are done because they not only have weapons but numbers far exceeding yours. The best you can do is take a few out before you go down. So the expectation of actual defense is a non starter.

    If you want to shoot a random cop or an FBI agent then you are basically talking about wanting to break the law by murdering state agents. I'm not sympathetic to that so I don't think it is a reasonable consideration for creating law. If you don't want to follow the law, making a law that lets you effectively ignore the law is hypocritical. Be a law breaker or don't, trying to enshrine breaking the law in the law is a bit odd to me.

    Absolute liability can also extend to criminal action I believe. So if a demolition crew kills a child they can be found guilty (or at least lets propose that they could) of negligent manslaughter.
    Right, but I'm talking about a guy who does something like cuts loose with a uzi loaded with jacketed bullets in a subway to stop a guy with a gun who is threatening him and hits a bunch of bystanders with the spray and blow through. There are simply better self defense weapons and ammo that pose far less danger to the crowd. But if that is the only weapon he had, can you prosecute him for not defending himself?

    If you have a law that says you have to choose weapons that do not pose an unnecessary danger but are still effective and easy to use, then you can better prosecute for negligence when he hammers the bystanders. Or to turn it around, so long as someone is using a reasonable weapon in a reasonable situation, they should get reasonable protection from accidents that occur.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #63
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    An interesting video about guns and self defense that is in line with Sig's argument I believe...

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/for-self-...e-22-beats-45/

    It argues (in an entertaining yet very reasonable way) that a .22 is better for self-defense than a .45. I was skeptical at first, but after listening to the argument (which is brief, only 4mins), it actually makes sense.

    So, with that knowledge (assuming you accept it), does it change the way we look at gun laws?

    What if we were to ban all firearms w/ exception of:

    1) certain weapons allowable for hunting or recreational use (target practice used only at certified/licensed areas)
    2) allow people to defend themselves with .22 caliber weapons (assuming the argument in the video is sound).
    3) only these .22 are allowed in public areas, other guns such as "exotic weapons" and even recreational weapons (#1) are outlawed outside of their designated areas.

    Wouldn't this cut down dramatically on the amount of gun deaths as well as provide a way for citizens to defend themselves? Easier prosecution with laws that can be specifically tailored against specific types of guns + allowances for citizens to own guns for self-defense and recreational use.

    Right now, it seems more like a free-for-all and our defense of this is "We need to defend ourselves, it is our right to do so." Very well, then allow what is necessary to defend while at the same time create tougher yet more streamlined laws against illegal guns (as defined through 1-3 above).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Interesting..

    I'd say the problem with limiting weapons to .22s is it violates the idea that its more an impediment than benefit.
    This is due to the number of other caliber weapons people own and use for self defense, aka the commonality side of my proposed principle.
    If the weapon is common, useful (but not optimal) for defense and doesn't pose a great danger to bystanders, then we should allow its use to be legal.

    I would be for encouraging people to use the most effective defense weapon which poses the least collateral danger when used.
    If I were to carry a self defense weapon I would want it small, reliable, and able to kill when used properly.
    Lucky for me I live in a very peaceful city/neighborhood and I am an intimidating person physically so a gun is more hassle than its worth for me.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #65
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    An interesting video about guns and self defense that is in line with Sig's argument I believe...

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/for-self-...e-22-beats-45/

    It argues (in an entertaining yet very reasonable way) that a .22 is better for self-defense than a .45. I was skeptical at first, but after listening to the argument (which is brief, only 4mins), it actually makes sense.

    So, with that knowledge (assuming you accept it), does it change the way we look at gun laws?

    What if we were to ban all firearms w/ exception of:

    1) certain weapons allowable for hunting or recreational use (target practice used only at certified/licensed areas)
    2) allow people to defend themselves with .22 caliber weapons (assuming the argument in the video is sound).
    3) only these .22 are allowed in public areas, other guns such as "exotic weapons" and even recreational weapons (#1) are outlawed outside of their designated areas.

