At 10/11/07 10:48 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/10/07 11:39 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 10/9/07 09:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/9/07 07:43 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

My point is that ANY rifle, an AK-47 or .270 deer rifle would have probably resulted in him getting caught. So on one level I'm agreeing with you, but only until you start limiting it to hunting rifles.

ak-47s and semi-automatic rifles possess the potential to be extremely lethal weapons... how do you propose we prevent massacres from occuring with them? i suppose a bonus is the difficulty in carrying them around and concealability though and they do make-up a negligible amont of murders and crimes.

you're kidding me right? do you even understand the plausibility in being capable of preventing the u.s military overruning this country? that amendment was written in a time where the military wasn't as powerful and domineering as it is today. you might as well legalize missiles, grenades, anti-tank guns because that would be central to trying to prevent tanks and armored humvees ravaging towns and the countryside.

Two words: Iraq & Vietnam.

i don't get it. what relevance do they bear?

the constitutional right speaks about a need for people to carry those guns to prevent a foreign invasion - firstly the u.s is effectively impregnable and the most likely scenario by far is that they would launch missiles into the u.s rather than get a standing army to try and invade which would be like pigs to the slaughterhouse. and also to prevent tyranny but with or without semi-automatics it isn't really possible for citizens to overthrow the u.s military (and this scenario is implausible as well)

Actually it does not explicity address whether or not the threat to the "security of a free state" is foreign or domestic. But judging from historical context which overwhelmingly shows that the authors of that amendment were just as fearful of domestic threats as they were foreign invasion. So you're wrong at that point.

i'm wrong...? even though i mentioned the threat of a free state being potentially caused by both foreign invasion and state tyranny?

"to prevent foreign invasion...and also to prevent tyranny"

Can you be so sure that we cannot be invaded? Yes we do have two large moats on either side of us (the Atlantic and the Pacific)...but to the North and South we have two large land borders...

yeah youre right about that one. on one side we've got a second-world neighbor and on the other side we've got the world's biggest moocher.

i suppose though, that it'd still be almost just as difficult to invade canada as it would be to invade the u.s and mexico doesn't appear to be hostile and they wouldn't want to be if trade and nafta means anything to them.

again, the most plausible scenario for attack on the u.s today would be missile-based attacks. it's why we've got a HUGE military base (read: israel) positioned in the middle-east and building a massive iron curtain around russia in ex-soviet states that are allegedly nuclear and missile capable. imagine trying to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops onto our shores with our naval capacity, airforce, missile defense systems, satelitte tracking, my enormous penis ecetera... once again, it's pigs to the slaughterhouse.

but in the scheme of things i have to concede you're right. the amount of murders is statistically insignificant whereas even though the threat of some force imposing itself upon us is highly improbable (and practically unpreventable by civilians) it is a serious danger. what i'm concerned about though, is more tangible, existing problems that i believe can be and should be resolved.

Yet people are fine with eroding the second amendment for an illusion of safety...

illusion of safety... hmm 400 000 gun crimes and 14 000 murders per year at rates higher than that of fellow western nations.

We have 40,000 deaths a year due to car accidents, 16,000 of those are due to drunk driving alone. Probably a couple thousand more if you add other forms of criminal negligence. Furthermore, cars pollute the environment which adds to poor health in urban environments. A soccer mom does NOT need an Escalade nor does a MD need a Porsche. The only people who need gas guzzlers are farmers and those involved in the trades, and the only people who need fast cars are the police. And don't get me started on motorcycles... Banning guns will not make you safer...banning SUVs and sports cars will.

Gun crimes can include anything from straw-man purchases to stolen guns. In fact what that stat shows me is that the preponderance of gun crim is NOT violent.

dude... preponderance? had to dick it and the [majority] of gun crime is not violent?

maybe, but the number of violent crimes is still 400 000 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/fire armnonfatalno.htm

also i believe you made this point earlier but cars, unlike guns are a necessity for practically all of the population. to revoke the rights of the people to drive cars would be to send the u.s into collapse.

youd also have to cite the source that shows sports cars and suvs are involved in more crashes because i tried to google it but found none. oh and about pollution, sports cars would release less pollution in cities but i dont doubt you on the suvs. HOWEVER the problem in air quality in urban areas is more related to the amount of cars and the claustrophobic environment rather than the types of vehicles that frequent the area. look around, would it be fair if i estimated there were 1/50 cars in the cbd's that were suvs? banning them would make a negligible indentation in the air quality of those areas.

