*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #60 on: August 16, 2016, 01:37:13 PM »

It was an exercise in exaggeration to prove a point, that the semi-automatic rifle men of America are a credible deterrent if the government decides to do something mental. And I’m not suggesting they are about too.

What I don’t get is the rabid response to legislation on this, the last bit that got chucked back was to deny the sale of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists! The distance from this “thin end” to where you are on the wedge is considerable.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #61 on: August 17, 2016, 02:23:28 AM »
It was an exercise in exaggeration to prove a point, that the semi-automatic rifle men of America are a credible deterrent if the government decides to do something mental. And I’m not suggesting they are about too.

You seem to have a strange idea of what "the government" is. It's not some monolithic entity.


What I don’t get is the rabid response to legislation on this, the last bit that got chucked back was to deny the sale of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists! The distance from this “thin end” to where you are on the wedge is considerable.

Oh no, terrorists! Won't someone think of the children?

There are so many terrorists that I almost have a higher chance of getting killed by one than getting struck by lightning in a storm. Oh geez, maybe we need some sort of curfew during thunderstorms to curtail all of these terrible lightning deaths.

When a government starts doing anything in the name of the "war on terror" then a little red flag should pop up.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #62 on: August 17, 2016, 11:49:18 AM »
It was an exercise in exaggeration to prove a point, that the semi-automatic rifle men of America are a credible deterrent if the government decides to do something mental. And I’m not suggesting they are about too.

You seem to have a strange idea of what "the government" is. It's not some monolithic entity.

Well quite! But seeing as you mentioned it 20 times on the last page I thought it might be this organisation or sections thereof that you were getting ready to repel for denying you your rites.
Quote from: Rushy
  If you don't do what the government says, it will punish you.
A warning that if a government goes too far, it is the right of the people to draw the line.

My point being that if you are the minority (see the 75% v 25% discussion), that majority has organised fire power that renders you insignificant.

Your claim that “it would be a wildly unpopular move to use military force on domestic targets. That would only further encourage domestic rebellion and cause your military to start defecting or deserting.” Is only partly true on the first point; presumably any altercation would be proceeded by rhetoric similar or more inflammatory than yours in this discussion and a threat or incident that catalyses a response, all of which would polarise the 75% into a defensive posture, especially when you threaten the use of arms from the outset.

On the second point you are wildly naïve. Your law enforcement agencies are no different from those around/across the world, young men trained and indoctrinated to follow orders and use weapons. These forces when called into a tense situation and ordered to shoot the innocent, show very few qualms and in many cases demonstrate an enthusiasm to use that training, either through a misplaced sense of danger, pavlovian response to direct orders or outright sadism. (see Kent State shootings, Ludlow mines massacre, My Lai… ad-nauseam), how much easier when it’s bunch of crusty old boys in army surplus who have just shot the sheriff.

All of which nullifies your point of having weapons in the first place, other than a .22 for gophers.


What I don’t get is the rabid response to legislation on this, the last bit that got chucked back was to deny the sale of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists! The distance from this “thin end” to where you are on the wedge is considerable.

Oh no, terrorists! Won't someone think of the children?

There are so many terrorists that I almost have a higher chance of getting killed by one than getting struck by lightning in a storm. Oh geez, maybe we need some sort of curfew during thunderstorms to curtail all of these terrible lightning deaths.

When a government starts doing anything in the name of the "war on terror" then a little red flag should pop up.

Fair enough, the War on terror/Red menace kind of thinking rarely produces good legislation.
 However are there no laws that you can think of or ways to cut down on the 33,000 deaths and 73,000 injuries that your country inflicts on itself every year with guns? If 73,000 people were injured using TV’s they would be in cages.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2016, 09:38:04 PM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #63 on: August 18, 2016, 12:55:27 AM »
My point being that if you are the minority (see the 75% v 25% discussion), that majority has organised fire power that renders you insignificant.

That assumes the majority is armed or well organized, which isn't always true and definitely doesn't stay true for long. It only takes 10% of a nation's population to take over the other 90% with enough zealotry.