    Wouldn't this cut down dramatically on the amount of gun deaths as well as provide a way for citizens to defend themselves? Easier prosecution with laws that can be specifically tailored against specific types of guns + allowances for citizens to own guns for self-defense and recreational use.

    Right now, it seems more like a free-for-all and our defense of this is "We need to defend ourselves, it is our right to do so." Very well, then allow what is necessary to defend while at the same time create tougher yet more streamlined laws against illegal guns (as defined through 1-3 above).
    I'd like to begin with a disclaimer. I am not opposed to all gun laws/restrictions. On the other hand, I do believe gun laws should be treated much like free speech issues. In other words, the government should have to show a very compelling argument in order to restrain someone's use of a firearm. I'd much rather favor permitting all firearms and simply requiring them to be registered and cataloged. I favor registering ammunition as well. No gun should be untraceable and ammo shot from a gun should contain the signature from the firearm that shot it. Firearms were not permitted in the Constitution so we could defend ourselves from each other. We hire the government to perform that duty for us. Firearms were permitted to protect us against the government. The bigger the weapons are military has, the bigger the guns civillians should have in order to protect ourselves and also in order to provide a constant threat of revolution which the government must take seriously. Is it any surprise that our governors carry on as they do when they have neutered the general public? I don't think the founding fathers intended for such a docile citizenry. Our Constitution provides all sorts of checks and balances. Frankly, allowing serious gun laws is simply obliterating one of the most fundamental checks put into the Constitution.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Firearms were permitted to protect us against the government.
    I highly doubt that. A militia exists to protect the state, not to overthrow it. The republic was created with the idea that it was representative of the people. There is no need for an armed revolution against a government that you can simply vote out of office without firing a shot. Nothing in the Constitution says the militia exists to overthrow the state that regulates the militia. That just makes no sense. Well regulated military serve the purpose of defending the state against aggressors.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I highly doubt that. A militia exists to protect the state, not to overthrow it. The republic was created with the idea that it was representative of the people. There is no need for an armed revolution against a government that you can simply vote out of office without firing a shot. Nothing in the Constitution says the militia exists to overthrow the state that regulates the militia. That just makes no sense. Well regulated military serve the purpose of defending the state against aggressors.
    ALL aggressors, foreign and domestic.

    So what happens if our own government turns tyrannical? Let's say twenty years from now The President says he's suspending the Constitution and citizen's rights, will ignore all votes from the citizenry, and everyone has to do what he says or he'll have them executed. If the only way to remove him from power is with force, shouldn't the citizens have the option of using such force?

  8. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  9. #68
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think like most heavily controlled items you would need a licence to manufacture and have to carefully account for sales to licences buyers (generally the military). Owners would need to account for the weapon anally through some kind of inventory and report theft's etc... Nothing is foolproof of course.
    Of course. And I should note we are of course suspending any conversation of limits of government power for this part of the conversation of course.

    How would that policy work with foreign produced weapons?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    I don't think that is a realistic expectation if you are talking about resisting the US military or paramilitary like SWAT. If they want you done you are done because they not only have weapons but numbers far exceeding yours. The best you can do is take a few out before you go down. So the expectation of actual defense is a non starter.

    If you want to shoot a random cop or an FBI agent then you are basically talking about wanting to break the law by murdering state agents. I'm not sympathetic to that so I don't think it is a reasonable consideration for creating law. If you don't want to follow the law, making a law that lets you effectively ignore the law is hypocritical. Be a law breaker or don't, trying to enshrine breaking the law in the law is a bit odd to me.
    I think you are assuming a sole actor, which might not necessarily be the case. It is likely too that operations against government agents wouldn't be a pitched battle, but ambushes and hit and runs in small groups.