Furthermore, in a country of 300M the number of murders by gun in the US is statistically ZERO.

yeah it is and what ive noticed is that through debating and consequentially researching im actually less in support of gun control but i however maintain the understanding that guns are often central to a crime perpetrated. "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - yeah but it sure makes everything much fucking easier with a gun.

I'm not sure that our rates are statistically more significant than other Western countries. Maybe around Christmas I'll have the time to crunch the numbers...

gun crime uk 1.75/ 10 000

u.s gun crime 1.3/1000

uhm... yeah... apparently gun crime occurs 10x more often here. i had no idea... i think i done the numbers wrong/ got the wrong ones.

sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.st m
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/fire armnonfatalno.htm

uk pop. u.s pop; - 60 000 000, 300 000 000.

Two words: Iraq & Vietnam.
i don't get it. what relevance do they bear?

I've got this one Mason.

Traditionally technologically advanced military powers have had tough times subduing and conquering countries without military tech superiority. The reasons vary per situation, but invariably what happens in that the invading country cannot bring their tech advantage into full effect.

In Vietnam the point was made clear in that the average VC wasn't feared because he had the best weapon, but because he had the ingenuity to create his own.

Bamboo traps and sharp sticks did a lot to prevent the US from taking over Vietnam.

In Iraq simple weapons prove to be the most irritating to our forces. Little IEDs and other such things have managed to stay our hand for quite some time.

Our own Revolutionary War is an example of this. Our militias were unsophisticated and had not tech, whereas the Redcoat formations were the most advanced tactics of the day. The Minuteman in the bush still managed to beat off Britain's armies.

Likewise if the US army ever went rogue, you'd find that well motivated civilians with hunting rifles can accomplish quite a bit.....

The Romans in Britain, the Persians in Greece, the Russians in Afghanistan.

It's an odd little fact of history that technological superiority isn't the deciding factor in a war.

At 10/11/07 12:57 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

My point is that ANY rifle, an AK-47 or .270 deer rifle would have probably resulted in him getting caught. So on one level I'm agreeing with you, but only until you start limiting it to hunting rifles.

ak-47s and semi-automatic rifles possess the potential to be extremely lethal weapons... how do you propose we prevent massacres from occuring with them? i suppose a bonus is the difficulty in carrying them around and concealability though and they do make-up a negligible amont of murders and crimes.

Actually AK-47s and other assault rifle clones are probably the LEAST lethal firearms out there. Too many people focus on their rapid fire capability. However this has been proven not to be a significant factor in massacres.

Furthermore, I think bolt action hunting rifles has MORE tendency to be exceptionally lethal in perpetrating a massacre because they are essentially sniper rifles where a maniac could post up somewhere and just snipe his victims at their leisure using more accurate firearms and MUCH more lethal ammo.

Two words: Iraq & Vietnam.

i don't get it. what relevance do they bear?

Thanks Imperator!

i'm wrong...? even though i mentioned the threat of a free state being potentially caused by both foreign invasion and state tyranny?

Mea Culpa Tony, I got distracted by a student and only got to read the first half of what you said...

i suppose though, that it'd still be almost just as difficult to invade canada as it would be to invade the u.s and mexico doesn't appear to be hostile and they wouldn't want to be if trade and nafta means anything to them.

True...it is not likely for right now.

again, the most plausible scenario for attack on the u.s today would be missile-based attacks.

True, however China has recently tested an anti-satellite ballistic missile. If we loose our eyes in the sky an amphibious invasion could be a possibility.

but in the scheme of things i have to concede you're right. the amount of murders is statistically insignificant whereas even though the threat of some force imposing itself upon us is highly improbable (and practically unpreventable by civilians) it is a serious danger. what i'm concerned about though, is more tangible, existing problems that i believe can be and should be resolved.

I agree...but these are not problems that can be solved by gun control. I'm a big believer in education and investment in communities.

We have 40,000 deaths a year due to car accidents, 16,000 of those are due to drunk driving alone. Probably a couple thousand more if you add other forms of criminal negligence. Furthermore, cars pollute the environment which adds to poor health in urban environments. A soccer mom does NOT need an Escalade nor does a MD need a Porsche. The only people who need gas guzzlers are farmers and those involved in the trades, and the only people who need fast cars are the police. And don't get me started on motorcycles... Banning guns will not make you safer...banning SUVs and sports cars will.

dude... preponderance? had to dick it and the [majority] of gun crime is not violent?

maybe, but the number of violent crimes is still 400 000 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/fire armnonfatalno.htm

I'll have to look at your stats later...

also i believe you made this point earlier but cars, unlike guns are a necessity for practically all of the population. to revoke the rights of the people to drive cars would be to send the u.s into collapse.

