patrick.net

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state. Hoping differently is foolish. You won't be keeping guns out of the next massacre.

I've made this argument before. The USA's military presence in Europe is what allows those nations to spend so little on defense. Fewer guns in their culture is one benefit of such an arrangement. What you are hoping for is a change in human nature on the part of the government - not only the citizen.

deepcgi says

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state.

Absurd. The UK has some of the strongest gun control laws in the world, and their cops don't even carry guns.

Call it Crazy says

The guard actually drove the shooters into the building and then stayed outside waiting for the police to arrive, giving the shooters plenty of time for their rampage inside the school.

So then it would seem that having armed guards at schools is not an effective way to prevent violence.

I have no more faith in government than in sociopathic gun owners. One need not return to the 1700's for examples of governmental abuse against its citizens - last week would do nicely. If you wish to only consider the "first" world, then certainly stray no further back than the 1940's. Or do we believe that with the era of WMD's came sanity in governance?

Call it Crazy says

Not when they are sitting OUTSIDE the building eating lunch in their car. I think they work better when stationed INSIDE the school.

Right. Because it would have been impossible for the guard to walk into the school....

Maybe we could just have guns set up every 10 feet that automatically shoot at you. Or we could find a realistic solution.

Like 911, Columbine was a sucker punch. You don't leave your back door unlocked after the first break-in.

I think the problem is that you guys seem to be confusing reality with a Rambo movie.

Equating the opposing position with a trigger happy mental case is just what I would expect. How many riots occur at football games in the UK as opposed to "football" games in the US? A culture of violence without the culture of guns, huh? I see no evidence of evolution there. Some lame legislation banning assault weapons will save no one. Extreme action like repealing the second amendment will save no one. There is no "legislation" that will have an effect on culture. There are too many humans in too close proximity to one another. Paranoia will likely increase in proportion

Criticize the glorification of violence. That is the key. And let's not be foolish and expect our governments to hesitate to abuse power. We haven't even declared war and yet the government wages it continuously.

The Soviet government (and our own CIA) thought that it was impossible that the Union could splinter so quickly, since Joe Soviet was powerless in comparison to the Soviet military - just like Joe Six Pack is no match for the US war machine, but just as in the Soviet Union, it turns out that "Joe" staffs the military and wouldn't even consider firing on his own people. The union simply fractured and the overwhelming military might made no difference at all. Money matters more than weapons. Criticize the video games and the Rambo movies rather than the gun owners. The rule of law would be a good idea. Simply upholding existing laws. A deemphasis of nonviolent crime versus violent crime is another good idea. Not going to war unless it is declared is another.

A US Senator was a neighbor of mine on 911. I had the chance to ask him personally if we would be declaring war soon. He told me, "it's very highly unlikely. If we declare war, we let a lot of insurance companies off the hook for reconstruction costs in Manhattan. Sadly that is just the way it is."

deepcgi says

. How many riots occur at football games in the UK as opposed to "football" games in the US? A culture of violence without the culture of guns, huh? I see no evidence of evolution there.

Now you're finally starting to get it. Around 9,000 gun murders in the U.S. each year. How many in the U.K.? Less than 50. As you say, both countries have a culture of violence. What's the difference? We have guns, and they don't.

To slightly change an oft-used quote: "It's the guns, stupid".

deepcgi says

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state. Hoping differently is foolish. You won't be keeping guns out of the next massacre.

So the rest of the first world is a police state? Funny I never noticed when I travelled or lived overseas. The US has just about the least civil rights in the OECD and you don't even know it.

About 50 homicides per year by guns, but about another 700 to 750 murders by other means. Plus the population of the UK is 6 times smaller than the the US. The number of "murders per million" is HIGHER in the UK. Over 30 percent of the murders were by use of a knife.

Now you're getting it.

As far as the the police state comment is concerned, reread the posts.

deepcgi says

The number of "murders per million" is HIGHER in the UK.