    As far as enshrining breaking the law in the law, that was part of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and we started as a country under just that concept. To mimic Mican's point, my oath as an Army officer includes that phrase and it is well understood that that is part of our purpose. That we swear to uphold the Consitution, not the Congress, not the Presidency, but the document.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Right, but I'm talking about a guy who does something like cuts loose with a uzi loaded with jacketed bullets in a subway to stop a guy with a gun who is threatening him and hits a bunch of bystanders with the spray and blow through. There are simply better self defense weapons and ammo that pose far less danger to the crowd. But if that is the only weapon he had, can you prosecute him for not defending himself?
    Absolutely, under absolute liability he is responsible for the choice of weapon to defend himself with as well. If he chooses hand grenades, he bares the consequences of that choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    If you have a law that says you have to choose weapons that do not pose an unnecessary danger but are still effective and easy to use, then you can better prosecute for negligence when he hammers the bystanders. Or to turn it around, so long as someone is using a reasonable weapon in a reasonable situation, they should get reasonable protection from accidents that occur.
    That increases the margin for judicial and jurist activism. Jurist A doesn't like guns so they determine that any gun is "unreasonable."

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    An interesting video about guns and self defense that is in line with Sig's argument I believe...

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/for-self-...e-22-beats-45/

    It argues (in an entertaining yet very reasonable way) that a .22 is better for self-defense than a .45. I was skeptical at first, but after listening to the argument (which is brief, only 4mins), it actually makes sense.

    So, with that knowledge (assuming you accept it), does it change the way we look at gun laws?

    What if we were to ban all firearms w/ exception of:

    1) certain weapons allowable for hunting or recreational use (target practice used only at certified/licensed areas)
    2) allow people to defend themselves with .22 caliber weapons (assuming the argument in the video is sound).
    3) only these .22 are allowed in public areas, other guns such as "exotic weapons" and even recreational weapons (#1) are outlawed outside of their designated areas.

    Wouldn't this cut down dramatically on the amount of gun deaths as well as provide a way for citizens to defend themselves? Easier prosecution with laws that can be specifically tailored against specific types of guns + allowances for citizens to own guns for self-defense and recreational use.

    Right now, it seems more like a free-for-all and our defense of this is "We need to defend ourselves, it is our right to do so." Very well, then allow what is necessary to defend while at the same time create tougher yet more streamlined laws against illegal guns (as defined through 1-3 above).
    Video aside (and I have some objections to the claims made), the question is what are we defending ourselves from?

    A .22 is defeated if I buy some scrap iron and tie it to my chest.

    Likewise, what about that armaments' role as a check on governmental excess?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    --Regarding link--
    If your not interested in discussing the link.. skip.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/for-self-...e-22-beats-45/

    For the record, my hand gun is a 45 1911, and a 40.


    Quote Originally Posted by APOK
    It argues (in an entertaining yet very reasonable way) that a .22 is better for self-defense than a .45. I was skeptical at first, but after listening to the argument (which is brief, only 4mins), it actually makes sense.
    TO THE BAT-STUDY ROBIN!
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    .25ACP

    # of people shot - 68
    # of hits - 150
    % of hits that were fatal - 25%
    Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.2
    % of people who were not incapacitated - 35%
    One-shot-stop % - 30%
    Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 62%
    % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 49%

    45 ACP
    # of people shot - 209
    # of hits - 436
    % of hits that were fatal - 29%
    Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
    % of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
    One-shot-stop % - 39%
    Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
    % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%
    One number not in there that I am interested in is # of shots fired.


    One of the criteria he uses is missing with a fire arm, bringing into the comparison recoil and ability to get a second round on the target.
    Funny thing about that, the report he uses shows that the "accuracy" is higher with a .45 than a .22. I'm not saying a 45 is more accurate, I'm just saying he is going against the data here. So according to the "data" the 45 is better. Significantly more IMO.. 62% for the .22 and 85% for the .45. Who knows.. maybe the people with the 45 trained more even though (as the video points out) the ammo is more expensive. Or maybe there is something simply superior to shooting someone with a beautiful 1911, vs those ugly .22 (appeal to emotion fallacy for effect).