I'm not talking about revoking the priviledge of driving. I'm talking about limiting what kindof vehicles they can drive. I'm also applying the pro-gun control logic of assault rifle bans specifically (as well as gun control in general) to another consumer product (one that is NOT constitutionally protected)...cars.

youd also have to cite the source that shows sports cars and suvs are involved in more crashes because i tried to google it but found none. oh and about pollution, sports cars would release less pollution in cities but i dont doubt you on the suvs. HOWEVER the problem in air quality in urban areas is more related to the amount of cars and the claustrophobic environment rather than the types of vehicles that frequent the area. look around, would it be fair if i estimated there were 1/50 cars in the cbd's that were suvs? banning them would make a negligible indentation in the air quality of those areas.

Actually this is a "thought experiement" based not upon in-depth statistics but what the media puts out there about the impact of cars on the environment. Furthermore, and illustrative of my point about the logic of gun control, I have NO data to back up my SUV or sports car bias other than they look fast and dangerous and my feelings that they are more harmful and dangerous than compacts.

However, I have looked up the stats regarding deaths per year and the 16K killed by drunk drivers was on the news during the whole Paris Hilton fiasco.

yeah it is and what ive noticed is that through debating and consequentially researching im actually less in support of gun control but i however maintain the understanding that guns are often central to a crime perpetrated. "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - yeah but it sure makes everything much fucking easier with a gun.

I'm glad you're questioning your position and doing research.

And you have a point about guns makes things easier. There is no question on that. However, I believe we would loose more with gun control that is more strict than it is now than we would gain.

I'm not sure that our rates are statistically more significant than other Western countries. Maybe around Christmas I'll have the time to crunch the numbers...

gun crime uk 1.75/ 10 000

u.s gun crime 1.3/1000

uhm... yeah... apparently gun crime occurs 10x more often here. i had no idea... i think i done the numbers wrong/ got the wrong ones.

I am in a empirically heavy program now which means that for the next few years I will be studying statistics pretty heavily (in fact it counts as one of my foreign languages). There are certain tests that can show if those numbers are really that significantly larger or smaller in relation to one another. Maybe during the summer I'll run some tests through SPSS or STATA (stastical software for the social sciences) and publish a report here on NG about my findings.

I get tired of this whole US vs EU/UK debate and would like to see some definitive conclusion.

I will say this though, even if D2K is proven correct about there being a statistically significant difference in the murder rates between our contries my stance won't be changed because I simply do not care who is right. That is not why I oppose gun control, therefore I do not have a stake in the outcome. Therefore if or when I do the study I won't have MUCH of a bias concern.

At 10/11/07 02:54 PM, Imperator wrote:

In Vietnam the point was made clear in that the average VC wasn't feared because he had the best weapon, but because he had the ingenuity to create his own.

in vietnam they had complex underground tunnel systems, huge forests and were an actual army. also, the vietnamese casualties are listed at 1million - 2million +. In iraq what we're seeing is paramilitary insurgents with actual training and a total disregard for human life bombing other civilians (often suiciding or using volatile ieds) and the u.s army. these cases certainly differ from the domesticated american who would faint at the sight of an exposed bone.

Bamboo traps and sharp sticks did a lot to prevent the US from taking over Vietnam.

all used in jungle warfare, something that appears to be lacking in highly urbanized america.
oh did i mention the new raytheon silent guardian? real interesting piece of technology.

In Iraq simple weapons prove to be the most irritating to our forces. Little IEDs and other such things have managed to stay our hand for quite some time.

these little weapons are also not firearms. also, semi-automatic pistols (all pistols for that matter) are probably amongst the most useless pieces of shit to ever be used in warfare. youd be lucky if you werent shot down before you managed to put a single bullet into a single marine, whose body armor would protect against it.

Our own Revolutionary War is an example of this. Our militias were unsophisticated and had not tech, whereas the Redcoat formations were the most advanced tactics of the day. The Minuteman in the bush still managed to beat off Britain's armies.

you forgot that they were the redcoats. the minutemen all fought without these 'mannerisms of war' and actually possessed the intelligence to wear clothes that did not make them a walking bullet magnet.