Your claim that “it would be a wildly unpopular move to use military force on domestic targets. That would only further encourage domestic rebellion and cause your military to start defecting or deserting.” Is only partly true on the first point; presumably any altercation would be proceeded by rhetoric similar or more inflammatory than yours in this discussion and a threat or incident that catalyses a response, all of which would polarise the 75% into a defensive posture, especially when you threaten the use of arms from the outset.

The military moving against domestic targets will cause it to fragment regardless. Some X% of the military is going to agree with the rebels.

On the second point you are wildly naïve. Your law enforcement agencies are no different from those around/across the world, young men trained and indoctrinated to follow orders and use weapons. These forces when called into a tense situation and ordered to shoot the innocent, show very few qualms and in many cases demonstrate an enthusiasm to use that training, either through a misplaced sense of danger, pavlovian response to direct orders or outright sadism. (see Kent State shootings, Ludlow mines massacre, My Lai… ad-nauseam), how much easier when it’s bunch of crusty old boys in army surplus who have just shot the sheriff.

The "police and military are robot people" is either a result of you having no idea what the military or police really do or you live in an already oppressive regime.

Fair enough, the War on terror/Red menace kind of thinking rarely produces good legislation.
 However are there no laws that you can think of or ways to cut down on the 33,000 deaths and 73,000 injuries that your country inflicts on itself every year with guns? If 73,000 people were injured using TV’s they would be in cages.

Your figures include suicide and attempted suicide. The real number is 11,000 deaths due to homicide, almost all of which is gang violence, and even then, it's further concentrated in specific cities. (Chicago, Flint, Detroit...)

The "gun violence" problem simply isn't a problem with guns, it's a problem with minority gangs and inner city poverty. You can't fix that by banning guns, which Chicago is finding out the hard way. In the grand scheme of things 11,000 people in a country of 300 million people... that's 0.00003% of the population. Are you really telling me that we need to ban or curb ALL of a tool to stop a problem that affects a population percentage so small that most calculators won't even display it in decimal? More recent statistics show the number is closer to 8000 now. Do you believe that is statistically significant enough to warrant the removal of firearms from law-abiding citizens because some teeny, tiny, laughably small part of the population uses them to kill innocents?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2016, 01:01:39 AM by Rushy »

Rama Set

Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #64 on: August 18, 2016, 03:29:47 AM »
Can people stop propping up Chicago as the big bad gun homicide city?  It has figured out of the top 20 in recent years, whereas there are cities with lax gun laws with much worse homicide rates, like St. Louis.  I don't disagree that Chicago has too many murders and that they are largely related to gang-related incidents, but it is so tiring to see people say, "see Chicago is proof that gun laws don't work!"

Anyway, I know it is minor.  Just peeves me.  It peeves me hard.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #65 on: August 18, 2016, 10:33:47 PM »
Can people stop propping up Chicago as the big bad gun homicide city?  It has figured out of the top 20 in recent years, whereas there are cities with lax gun laws with much worse homicide rates, like St. Louis.  I don't disagree that Chicago has too many murders and that they are largely related to gang-related incidents, but it is so tiring to see people say, "see Chicago is proof that gun laws don't work!"

Anyway, I know it is minor.  Just peeves me.  It peeves me hard.

Compare Chicago's homicide rates before and after the gun laws were implemented after shifting the rate to compensate for the general downward trend of the entire country's homicide rate. Their gun laws had no significant effect.

Rama Set

Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2016, 05:23:45 AM »
I'm not saying the gun laws did have an effect, but that is the position of many a gun rights advocate.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #67 on: August 19, 2016, 03:18:22 PM »

My point being that if you are the minority (see the 75% v 25% discussion), that majority has organised fire power that renders you insignificant.

That assumes the majority is armed or well organized, which isn't always true and definitely doesn't stay true for long. It only takes 10% of a nation's population to take over the other 90% with enough zealotry.

No I’m assuming that the majority has the police and Army (Hence- organised fire power).


On the second point you are wildly naïve. Your law enforcement agencies are no different from those around/across the world, young men trained and indoctrinated to follow orders and use weapons. These forces when called into a tense situation and ordered to shoot the innocent, show very few qualms and in many cases demonstrate an enthusiasm to use that training, either through a misplaced sense of danger, pavlovian response to direct orders or outright sadism. (see Kent State shootings, Ludlow mines massacre, My Lai… ad-nauseam), how much easier when it’s bunch of crusty old boys in army surplus who have just shot the sheriff.

The "police and military are robot people" is either a result of you having no idea what the military or police really do or you live in an already oppressive regime.

Like I said, wildly naïve; For all the reasons and examples above.

 I take it as the resident hard ass from the Flying 55th, your trump card is military experience.

So I will tell you a little story and hope it doesn't come across as a pissing contest, as it wasn't the best time in my life (and it has relevance to the above).

Back in the days when the British forces weapon(?) of choice was the SLR I was getting to the end of my basic training for the RAF at Swinderby. We were at the stage when all the flights (like a platoon) were in a marching contest in front of the top brass there, a week or so from passing out. It was January at a time when that meant snow, so it was in one of the hangers. There was repair work going on way up in the roof, suspended for the day but all the gantries and equipment was obviously still up there. Our flight was up and we were duly marching up and down as you do. A 2” x 2” piece of wood from the gantry dropped straight down and hit one of our front row breaking his collar bone and knocking him to the floor, we kept going, marched straight over the poor fucker adding various cuts, bruises, 2 broken ribs and concussion, picked up our rhythm and won the contest.

I did also know some proper soldiers too, my school friend, whose father was a Royal marine joined the royal engineers, his brother in law was in the horse Guards, did two tours of Ireland during the “troubles” left after 9 years and ended up in and out of mental institutions and finally disappeared presumed living rough. My Father -Blues and royals, Grandad- Sherwood Foresters.
 Sooo… after all that bollocks I do have an inkling of what goes on in the military mind, and on the whole I was never impressed. For every good guy there were hordes of knuckle dragging numpties who in my opinion would have loved the chance to open fire on just about anyone, very few whose politics went beyond a reactionary stance that supported their choice to carry weapons and not one who I believed joined to make the world safer.
My school friend embraced the “squaddie” mentality served as many years as they would allow him and according to his brother is now a fat alcoholic willing to fight anyone, we lost touch.

Robots? No just young people drawn to the lifestyle, trained to kill/obey, in such a manner that they do so without doubt or question. That being the point, trust they will see the validity of your point when told to fire at your peril.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

George

Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #68 on: August 19, 2016, 04:03:29 PM »
Back in the days when the British forces weapon(?) of choice was the SLR I was getting to the end of my basic training for the RAF at Swinderby. We were at the stage when all the flights (like a platoon) were in a marching contest in front of the top brass there, a week or so from passing out. It was January at a time when that meant snow, so it was in one of the hangers. There was repair work going on way up in the roof, suspended for the day but all the gantries and equipment was obviously still up there. Our flight was up and we were duly marching up and down as you do. A 2” x 2” piece of wood from the gantry dropped straight down and hit one of our front row breaking his collar bone and knocking him to the floor, we kept going, marched straight over the poor fucker adding various cuts, bruises, 2 broken ribs and concussion, picked up our rhythm and won the contest.

Wow, you're a fucking dick.

Quote
For every good guy there were hordes of knuckle dragging numpties who in my opinion would have loved the chance to open fire on just about anyone

Yeah, and you sound like a prime example.  No wonder you're so cynical.  Assholes like to assure themselves that deep down, everyone is just as shitty as they are.

Rama Set

Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2016, 06:19:02 PM »
Behold!


*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #70 on: August 20, 2016, 09:10:42 PM »

Wow, George missing the point, didn't expect that.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

George

Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #71 on: August 20, 2016, 09:45:42 PM »
But this isn't an indictment of the military; it's an indictment of you.  It would have been one thing if it was in the middle of a mission or something, like if one of your guys went down, but you had to keep moving forward, and so you left him to fend for himself, but this is nothing like that.  You didn't stomp over a severely-injured man and hurt him further for the sake of completing a mission, defeating the enemy, serving your country, or even a misplaced sense of patriotism; you did it to win a stupid fucking contest.  For your own selfish benefit, in other words.  Really, the only part of this story that's a proper criticism of the military as an institution is the fact that they inexplicably rewarded you for almost killing one of your fellow soldiers.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« Reply #72 on: August 20, 2016, 10:15:16 PM »

Now you are almost getting it.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.