    I object to the "missing the target". If you are being attacked and you are going to miss a person at point blank range, then you don't need to carry a gun. But assuming a miss (as he does), 45 are not that much more difficult to fire at center mass, and it is always, ALWAYS easier to hit center mass than a head shot if incapacitation is necessary.

    --
    The number of shots required to render a target "stopped" is important. The person who is going to be scared away by a gun at all, or run away from the loud boom is going to react the same between the two guns. But rendering a assailant unable to attack is very important, because you have to protect yourself against committed attackers. I wouldn't get into a shoot out with a .22.

    The reason? It requires or is suggested that you use 2-4 rounds in the chest. The data shows that the .22 has a much higher rate at failing to incapacitate the attacker all together. Now this number doesn't matter at all if you don't plan on being attacked by a "dedicated" attacker, or someone that simply isn't going to stop even if they have been shot, until they are unable to continue. The "average" is good for the .22, but it is not so good in relation to it's ability to incapacitate at all. With a .22 35% were not incapacitated (no matter how many times they were shot) Where as the .45 only 14% were not incapacitated. To me that earns the .22 a failing grade. Specifically because it is very bad at effecting a specific kind of attacker, namely the dedicated one. (again, if you don't think that is a big enough risk and are willing to take that chance, then yes a .22 appears to be just fine).


    Quote Originally Posted by FRONT SIGHT
    If carrying a .380, .32, .25, or .22, then you should not count on two rounds to the chest to stop a dedicated opponent. Your standard response when carrying a pocket pistol is two to three rounds to the cranio-ocular cavity. Yes, this is harder to accomplish. If you are going to carry a pocket pistol, then you must train MORE than if you carry a larger gun.
    In one of front sights training manuals more than 2 rounds to the chest with a 40 or 45 (or larger) was considered "excessive". But with the smaller rounds it is "required" or expected in order to stop the threat. .. and with a .22 those 4 rounds are expected to be in the face area.

    Point is, a dedicated attacker probably will not be stopped with a single round from a .22 and while the video makes it sound "easy" to get a head shot If you expect to miss a whole person with a .45 at the same range, then you haven't got a prayer at getting a head shot. If the attacker is armed and shooting back, the time between shot #1 and shot #4-6 (when you can expect him to be neutralized) is long indeed.


    The actual report #'s through which the guy makes his accounts.


    -One shot stop-
    The .45 is 9% more effective at this. That is huge IMO. If you hit your target (like you are supposed too), and you have to chose between two things and one has a near 10% better effectiveness.. wouldn't you choose the more effective one? Also, when your target could be shooting back at you (say with a .22) you really need to stop it on the first shot, because more shots = more time, and more time means risk to life and limb. All of which avoiding or preventing is the reason to carry at all.



    --My conclusion--
    First, when looking at the data, and seeing that the 45 is superior in every category.. I wonder how one can conclude that the .22 is "better" at all.

    The second is his use of the word "better" to describe an entire round or family of guns over another.
    That is simply not how it works. Statistics don't work in real life application, they describe past real life applications and project it.

    So if you choose a gun that is not able to stop a guy with body armor and firing back at you, then the gun you have is not "better" when your picking your kid up from school, and such a person walks in the classroom.

    But, if you are willing to take that risk, then that gun is just fine. So I would rather grade a gun or round based on it's ability to address specific risks. The report quoted doesn't do that and instead deals with bulk numbers (which is useful), but I don't think it addresses the heart of the question of "which is better", thus any conclusion is really going to be limited IMO.


    Hope that didn't derail the thread
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    ALL aggressors, foreign and domestic.
    Criminals are domestic aggressors as were the native Americans and other factions in the area. I'll grant you there was a powers vs powers idea in the time of the federal state government vs the individual states at the time and the militia provision to some extent stood counter to the federal authority to raise a standing army.

    So what happens if our own government turns tyrannical?
    You vote them out of office. Its been working well for 400+ years with one exception which was a civil war. And that was a war so the south found itself unbounded by anything the constitution had to say on the matter of armed rebellion.