What are you talking about? No it's not. Not even close. The per-capita murder rate is like 4 times higher in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Homeboy says

What are you talking about? No it's not. Not even close. The per-capita murder rate is like 4 times higher in the U.S.

Don't confuse ideologues with facts.

I think deepcgi may be on to something. Let's follow his thinking to the logical conclusion. Armed guards at every school is a good start. But wait people have shot up malls. By god, armed guards at the malls then. But wait what about government buildings, been plenty of them shot up. Armed guards are clearly the answer there also. Banks, stores, gas stations, sports arena's. Bring it on. The logical end point is to have armed guards for every place people gather in groups of 2 or more. The TSA is the logical agency to provide them. Think of the benefits to the unemployment rate. Plus the greatest benefit of preventing living in a police state. See, if you just think it through it all becomes clear.

There is a huge debate in the UK (whatever apologists say) about the accuracy of the numbers.

The longest standing trick is to report ONLY England and Wales in the "UK" numbers, leaving out Northern Ireland and Scotland, which are more violent areas; Glasgow is the stabbing capital of Europe, and Belfast is also pretty violent.

The UK's murder rate would rise substantially if they were to be included.

The 'official' numbers reported a 20% drop in murder over the past 2 years - which is so great, it should be treated with a great deal of skepticism!

In 2011, the same time the Wales & England murder rate dropped 16%, homicides were up 19% YOY in Scotland! Something does not compute!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16175439

BTW, in Japan, if some guy flips out and kills his wife and two kids, then himself, it counts as 4 suicides according to their figuring, rather than 1 suicide and 3 murders.

Bob2356:

If you outlaw guns, does that mean the government and private security give them up as well? No? Then the guards are armed everywhere. Not my idea to arm anyone but the citizens, that's your idea.

And homeboy is right about UK murders not being higher.... just in Scotland - where if you're the victim of homicide, there is a 63 percent chance you were stabbed. (probably head butted first though - they like that).

Number of people head butted before being murdered anywhere else in the world ...0
In Scotland ... Most.

It's the foreheads, stupid. Outlaw foreheads and we'll reduce the murder rate in Scotland overnight.

Oh, and a single stab is very rarely fatal. In Scotland, if you're murdered, you are stabbed and stabbed over and over again. Much more civilized than gun violence.

thunderlips11 says

There is a huge debate in the UK (whatever apologists say) about the accuracy of the numbers.

The longest standing trick is to report ONLY England and Wales in the "UK" numbers, leaving out Northern Ireland and Scotland, which are more violent areas; Glasgow is the stabbing capital of Europe, and Belfast is also pretty violent.

The murder rate in Scotland was 2.14 per 100,000. Northern Ireland, 1.52. So even if you count ONLY those places, the rate is far below the U.S. rate of 4.2.

You gun guys really seem to be in denial about what the actual facts are. I guess sometimes you just want something SO BAD, that the truth doesn't matter to you anymore.

deepcgi says

If you outlaw guns, does that mean the government and private security give them up as well? No? Then the guards are armed everywhere. Not my idea to arm anyone but the citizens, that's your idea.

The word of the day is satire. Look it up.

Remind me again how many schools, malls, etc. have been shot up by government (wtf is government, military, police, what?) and private security firms. How many murders a year?

Where did I say we shouldn't arm the citizens? You are assuming that. You know what they say about assume. Allow citizens who are responsible and trained to arm themselves. Although no other country even comes close to gun ownership rates in the US there are plenty with relatively high ownership rates and very low murder rates. How can they do it and not the US? Simple, their requirements to own a gun are higher than having a pulse and a couple hundred bucks.

Why do the gun advocates like you fight so hard to avoid any kind of accountability? Why not have a real back round check on everyone buying a gun, no exceptions? Why not track all guns nationally by serial number. Require a yearly inspection of guns at the local police station to make sure the alleged owner actually has the gun. The vast majority of guns used in crimes come from a handful of states. Have a single standard for gun sales and ownership nationally this problem goes away.

Na, we can't do any of that, there is a god given and constitutional right to individual gun ownership for 235 years. Well actually not true at all. District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 is the first ruling by the supreme court that asserts individual gun rights. But don't let simple facts stand in the way of a good rant.

Bonus points, if everyone is armed they can rise up against an unjust government. What a stupid idea. It happens in countries where the military is very small, totally corrupt, completely incompetent, and most soldiers cut and run at the first shots fired (think Egypt). It isn't going to happen in the US no matter what the NRA members fantasize.

The insanity rate is going up. Drop your defenses.

Bob:

Are you seriously asking in what schools, malls, public places were innocent civilians killed by governments or private organizations?

You see, there is the problem with the gun control lobby...short selective memories. The answer is "the vast majority". You simply leave the world wars out of your calculations and out of your mind.

There is no evidence that with weapons of mass destruction and the Information Age came the end of genocide or massive world war.

I absolutely guarrantee war will return to the first world. America funds the defense of Europe including the UK. If the US pulled its thousands of military bases from Europe, Asia, and down under, borders would fall in short order.

The total carnage created by all lone psychotics with guns is so small compared with the actions of governments that the numbers are forgotten wholesale. They are so huge we don't even consider them.

When I was a kid in the 70's, I thought world war 2 was forever ago. Back when they couldn't even make films in color. Back before television! I know my parents were around, but damn they were old.

Now, however I realize just how short a time that really was. For example, Universal is advertising the 20th anniversary release of Jurassic Park due out in the spring. A number of the freshman college students whom I teach the other day stunned me by not knowing what I was referring to when I used the term "Columbine".

Why? Because those college kids were in kindergarten when Columbine went down. It's been the blink of an eye since the rape of Nanking, Hitler, Stalin or even fall of Rome. We have not evolved. It will happen again and it will happen here. Put all of the gun controls you can in place and watch massacre after massacre continue to occur.

Demonize the glorification of violence, don't demonize gun owners by portraying them as crazy Rambo's on the loose.

About 4000 murders per year in the US are committed by illegals from Mexico. I wonder if you increased the population of the UK by ten percent by adding illegal Frenchmen to all of the low income areas, if their cultural differences would become a factor in crime.

Nowhere on earth do so many cultures and nationalities share a country together in such close proximity. There's the cause, right there. Hundreds of millions of new citizens in the US in only my lifetime. And very little culturally in common. Political correctness encouraging tolerance over common culture - and that culture being one built on Call of Duty, Spartacus, and Zombie movies.

Ignore these factors and watch the insanity continue.

deepcgi says

America funds the defense of Europe including the UK. If the US pulled its thousands of military bases from Europe, Asia, and down under, borders would fall in short order

You have no clue what you are talking about. Other than a very few specific cases like Korea the US military doesn't guard the borders of sovereign nations. Where to you get this stuff?

deepcgi says

You see, there is the problem with the gun control lobby

Obviously you didn't read my post past the first sentence.

deepcgi says

I absolutely guarrantee war will return to the first world.

What does war have to do with the murder rate? Try to stay on subject. We don't consider the numbers because they are irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Homeboy says

The Supreme Court upheld the right to have an abortion, yet it is still argued by right-wingers to this day.

Not quite. They stated that it is legal or at least should be legal and held up as constitutionally as such.

Rights are not dependent on the actions of others. Freedom of speech does not demand a given venue, that is you can speak at any time.

For abortion to be an actual right it would mean that you would have the right to another persons labor. Basically what I am saying is at least for the purposes of the surgical procedure it is dependent on access to the practioner. A women cannot simply "demand" an abortion clinic come to her overnight and perform one. It is also a procedure that requires compensation on some level.

There's a difference between something being legal and something being a right. Just as you do not have a right to vote as you have to register and various states restrict voting depending on if you are in jail.

As for guns in schools well Massachusetts has had special state police at every public college and university since the 1950's.
MGL 22C Section 63
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter22c/Section63

It also clearly leaves the legalities of having police in public schools totally open.

if it is fine here why is it somehow wrong in every other state? bob2356 says

You have no clue what you are talking about. Other than a very few specific cases like Korea the US military doesn't guard the borders of sovereign nations. Where to you get this stuff?

Um bob that's not was said. There's troops in nearly 2/3rds of the planet. Iraq is a permanent military base just as Germany is, Korea is, Afghanistan is.

The military is deployed in 150 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#cite_note-siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil-1

mdovell says

Um bob that's not was said

Um dovell, that was exactly what was said. If the US removed it's military borders would fall. BS. Boarders are being disputed or falling all the time with US troops sitting there. Very few US bases overseas are tactically in a position to field troops no matter what happens. Most are forward supply bases, naval bases, or air bases. There are only 12 countries with more than 1000 US troops, 8 of those are in Europe. Certainly the bases in Japan, Britain, Iceland, Spain, Oman, Turkey, and Italy aren't doing border protection and that's over half the countries with over 1000 troops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg

mdovell says

The military is deployed in 150 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#cite_note-siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil-1

You didn't look very carefully at your own wiki article. It says countries with less than 100 people aren't listed. There are exactly 29 listed. So 121 countries have less than 100 military stationed there. Sorry but less than a company isn't going to hold anyone's boarders.

deepcgi says

No legal action taken to regulate guns (or even repeal ammendments) will prevent the very next massacre, simply because there are too many already in circulation. Additionally, there is no evidence as far as I can discern that humans have evolved beyond the warlike and violent nature they have always displayed. Finally, it is clear that there are too few police per capita to sufficiently protect citizens or their children.

We can get rid of guns. So your whole premise is flawed. We got rid of machine guns.

StillLooking says

We got rid of machine guns.

We regulated machine guns. You can still own machine guns in certain States, and the regulation of machine guns drove the price of them up.

There are still those fire arms that are easily convertable to full auto that are in circulation, but again the price of them has gone up.

The reason full auto weapons never became a hot button was the price of amunition. You can own the weapon, but it became extremely expensive to practice with it. You can also rapid fire other weapons that give you a very similar effect.

StillLooking says

We can get rid of guns.

We can't. Criminals in the UK can have any gun they want.

M16 with rock-and-roll option found in London

Submachine guns are a preferred weapon among the Yardies.

London MAC 10 sub machine gun murder

It's also worth nothing that open-bolt submachine guns are the simplest repeating arm to manufacture. There's no bolt lockup or disconnector to deal with (not that these are complicated - Sam Colt had them figured out for his model 1900 as in year-of-design) and you don't even need a moveable firing pin.

So your whole premise is flawed. We got rid of machine guns.

Nope. There are 240,000 legally owned machine guns in private hands. Since 1934 only two have been used in crimes, the last in 1988 by a corrupt Ohio police officer who used his personal MAC to murder an informant.

We did increase the price over 10X.

mdovell says

Homeboy says

The Supreme Court upheld the right to have an abortion, yet it is still argued by right-wingers to this day.

Not quite. They stated that it is legal or at least should be legal and held up as constitutionally as such.

Rights are not dependent on the actions of others. Freedom of speech does not demand a given venue, that is you can speak at any time.

For abortion to be an actual right it would mean that you would have the right to another persons labor. Basically what I am saying is at least for the purposes of the surgical procedure it is dependent on access to the practioner. A women cannot simply "demand" an abortion clinic come to her overnight and perform one. It is also a procedure that requires compensation on some level.

There's a difference between something being legal and something being a right. Just as you do not have a right to vote as you have to register and various states restrict voting depending on if you are in jail.

I'm sorry, but this is gibberish. Nobody has any idea what you are trying to say.

drew_eckhardt says

There are 240,000 legally owned machine guns in private hands.

That doesn't account for the number of Model A Uzis, or Steyr Augs, or any receiver changable M16, or Heckler, and Koch just about anything they make, that has the capacity to be converted to full auto.

For those who state that gun possession is necessary to prevent a tyrannical state, let me ask a few questions.

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient. So, shouldn't the laws be loosened to allow individual ownership of RPGs, rockets, Sarin, etc? Would this apply to a dark-skinned guy with a long beard and turban who wants to purchase chemical weapons, or a bomb?