Likewise if the US army ever went rogue, you'd find that well motivated civilians with hunting rifles can accomplish quite a bit.....

no where near the amount achieved by insurgents and the viet cong. there's a reason marines of today go through programs that effectively brainwash them to be capable of killing and conversely, why the average american will have difficulty becoming johnny rambo.

It's an odd little fact of history that technological superiority isn't the deciding factor in a war.

actually from my understanding greece won BECAUSE of their technological superiority. the spartans managed to kill a lot of persians simply because of their better armor, training and formations for one.

Tony I think you're missing the point here. The point is that a highly advanced army can be bogged down by even the most rudimentary of combat units which utilize other feats of arms to achieve victory.

It doesn't matter that Vietnam was a jungle, or the Redcoats wore red coats. The specifics will differ situation to situation but you're missing the point. What matters is that in each situation the smaller militia force caused significant trouble for the larger technologically superior army.

Should the US Army ever go rogue, or should be ever be invaded you'd see an American VC system spring up and adapt itself to the urban environment. We won't be using bamboo traps, but you can bet that grandpa's old hunting rifle is a great tool to pick off soldiers.....

Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn? Same concept....

At 10/11/07 04:29 PM, Imperator wrote: Tony I think you're missing the point here. The point is that a highly advanced army can be bogged down by even the most rudimentary of combat units which utilize other feats of arms to achieve victory.

yes it can be bogged down, however it hasn't been proven in iraq to prevent an overruning by our military force and they all have special circumstances, i mean, using vietnam as an example glosses over the fact that there was an actual army we were fighting not xbox360 kids.

It doesn't matter that Vietnam was a jungle, or the Redcoats wore red coats. The specifics will differ situation to situation but you're missing the point. What matters is that in each situation the smaller militia force caused significant trouble for the larger technologically superior army.

it caused significant troubles but those factors that allowed them to do so do not exist for us. you can speculate that there would be some new way of preventing being overrun but that would be all it is, pure speculation.

the u.s is occupying iraq, they are in control of the region, those bombers are a problem but they haven't prevented the u.s army from overrunning them have they? now imagine that army against ordinary civilians, most with NO training (many overweight and all domesticated and tame). you can talk about how those ieds and insurgents have caused the marines a load of troubles but the truth is, it still hasn't and did not stop them from walking over iraq in a few weeks.

Should the US Army ever go rogue, or should be ever be invaded you'd see an American VC system spring up and adapt itself to the urban environment. We won't be using bamboo traps, but you can bet that grandpa's old hunting rifle is a great tool to pick off soldiers.....

Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn? Same concept....

i actually supported keeping hunting rifles. i proposed we position them as being a gun standard and phase out other forms of guns. i agree that there could be some resistance, but itd be unfruitful and semi-automatic pistols especially aren't going to change the outcome of that.

At 10/11/07 04:01 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/11/07 12:57 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Actually AK-47s and other assault rifle clones are probably the LEAST lethal firearms out there. Too many people focus on their rapid fire capability. However this has been proven not to be a significant factor in massacres.

Furthermore, I think bolt action hunting rifles has MORE tendency to be exceptionally lethal in perpetrating a massacre because they are essentially sniper rifles where a maniac could post up somewhere and just snipe his victims at their leisure using more accurate firearms and MUCH more lethal ammo.

what about nutjobs that charge into somewhere and spray bullets everywhere, yeah the shots are less lethal, but if he's firing into a crowd there's going to be a fair bit of casualties and severe injuries. i also dont disagree that hunting rifles could be used as a sniper weapon but i'm not sure about the likelihood of some nutjob garrisoning in a building and sniping a dozen people rather than another nutjob strolling into a full building and redecorating the walls. i guess what we need is actual substantiated proof that one is more dangerous than the other.

True...it is not likely for right now.

an invasion doesn't seem like itll be possible for a long-time. ever since world war two there was no real force with the capacity to breach u.s soil. possibly the soviet union but i dont think the circumstances at the time would have allowed that scenario to happen, and over time u.s preeminence has just grown.

again, the most plausible scenario for attack on the u.s today would be missile-based attacks.