    Let's say twenty years from now The President says he's suspending the Constitution and citizen's rights, will ignore all votes from the citizenry, and everyone has to do what he says or he'll have them executed. If the only way to remove him from power is with force, shouldn't the citizens have the option of using such force?
    If the president decides to suspend the constitution, what do you care what the law says about what weapons you can carry or use? At that point you have dissolved the social contract and all bets are off. At that point the president has declared open warfare on the people and the people can declare open warfare on him. I doubt very much any such move would find any kind of support from the armed forces, his party, or anyone else.

    Unless you are planning on stocking up on some jet fighters, an hardened communications system, some tanks, a large set of explosives, spy drones and so on you won't succeed at any kind of rebellion backed by the US military, and if the US military isn't backing it up, you don't really have any need to do the fighting as they will be doing it for you / with you.
    Last edited by Sigfried; September 12th, 2012 at 08:40 AM.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #71
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Criminals are domestic aggressors as were the native Americans and other factions in the area.
    As were the Whiskey rebellion members too, that doesn't really change the point I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    You vote them out of office. Its been working well for 400+ years.
    But then they wouldn't be tyrannical would they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    If the president decides to suspend the constitution, what do you care what the law says about what weapons you can carry or use?
    You are mistaking the ability to arm ourselves post-suspension with being prepared to defend ourselves when it happens. If you wait until you're rights are removed to prepare you are far, far behind the curve.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Unless you are planning on stocking up on some jet fighters, an hardened communications system, some tanks, a large set of explosives, spy drones and so on you won't succeed at any kind of rebellion backed by the US military, and if the US military isn't backing it up, you don't really have any need to do the fighting as they will be doing it for you / with you.
    I'm not so sure this is accurate. The British army in 1918 was one of the best trained, best equipped forces in the world and it was fought to a standstill by the IRA and IRB. You are assuming that victory is subjugation of the enemy, but that isn't always accurate. Victory can be as simple as being left alone or prompting internal dissent within enemy forces. That is the nature and purpose of asymmetric warfare.

    A quick aside.

    My Company Commander was terrible in Iraq (04-05) because he didn't understand the OPFOR's (opposing force) goals. They had placed IEDs under an overpass and his response was a static defense (a bunker). Static (or strongpoint) defenses are great when the enemy's goal is to retain a piece of terrain, get freedom of maneuver or deny your use of terrain. The pattern is that those defenses are good against terrain based missions. They aren't effective if the enemy's goal is to attrit you (which in our case it was). A mobile defense, ambush or spoiling attack would have been more appropriate.

    Likewise, our future revolutionaries might not have a goal to control a state or a region, they could well be focused on denying freedom of maneuver or inflicting casualties, or preventing effective stability operations or to erode will. Those fights require effective weaponry, but not equivalent weaponry.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #72
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I highly doubt that. A militia exists to protect the state, not to overthrow it. The republic was created with the idea that it was representative of the people. There is no need for an armed revolution against a government that you can simply vote out of office without firing a shot. Nothing in the Constitution says the militia exists to overthrow the state that regulates the militia. That just makes no sense. Well regulated military serve the purpose of defending the state against aggressors.
    From the Founder's mouths and other authorities:
    Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

    -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

    -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
    "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

    -- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
    Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

    -- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
    The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

    -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
    No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.