When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?

Homeboy says

Now you're finally starting to get it. Around 9,000 gun murders in the U.S. each year. How many in the U.K.? Less than 50. As you say, both countries have a culture of violence. What's the difference? We have guns, and they don't.

To slightly change an oft-used quote: "It's the guns, stupid".

Hum! really...

seems they like the Sweds and Germans also have Semi and Automatic Ar-15

Shooting Silenced AR-15 (in the UK)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoEmp_hjgM

SiO2 says

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

thomaswong.1986 says

SiO2 says
It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

OK, let me amend my statement.

when facing an 18th-century army, muskets are sufficient. But when facing a 21st-century army, they would not be sufficient.

If handguns are sufficient in military actions, then why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on airplanes and tanks, if we just need to go to the gun show and pick up some Glocks and AR15s?

thomaswong.1986 says

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

Read up on denial.

SiO2 says

thomaswong.1986 says

SiO2 says

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

OK, let me amend my statement.

when facing an 18th-century army, muskets are sufficient. But when facing a 21st-century army, they would not be sufficient.

If handguns are sufficient in military actions, then why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on airplanes and tanks, if we just need to go to the gun show and pick up some Glocks and AR15s?

If there was a full blown revolution or uprising:

1.) A huge number of the gun owners in the US are ex military. We are talking battle hardened dudes from enlisted to officer who understand military tactics and are experienced in combat.

2.) Every one of those dudes maintains contact with guys they used to work with. I know one dude who between him and the guys he knows and maintains active contact with, could assemble a 200 man guerilla force and be deep in the north eastern Nevada wilderness within a few hours. I'd bet it would not be long before that force would be around 500 people deep due to training wives and boys over 10 years old(and no I'm not joking).

3.) A very large number of US military divisions would turn on their government in quick order. Planes, tanks, artilery, guns.

4.) Have you not seen that Afghanistan armed resistence continues against the most powerful modern military on earth, 30 years after commencing combat with(at the time) the most powerful military on earth?

5.) Your deflection and straw man arguing against military spending is ridiculous.

Yeah, don't mess with dodgerfan - he knows a dude...

So, a lot of responses as to the feasibility of overthrowing the government with handguns. But again, if this is the point, and the 2nd amendment is to be read literally, then why not legalize ownership of every possible weapon?

also, I am interested in thoughts about my second question:
When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?

maybe the decision point is based on who wins. USA won the Revolutionary War in 1776, therefore it was warranted. The South didn't win the Civil War, therefore it was not warranted. Timothy McVeigh didn't win his revolution, therefore it was not warranted.

Any other way to look at this?

By the way, I don't intend to draw moral equivalence between Timothy McVeigh and the revolutionary war.

SiO2 said: "When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?"

The day a Declaration of Independence is signed. There's nothing ok about it. It simply happens. For better or worse. And it always happens. It's only a matter of time.

As suspected before the thread began, the new proposed gun control legislation asks law abiding gun owners to sign up with the national registry "or else". Now we need to to know what "or else" means, because many thousands of people will refuse to register or will under-register their arms because they do not accept the action of the federal government. This would mean that they do not find their elected officials are representing their interests any longer. They will rightly ask where in this law are you protecting my second amendment rights? How will the registry not be abused? And what will be done with the registry preemptively? If someone owns "too many" guns and has a son on antidepressants, where is the guarrantee that their 2nd amendment rights will be protected.

They will also argue that they could form "militias" for the purposes of defending their personal liberties.

It is foolish to have faith in the most powerful governmental entity in human history.

Ill tell you what comes next. Ma and Pa won't have to stare down a line of heavily armed marines in the street at high noon. The STATES will grow some balls and finally draw a line, because local governments answer directly to the people when the federal does not.

There is too much federal power. There is too much faith in Federal power. There is not enough fear of federal fiscal meddling. And too little language coming from the federal government that even pays lip-service to individual liberty over "the common good".