True, however China has recently tested an anti-satellite ballistic missile. If we loose our eyes in the sky an amphibious invasion could be a possibility.

china doesn't have the military and especially naval means by which to invade the u.s. their best course of action would probably be to cause economic devastation but they really are in a catch-22 situation with that.

their navy is really more set-up to just protect their shorelines, it doesn't possess any lethal attack power that cannot be nulled by the u.s navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of _China_Navy#Equipment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S_Navy#Sh ips

I agree...but these are not problems that can be solved by gun control. I'm a big believer in education and investment in communities.

i believe that education and community investment are important yes, but the accessibility of guns and guns themselves are central to many crimes perpetrated. the lack of a gun would be sufficient deterrence for criminals who can only conjure up the confidence to rob, maim, attack, rape with a gun pointed at their victim.

Actually this is a "thought experiement" based not upon in-depth statistics but what the media puts out there about the impact of cars on the environment. Furthermore, and illustrative of my point about the logic of gun control, I have NO data to back up my SUV or sports car bias other than they look fast and dangerous and my feelings that they are more harmful and dangerous than compacts.

but there is data to back-up gun control arguments, it's not entirely emotionally charged.

However, I have looked up the stats regarding deaths per year and the 16K killed by drunk drivers was on the news during the whole Paris Hilton fiasco.

I will say this though, even if D2K is proven correct about there being a statistically significant difference in the murder rates between our contries my stance won't be changed because I simply do not care who is right. That is not why I oppose gun control, therefore I do not have a stake in the outcome. Therefore if or when I do the study I won't have MUCH of a bias concern.

actually i think there is a statistically significant difference in the gun crimes between the UK and US i mean 10x isn't an error margin and it's got a generous data sample... the entire population.

You're still missing the point Tony.....

Think more critically. "Where there's a will, there's a way". There is a precedent that technologically superior armies often have trouble dealing with technologically inferior militias.

I'm not saying it means the rebellion always beats the Evil Empire, I'm not saying it means little militia groups can take over large tracts of land and control them outside an invader's influence. I'm simply saying that despite being small little inferior militias, they cause major problems.

For Iraq, think WWII. Germany blitzed Europe, but the French, Dutch, and Polish resistances still managed to cause significant damage to them, especially by sabotaging communications.

It doesn't matter that the situations of the past don't exist for us today. EACH SITUATION IS UNIQUE. If American civilians need to find a way to fight an invader, I can guarantee they'll find one. It might not be bamboo traps, IEDs, or a bunch of teens shouting "WOLVERINES!", but I can pretty much guarantee we'll figure something out.

it caused significant troubles but those factors that allowed them to do so do not exist for us. you can speculate that there would be some new way of preventing being overrun but that would be all it is, pure speculation.

It's not speculation because there's a historical precedent. The Iberians used hit and run tactics and mountains to beat off the Romans. The Brits used their own terrain and fighting tactics. The Free French used dynamite to blow up comm stations, the VC used bamboo traps, the Afghanis and Iraqis use IEDs.

The specifics DO NOT matter because it's the overall ingenuity of a man fighting for his home and freedom that makes these little militias such a nuisance. The speculation can come on HOW Americans would fight back, but not on whether or not we do so; if the situation presents itself, our response is guaranteed.

the u.s is occupying iraq, they are in control of the region, those bombers are a problem but they haven't prevented the u.s army from overrunning them have they?

In some places they have, and in others they're causing too much trouble to properly control the area. The Taliban in Afghanistan managed to do just that, and reclaimed a lot of old area from our mighty Technological Terror that is the US army.

now imagine that army against ordinary civilians, most with NO training (many overweight and all domesticated and tame). you can talk about how those ieds and insurgents have caused the marines a load of troubles but the truth is, it still hasn't and did not stop them from walking over iraq in a few weeks.

Its the guys with NO training that end up doing the most spectacular thing. Take me for example. I'd get some little RC cars, strap some sort of explosive on top, and bingo! Instant mobile bomb.

Iraqi militias have slowed progress considerably. They didn't stop us from moving in, but they're sure making life hell.....

Think more critically, this is not as cut and dry as a game of capture the flag.

i actually supported keeping hunting rifles. i proposed we position them as being a gun standard and phase out other forms of guns. i agree that there could be some resistance, but itd be unfruitful and semi-automatic pistols especially aren't going to change the outcome of that.

I actually disagree as a matter of preference. I'd rather have the 9mm's because as far as insurgency/resistance movements go they're much more appropriate. Invading armies usually look for the guys walking around with rifles and bazookas, but have harder times spotting the guy with a concealed revolver.

if an army invaded the US and I had a choice to grab an M-2 Browning or a Colt 6 shooter, I'd take the 6 shooter. The M-2 is a little more conspicuous when trying to sneak around, and it's a lot harder to escape with when the job is done......

At 10/10/07 02:38 PM, Transkar wrote: Yes but those hunting rifles can be turned against people. Now I need protection against these hunting rifles. You see? Banning guns won't solve our problems. We have a violent culture...thats the way we are.

True, but answering violence with violence doesn't make violence go away.

The only way to solve the problem is to lead by example. In a few generations, maybe criminals won't be so egar to pick up a gun in the first place.

On the other hand, you can defend yourself against hunting rifles with hunting rifles. At least this way the playing field is even. And better yet, (if all we had where rifles) it's pretty hard to conseal(sp?) a hunting rifle in a jacket, under a car seat, school locker, or in a book bag.

At 10/11/07 06:25 PM, iEatFood wrote:

True, but answering violence with violence doesn't make violence go away.

is that the same with fighting fire with fire?

At 10/11/07 06:24 PM, Imperator wrote: You're still missing the point Tony.....

Think more critically. "Where there's a will, there's a way". There is a precedent that technologically superior armies often have trouble dealing with technologically inferior militias.

yeah it's got to do with this concept of fighting for your freedom and survival.

I'm not saying it means the rebellion always beats the Evil Empire, I'm not saying it means little militia groups can take over large tracts of land and control them outside an invader's influence. I'm simply saying that despite being small little inferior militias, they cause major problems.

well what i'm saying is that rebellion most certainly does not beat evil empire. it can delay it. it can resist it but under modern warfare it by no means by itself defeat an actual standing army.

For Iraq, think WWII. Germany blitzed Europe, but the French, Dutch, and Polish resistances still managed to cause significant damage to them, especially by sabotaging communications.

you seem to forget that they all had armies that done this, not necessarily ordinary citizens. neglecting that you're using an example to describe an example to describe the viability of fighting off an occupation.

It doesn't matter that the situations of the past don't exist for us today. EACH SITUATION IS UNIQUE. If American civilians need to find a way to fight an invader, I can guarantee they'll find : one. It might not be bamboo traps, IEDs, or a bunch of teens shouting "WOLVERINES!", but I can pretty much guarantee we'll figure something out.

we'll probably figure something out but once again this is speculation. i don't doubt there is ingenuity within the population but i'm saying what makes you think that things like improv bombs strapped to rc cars is going to stop marines and green berets ultimately blowing your fucking brains out for refusing to comply with orders.

It's not speculation because there's a historical precedent. The Iberians used hit and run tactics and mountains to beat off the Romans. The Brits used their own terrain and fighting tactics. The Free French used dynamite to blow up comm stations, the VC used bamboo traps, the Afghanis and Iraqis use IEDs.

there is historical precedent but they bear little relevance to today's current circumstance (as i have shown). sure, in the past people have invented ways to piss off the occupying force but the one closest resembling our circumstance (iraq) in no way impeded upon the advance of the military. they RAPED iraq, they are controlling iraq, sure there are unstable regions but they are THE occupier and have created a brand new government.

The specifics DO NOT matter because it's the overall ingenuity of a man fighting for his home and freedom that makes these little militias such a nuisance. The speculation can come on HOW Americans would fight back, but not on whether or not we do so; if the situation presents itself, our response is guaranteed.

yeah but im talking about the ultimate outcome of all this. i think it's a little important to recognize what the most likely outcome would be and i don't disagree that when faced with a tyrannical govt. or foreign invasion. despite the unlikelihood of both happening we will resist, but will we actually beat them? i'm saying the odds are really, really... i mean really against us.

the u.s is occupying iraq, they are in control of the region, those bombers are a problem but they haven't prevented the u.s army from overrunning them have they?

In some places they have, and in others they're causing too much trouble to properly control the area. The Taliban in Afghanistan managed to do just that, and reclaimed a lot of old area from our mighty Technological Terror that is the US army.

i just wanted to let you know that the taliban aren't ordinary citizens with aks. they're a powerful military group that once ravaged through all of afghanstian and controlled the entire country prior to u.s invasion. yeah there are resurgencies here and there but theyre quite an organized fighting group also with a disdain for civilians.

now imagine that army against ordinary civilians, most with NO training (many overweight and all domesticated and tame). you can talk about how those ieds and insurgents have caused the marines a load of troubles but the truth is, it still hasn't and did not stop them from walking over iraq in a few weeks.

Its the guys with NO training that end up doing the most spectacular thing. Take me for example. I'd get some little RC cars, strap some sort of explosive on top, and bingo! Instant mobile bomb.

Iraqi militias have slowed progress considerably. They didn't stop us from moving in, but they're sure making life hell.....

Think more critically, this is not as cut and dry as a game of capture the flag.

a military regime that imposed it's will unto u.s citizens against our interests isn't going to go away because a couple of pests started making ieds. actually it would probably end up being like ireland or iraq where the majority of citizens don't fight-back and it's a select group of people who resist occupation.

and i know that iraqi militia has slowed progress down, but the point still remains that iraq is under our control which was the whole point of my argument; 'whatever we do and whatever weapons you propose we keep-sake, if the state was to become tyrannical they would take-over'. sure we might be able to resurge and keep some territories but we're still going to be fucked over and no amount of sanctioning can change that. NG versus a platoon. man that'd be a riot.

i actually supported keeping hunting rifles. i proposed we position them as being a gun standard and phase out other forms of guns. i agree that there could be some resistance, but itd be unfruitful and semi-automatic pistols especially aren't going to change the outcome of that.

I actually disagree as a matter of preference. I'd rather have the 9mm's because as far as insurgency/resistance movements go they're much more appropriate. Invading armies usually look for the guys walking around with rifles and bazookas, but have harder times spotting the guy with a concealed revolver.

if an army invaded the US and I had a choice to grab an M-2 Browning or a Colt 6 shooter, I'd take the 6 shooter. The M-2 is a little more conspicuous when trying to sneak around, and it's a lot harder to escape with when the job is done......

oh right trying to sharp-shoot with a handgun... that's a new one. there is a reason why people even in places like iraq assasinate marines with rifles. it's got to do with range, accuracy, firepower and concealability should be a non-issue. if youre within range to shoot somebody with a colt-6, youre most likely in the vicinity, visibility and range of that occupying force. i mean generally the scenarios supporting the use of a handgun over a rifle are next to nil and the instances where you opt to use them over a rifle would be begligible.

There have been a few cases of snipers. (Prepares for D2K's attacks calling me a hypocrite):

U of Texas Austin
JonesboroBeltway or DC Snipers

I know this sounds macabre, but if I were being shot at I think I would rather the attacker have an AK than a sniper. The idea of the DC snipers scared me more than school shootings...

As for the entire Vietnam & Iraq argument, the point is simple: modern militaries have historically had trouble with "barbarians" and insurgents...these are often people who are ill-equiped when compared to the military they are taking on.

Finally for the stastics. I was sitting in class the other day and we were talking about ways of comparing two statistics across countries. We actually compared the US murder rate with the Canadian murder and using more sophisticated statistical analysis than simply saying it is 10x less or greater. It came out that there is little significant difference. That made me wonder...

The more I've thought about it, ther more I think I'll probably write a paper on it next semester.

Hey guys. I have a proposition for those in America who believe firearms (guns) and firearm ownership are the root of the problem. Go to your state's Department of Natural Resources website, search for your nearest state-sponsored range, go there and ask the range master if he'll let you shoot. I'll bet he'd be happy to introduce you to what gun ownership is all about.

Most owners choose to legally possess and use their firearms in a peaceful manner. However, some Americans abuse their right to own a firearm. I have carried a firearm everyday since 2003. It is a tool, not unlike a hammer or an axe. When used properly, a firearm can be used in sport, recreation, defense, or to provide sustenance for ones family.

It is my well-informed belief that those whom seek more restriction on firearm ownership are wrong. I respect others who have an equally informed opinion but believe the opposite. However, those whom equate an inanimate object with evil, simply because the object was used in an evil or illegal way, are the worst type of stupid.

PM me to discuss.

At 10/11/07 07:35 PM, GeoKill wrote: Hey guys.

This is the first time I've seen you on the forum, welcome. Just curious, why do you carry...job or concealed carry permit holder?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Blame the people, not the guns. A quote of Hitler; "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

This basically means if you disarm people, the absolute control of them is easy to obtain.

Don't let your right to bare arms be taken away. When the police say to give them your weapon, refuse. If they tazer, bat, aend humiliate you, don't give them your weapons. Say the constitution is the highest authority in America, and nobody, not even the President, can take away the rights it gives.

When this day comes, I just hope Americans aren't totally brainwashed. A full blown revolution will be needed if the government starts disarming people. It is either that, or let yourself become fodder. I have no idea when this is going to happen, it could be over 50 years from now. But the day will come, I guarantee it.

At 10/11/07 07:40 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/11/07 07:35 PM, GeoKill wrote: Hey guys.

This is the first time I've seen you on the forum, welcome. Just curious, why do you carry...job or concealed carry permit holder?

I occasionally provide force protection (body guard) but most times I just choose to exorcise my right and privilege to carry a concealed firearm in the Great State of Ohio. I in no way look down upon those who choose not to own or carry, but I feel grateful that I have the right to legally defend myself.

my views on gun control:

keep tabs on whos buying what just incase criminal investigation is needed.

do backgrounds checks, and no guns to felons and people with mental problems (like every school shooter thus far)

do not, DO NOT ban guns. we banned alcohol and soon gangs of machine gun armed gangsters were roaming the streets selling liquor made in bath tubs (heh including my granparents...). can you imagine an illegal firearms trade on a large scale? holy shit, thats a bad idea.

other than that, w/e

You want gun control? How about we take away guns from the criminals and the mentally unstable so that those of us with the full understanding of the responsibility of owning a firearm can exercise our 2nd amendment rights. Whoa; that was a run-on sentence! Anyways, people who don't follow the law aren't going to stop carrying weapons because it's against the law. Does anyone else seem to understand how ridiculous the notion of uniform gun control really is? Take them away from people with records of abusing their 2nd amendment rights. That's all!

At 10/11/07 08:12 PM, GeoKill wrote: I occasionally provide force protection (body guard) but most times I just choose to exorcise my right and privilege to carry a concealed firearm in the Great State of Ohio. I in no way look down upon those who choose not to own or carry, but I feel grateful that I have the right to legally defend myself.

Well said.

By the way how do you enjoy your freedom, must be sweet...

Blah, I can't have a gun till I'm 20 so said my dad.

Blah, I can't have a gun till I'm 20 so said my dad

here you go

Anyone who wants to go on a killing spree or school shooting will get the weapons they want regardless. Although I don't think anyone needs a fully automatic Mini-Uzi or anything, tightening gun control laws will not help anything.

People will do whatever they want to do regardless.

Also, gun control laws help the government hold down revolutions because there will be less weapons in the hands of civilians.

At 10/12/07 12:28 PM, robattle wrote: Blah, I can't have a gun till I'm 20 so said my dad.

Unless it has changed at the federal level (which I don't think it has), or if your state has more strict laws (which it might) you can buy any type of rifle/shotgun at 18 and any type of handgun at 21.

Now, if at 18 you're still living at home your parents could forbid you from bringing it into the house if they are so bent.

Think about it... If everyone had a gun, then the crazy would be too dang scared to use his gun.

And even with gun bans, criminals still have access to guns. Washington D.C. has a gun ban, but has one of the highest crime ratings in America

i watched a documentary on ms-13 and i have to say, nobody really mentioned this but el salvadorians.. my god.

anyway i connected the dots in this and realized that gun prohibition will definitely be wrong for the u.s, not solely because of this, but yes i am no longer pro-gun control.

At 10/22/07 09:19 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

anyway i connected the dots in this and realized that gun prohibition will definitely be wrong for the u.s, not solely because of this, but yes i am no longer pro-gun control.

Yay!

Blows party horn

At 10/22/07 09:19 AM, tony4moroney wrote:
anyway i connected the dots in this and realized that gun prohibition will definitely be wrong for the u.s, not solely because of this, but yes i am no longer pro-gun control.

I made this realization a while ago.

At 10/22/07 09:19 AM, tony4moroney wrote: i watched a documentary on ms-13 and i have to say, nobody really mentioned this but el salvadorians.. my god.

anyway i connected the dots in this and realized that gun prohibition will definitely be wrong for the u.s, not solely because of this, but yes i am no longer pro-gun control.

welcome to the gun-metal colored side!

we don't need gun control the laws that are in place currently are good enough minus a few of them

At 7/20/12 04:52 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: we don't need gun control the laws that are in place currently are good enough minus a few of them

You bumped this thread because of the batman shooter, didn't you?

At 7/20/12 04:54 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/20/12 04:52 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: we don't need gun control the laws that are in place currently are good enough minus a few of them

You bumped this thread because of the batman shooter, didn't you?

no it was one of those good threads I been meaning to post in that shouldn't die because the discussions are pretty good , now I have to find that israel one.

anyways the only restrictions of people who shouldn't be allowed firearms are Felons and immigrants on work permits and those deemed unstable (loose term) but there are already laws in place for those.