    -- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775
    And from the opposite corner:
    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

    -- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.
    So, Sig, doubt what you choose, but recorded history says otherwise. The founders saw gun ownership as something instrumental to freedom, not merely as expression, but as actively maintaining it against a government that may wish to become tyrannical. Some people forget just how cynical and distrustful the founders were towards government.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. Thanks MindTrap028, Squatch347 thanked for this post
  15. #73
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Criminals are domestic aggressors as were the native Americans and other factions in the area. I'll grant you there was a powers vs powers idea in the time of the federal state government vs the individual states at the time and the militia provision to some extent stood counter to the federal authority to raise a standing army.
    But regardless, one's own government can potentially be a threat to one's liberty. There are countless historical examples of this happening so that is clearly one of the potential aggressors that we have the right to defend against.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If the president decides to suspend the constitution, what do you care what the law says about what weapons you can carry or use?
    I care about the laws that exist before that happens, though. If the citizenry are not allowed weapons prior to that event, the less likely they will be able to oppose his actions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I doubt very much any such move would find any kind of support from the armed forces, his party, or anyone else.
    There are plenty of examples of dictators successfully taking over a country.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Unless you are planning on stocking up on some jet fighters, an hardened communications system, some tanks, a large set of explosives, spy drones and so on you won't succeed at any kind of rebellion backed by the US military, and if the US military isn't backing it up, you don't really have any need to do the fighting as they will be doing it for you / with you.
    What if half of the military supports the dictatorship and half of the military opposes it? Don't you think in that situation, as well as countless other possible scenarios, hundreds of millions of armed citizens defending their own liberty might succeed?

  16. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But regardless, one's own government can potentially be a threat to one's liberty. There are countless historical examples of this happening so that is clearly one of the potential aggressors that we have the right to defend against.
    I would amend this sentence to say that one's own government is the single GREATEST threat to one's liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If the president decides to suspend the constitution
    Being that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the President cannot suspend it. He could try, but he would fail and be impeached.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Unless you are planning on stocking up on some jet fighters, an hardened communications system, some tanks, a large set of explosives, spy drones and so on you won't succeed at any kind of rebellion backed by the US military, and if the US military isn't backing it up, you don't really have any need to do the fighting as they will be doing it for you / with you.
    If you are suggesting that in order to win a war, or at least not lose it one needs technological equality, then please explain why we couldnt win in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and many other conflicts.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What if half of the military supports the dictatorship and half of the military opposes it? Don't you think in that situation, as well as countless other possible scenarios, hundreds of millions of armed citizens defending their own liberty might succeed?
    It should be noted that the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President. Also, most military members, especially in the Marine Corps, are Conservatives. (Personal anecdote) and strongly support the idea of a free and liberty rich America...I can assure you that the Marine Corps, especially, would never fight for a dictatorship.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #75
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I would amend this sentence to say that one's own government is the single GREATEST threat to one's liberty.
    Not always. In WWII the Nazis were a greater threat to people's liberty in Poland (just to pick one example) than Poland's government was.


    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    It should be noted that the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President. Also, most military members, especially in the Marine Corps, are Conservatives. (Personal anecdote) and strongly support the idea of a free and liberty rich America...I can assure you that the Marine Corps, especially, would never fight for a dictatorship.
    That assumes that they recognize the dictatorship for what it is and/or that a soldier's motive is always pure.

  18. #76
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Not always. In WWII the Nazis were a greater threat to people's liberty in Poland (just to pick one example) than Poland's government was.
    Valid point.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  19. #77
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Well, 100% of all murders were committed by people....thats higher than your 78.9 %, so I win.

    And its "there" as in, "That post over there that says inanimate objects kill people intentionally is pretty absurd."
    So if "people" kill people, as your thinking goes, then why are "people" legal?

    That seems pretty absurd to me....

    Nukes dont kill people, people kill people. Why can't I buy a Nuke then?

  20. #78
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    So if "people" kill people, as your thinking goes, then why are "people" legal?
    People cannot be "legal" or "illegal." They exist as a primary endpoint and purpose for the law... not as an object of it. Guns, on the other hand, are inanimate objects. The comparison is totally invalid. A person is only evaluated in terms of the law by what they do, not what they are. Gun control laws are based purely upon what the gun is and not what action is taken by the person using it.

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret
    Nukes dont kill people, people kill people. Why can't I buy a Nuke then?
    There are certain precautions that must be taken in order to keep a nuclear weapon, even just sitting somewhere not armed or ready to detonate, from hurting other people just by virtue of the highly unstable and inherently dangerous materials used in its construction. Unless you have the facilities to keep other people safe from that weapon's inherent effects that it does just by virtue of its existence, then your ownership of a nuclear weapon constitutes a real and constant threat to the public's safety, whether or not you detonate it.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  21. #79
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Oh ya, been meaning to get back to this one.

    Intent of founding fathers
    Ibseld was very persuasive in his argument and I agree that the founders, or at least some of them had defending yourself against the state in mind when they included the second amendment, especially those most vocal in favor of it.

    Winning against the military
    Squatch's points I find less persuasive. "Victory" is not simply annoying and disrupting the powers that be. Unless you can gain a meaningful political victory its not much of a victory at all. Being a rebel isn't the American dream. George Washington would not have been much satisfied if he'd only succeed in annoying the British, he wanted them to capitulate to American independence. For the second amendment to be meaningful as a deterrent to tyranny it would need to allow much more than planting some IEDs around the country.

    I think trust in a military that is composed of and controlled by good people is a much better protection than a home arsenal is. On occasions where those who do have them have opposed the state in the US, they have been crushed. On the one occasion where we potentially had tyranny... the state and military split and we had a civil war rather than an insurgency... and the "tyrants" won.

    How much does technology matter?
    It matters a lot when you have a like on like combat. It matters less in asymmetric conflicts. Why did we struggle/loose Korea/Vietnam? For starters we were in their country and projecting force is very difficult. Second they had the backing of countries with similar technology. Third, they had a much larger pool of combatants to draw on. Fourth they had a home field advantage.

    Invading countries is hard, fighting in your own country is not so hard. On a militia vs the military scenario both have home field advantage. (though the militia has a slight edge due to very localized knowledge vs the military's more general knowledge.)

    Bottom line is...
    Practically the idea of an effective militia is likely fantasy. It does not have many examples of success as where non-violent political efforts have a long history of success in american politics. Having the kind of militia that realistically can resist the might of the US armed forces is not practical. Few if any Americans could actually afford the kinds of equipment you would need, much less have the temperament for it.

    If you are relying on the idea of parts of the armed forces rebelling, well that is probably sound but it undermines the idea that a militia would be the primary mode of defense against such an event. I do think perhaps that the mentality of independence and liberty are good pursuits and that the ideal of the militia helps support that mode of thinking. It likely has more symbolic purpose than practical.

    Ultimately if our government is working as it should, then there is never any need for am militia uprising.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #80
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Ultimately if our government is working as it should, then there is never any need for am militia uprising.
    Bottom line, the faith that this statement will always be true, is not very well founded IMO. The founders seemed to think that it is a very unreasonable expectation indeed. Given the history of the world, and all gov it seems much more likely that we should plan on the eventual rise of a tyrannical gov here in the U.S.

    I think the idea of Tyranny is watered down. You think of examples such as the civil war, which indeed were a fight over a shad of tyranny. But full fledged Tyranny looks much more like Nazi Germany did to the Jews, or what Rwanda went through. You are right to point out that there is no Guarantee of success. But I see no reason for that guarantee in order to justify individual right to own guns. there is no way to guarantee a "right to succeed", but it doesn't take much to recognize that every person has an inherent right to defend himself against a tyranny (in all it's forms). If that means dying in your home gun in hand, vs dying at the Guillotine or gas chamber as you helplessly watch your family raped, murdered, taken off to jail or other wise lined up to face certain death by whatever nut job just so happens to occupy the seat of power, then so be it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do you believe guns kill people?
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: December 21st, 2013, 12:51 PM
  2. Moral Dilemma: To Kill Him or not to Kill him
    By Idunno in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2009, 12:57 AM
  3. Guns and Voters
    By Slater in forum Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 27th, 2008, 03:21 PM
  4. Zombies With Guns...Can They Or Can't They
    By zombiewithguns in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2006, 05:47 AM
  5. How many guns do you own?
    By Atticus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: August 30th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •