 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, if you can't be drafted, you know, like after they removed the
> draft?
Selective Service is still in force.
> I am also pretty sure that no one expects you to bring your own,
> basically random, weapons any more... lol
But that's not the point. The federal law says who is in the militia, right
there. So even the argument that the weapons are only for the militia falls
down, even if you ignore all the arguments that it meant or should mean the
general populace.
>>> The one is making the argument, "removing these will make things
>>> better", the other, "adding them will".
>>
>> No, my point is that you can't really tell until you try it, because
>> it's not logical.
>>
> Chaos social engineering then.. Yeah, that always works *so* well...
> What matters is, "Is it true", not, "I would like it to be", or, "I hope
> it is".
Right. So why are you arguing with me?
> There are consequences to being wrong, and just because you are
> not going to pay them is not justification that you can make others pay
> them instead. It *is* true that even rational people can go over the
> edge, and arming them makes that more dangerous. But *is it true* that
> arming everyone counters that? If you don't actually know, its not
> exactly ethical to just shrug and go, "Ah, well.. lets try it anyway."
On the other hand, you're the one arguing to *change* things, so it's really
your responsibility to argue that your solution would be *better* than what
we have now. You're basically begging the question.
>>> end up being declared "temporarily insane", we don't know that games
>>> do *jack*.
>>
>> You don't know that games *don't* do jack.
>>
> I certainly have enough evidence of a correlation, if not necessarily
> causation, than they do for guns.
This whole sentence doesn't make sense, unless you're agreeing with me.
> You know, to some extent I have been playing devils advocate here. I see
> no damn reason why, technically, you need to change the constitution to
> set limits and rules of use, on weapons. You are not telling someone,
> "You can't have a gun", by telling them you can't just carry it around
> with you, anyplace you like, etc.
Except you go to someplace like new jersey, and even though the law says
"you will get a permit to buy a gun in 30 days unless we can come up with a
reason for you not to", it still doesn't happen.
The problem with this argument is that if you allow everyone to buy guns
only to keep them locked up at home (which would certainly be enough to
satisfy the "in case of revolution" need), you're still creating a market
for guns and access by criminals to those guns. You haven't really cut down
gun crime at all. Crazy people will still have access to guns, and if
shooting people being illegal isn't enough to stop them, taking it out of
their home isn't enough to stop them.
> and while we are currently talking about adjusting the law to ban extra
> large magazines, no one seems to be talking about fixing the loopholes,
> or properly enforcing the existing laws.
Yep. Nobody really wants to close the loopholes. They only want to do stuff
that *looks* like it's helpful to folks who think laws that far back in the
causality chain will affect criminals.
> As devil's advocate, I have to ask the question, "At what point do you
> conclude that this is unmanageable, and something more extreme has to be
> done to stop it?"
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Seems like firearm deaths, including shooting people in self defense and
police shooting people, counts as a bit over 1% of all deaths. Automobiles
kill more people than guns, but nobody talks about outlawing them.
Now, down at the bottom of
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
you see that about 60% of the firearm deaths are suicide, while 40% are
homicide (including self defense and police), and 2% are accidents.
Which rate are you trying to reduce, given that homicide is already (mostly)
illegal, so making carrying a gun around illegal wouldn't prevent that?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/1/2011 12:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> As devil's advocate, I have to ask the question, "At what point do you
>> conclude that this is unmanageable, and something more extreme has to
>> be done to stop it?"
>
> http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
>
> Seems like firearm deaths, including shooting people in self defense and
> police shooting people, counts as a bit over 1% of all deaths.
> Automobiles kill more people than guns, but nobody talks about outlawing
> them.
>
I am sure that logging did, at one time, and seamanship, etc. I find the
use of that argument seriously flawed, since the average person needs a
way to get to and from work, and even if that wasn't the case, its often
the most effective way to get things from one place to another for
resale. Unless you are going to try to argue that the vast majority of
people need guns to hunt for food, or count nail guns and staplers, its
not a reasonable comparison, any more than saying, "X number of people
fall out of windows every year, so we should ban windows". Most deaths
are, invariably, either a) health related, b) accident related, or c) a
result of dangerous things that we **need** to do something else, which
in no way involves the intent to hurt/kill someone.
Compare deaths from poisoning, knives (of the sort carried for
"defense"), and what ever other *avoidable* causes there may be, which
are not a secondary consequence of misuse of something whose purpose was
*not* to cause injury/harm/death, then make an argument. And, no, guns
***have no other use*** other than to kill, injure and/or threaten the
death/injury someone/something. Its a tool whole primary use is the one
it is used for, when it ends up killing someone, not a misuse, or accident.
I really hate such attempts to ignore the original use of things, in an
attempt to claim equivalency. Its illogical, and ridiculous. You can
kill people with water too, it doesn't make places that bottle water the
equivalent of those that make armor piercing rounds.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> guns ***have no other use*** other than to kill, injure and/or threaten the
> death/injury someone/something.
Nah. There are plenty of people who go target shooting, for example.
And you know, if you said "outlaw all guns", I might even be with you on
that one. But nobody ever proposes that. They propose "outlaw all guns
except those belonging to government employees."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/3/2011 12:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> guns ***have no other use*** other than to kill, injure and/or
>> threaten the death/injury someone/something.
>
> Nah. There are plenty of people who go target shooting, for example.
>
Interestingly, this doesn't require that the weapon used even have ammo
that is deadly, just that *generally* behaves like it would if it was,
in principle. So... But, in most cases "target shooting" is practice for
something else. Some of my family might even joke that it was to make
sure they hit the other guy wearing an orange vest in the woods, instead
of accidentally shooting an innocent deer, given the number of morons
that manage to do that every year. lol My brother stopped going on
hunting trips with friends a while back, because of that. They either
wanted to get drunk first, or drive to places no sane person would take
a vehicle, etc. He figured either he would come back one day, tied to
the hood, or he would have to leave his jeep wedged between two
boulders, half way up a cliff, and walk out.
> And you know, if you said "outlaw all guns", I might even be with you on
> that one. But nobody ever proposes that. They propose "outlaw all guns
> except those belonging to government employees."
>
Yeah. Sort of a drawback to the whole mess. You kind of can't do that,
without leaving them vulnerable to *outside* dangers, which would still
have them. But, I have always found it a bit silly that "bare arms" only
means guns, with the result that martial arts weapons **are** banned.
Heck, even if you carried a billy club, you would probably get arrested
faster for having a "deadly weapon" in some places, than you would
totting a machine gun (as long as you had the proper permit, or it
wasn't concealed... lol).
But, seriously, if you limit what people can get hold of, you can also
limit what the government officials need. If you take the position that
you can't limit anything much, all you get is a constant escalation from
**both** sides. How long before someone figures out how to make a
nuclear battery, and a "fast charge" capacitor, and we start seeing
people carrying around railguns, leading to the police deciding they
need some too, to offset that? So far, they are bulky, hard to power,
one shot, jobs, which only a few goofballs have built in their basement
(in both cases I know of personally, by people that badly underestimated
what the hell the muzzle velocity would be, and thus, how much shit it
goes through before the projective stops).
At what point do you stop? Or, more to the point, at what point do you
bloody stop and think, "Heh, you know.. it might just be a good idea of
this *never* hits the market for the average person." Somehow, these
things never get thought of until *after* something happens.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But, I have always found it a bit silly that "bare arms" only
> means guns, with the result that martial arts weapons **are** banned.
It doesn't, really. That's just how it gets read, because folks who think
it's the weapons that are bad instead of the criminals manage to ban the
ones that most people don't care about.
In Switzerland, they generally have their military gear, including tanks and
cannons and such, available all the time. Or at least so I have heard.
> But, seriously, if you limit what people can get hold of, you can also
> limit what the government officials need.
Part of the problem is that "making it illegal to have X" doesn't really
limit what you can get ahold of. It's already illegal to have a large
container of explosives in a rented van, but we saw how well that worked out.
> At what point do you stop? Or, more to the point, at what point do you
> bloody stop and think, "Heh, you know.. it might just be a good idea of
> this *never* hits the market for the average person." Somehow, these
> things never get thought of until *after* something happens.
OK. Consider Mexico. It's not like their aren't criminal gangs running
around with tanks and planes of their own.
I'm not saying everyone needs nuclear railguns. We already have a bunch of
things that never hit the market for the average person. Hand guns, however,
are not them. Indeed, it's that whole "never hit the market for the average
person" that a few posts ago you were arguing were the reason that guns
would be useless in a revolution to start with.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/3/2011 11:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> At what point do you stop? Or, more to the point, at what point do you
>> bloody stop and think, "Heh, you know.. it might just be a good idea
>> of this *never* hits the market for the average person." Somehow,
>> these things never get thought of until *after* something happens.
>
> OK. Consider Mexico. It's not like their aren't criminal gangs running
> around with tanks and planes of their own.
>
> I'm not saying everyone needs nuclear railguns. We already have a bunch
> of things that never hit the market for the average person. Hand guns,
> however, are not them. Indeed, it's that whole "never hit the market for
> the average person" that a few posts ago you were arguing were the
> reason that guns would be useless in a revolution to start with.
>
Not sure that Mexico is exactly a good example to use. Half the
"government officials" are either bribed, owned, or working for, the
criminal gangs that run around with tanks and planes of their own. And
yeah, I am sure, right now, with badly ineffective power systems, a
railgun would be "so" helpful, at least until it occurred to the
oppressors to simply shut off the power grid before showing up... Not to
mention, one bomb, precision or otherwise, and you don't have to worry
about the railgun the guy built in his basement any more.
If "successful defense" relies on, "It will be successful in 50-100
years, when we are finally on equal footing!", its not very successful.
Right now, they wouldn't be, in the past, they could be, since the
disparity was never as much as it is now. In places like Mexico, you
can't tell apart the supposed "legit" and "non-legit" agencies, so its
fairly meaningless to talk about citizen resistance. They won't be the
ones resisting, it will be which ever gang happens to be in the area.
And, invariably, if the disparity grows smaller, its still going to be
government, or corporations, or someone else with money to burn, who
will have the armies, private or otherwise.
What makes a successful revolution isn't what you are armed with, its
that a large enough number refuse to acquiesce to the demands of the
lunatics, even if they don't even have one weapon, and the would be
dictator finds themselves in a position where a) they lose more than
they gain, or b) more people will side with the defenders, if they act
to end them, meaning they lose even more in the process of suppressing
the revolt. An idiot tries to control people with guns. The smart ones
try to do it with words. The really stupid ones try to do with with
lies, then with guns, and find a hornets nest.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Not sure that Mexico is exactly a good example to use. Half the
> "government officials" are either bribed, owned, or working for, the
> criminal gangs that run around with tanks and planes of their own.
That's sort of my point.
> In places like Mexico, you
> can't tell apart the supposed "legit" and "non-legit" agencies, so its
> fairly meaningless to talk about citizen resistance.
Again, that's my point.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/4/2011 10:37 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Not sure that Mexico is exactly a good example to use. Half the
>> "government officials" are either bribed, owned, or working for, the
>> criminal gangs that run around with tanks and planes of their own.
>
> That's sort of my point.
>
>> In places like Mexico, you can't tell apart the supposed "legit" and
>> "non-legit" agencies, so its fairly meaningless to talk about citizen
>> resistance.
>
> Again, that's my point.
>
Then I must be missing it, because its not much different than big city
gang wars. Some people want to stay out of it, and that means *not*
resisting, and the rest spend all their time resisting "each other", and
occasionally getting those that are trying to stay out of it shot
instead. turning the local town into its own armed gang, to resist all
the other gangs, doesn't solve the problem. You don't need a gun to
refuse to help a thug, and it doesn't necessarily help to have one
either. They might decide to leave you intact and shoot someone else you
know as a show of force, or any number of other things. Mind, they might
do that anyway, but... its not the same thing as happening to be armed
with some random person tries to rob you on the street, and even that is
imho, a bit of a toss up.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Then I must be missing it,
You're conflating two problems. One concerns whether the kinds of firearms
people own here today would be useful to resist the government. The other is
whether the type of firearms people own today would be useful in other
endeavors.
For the latter, the answer, statistically, is yes - target shooting is safe,
hunting is popular, and having a gun reduces your individual likelihood of
being harmed in a violent crime. If you want to argue against that, you'll
need to say more than "it's obvious".
For the former, we have numerous examples throughout history where
individual ownership of firearms has protected against violence by
governments. While obviously there are also cases where the government has
won, there are also cases where those being invaded have won, or at least
put off for a long time their own demise. So it's not obvious that any
government can squash any civilian resistance out of hand. If it were, we
wouldn't really be still hunting terrorists, would we?
After that, it's just policy, and an estimation of how likely various
"violence by governments" of various forms are: invasion, coup, organized
crime taking over the government, etc. And how likely it is that firearms
would help in any of those particular situations.
We have a process for estimating that latter bit. It's called "amending the
constitution if enough people are convinced the situation has changed." :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2011 12:07 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Then I must be missing it,
>
> You're conflating two problems. One concerns whether the kinds of
> firearms people own here today would be useful to resist the government.
> The other is whether the type of firearms people own today would be
> useful in other endeavors.
>
> For the latter, the answer, statistically, is yes - target shooting is
> safe, hunting is popular, and having a gun reduces your individual
> likelihood of being harmed in a violent crime. If you want to argue
> against that, you'll need to say more than "it's obvious".
>
> For the former, we have numerous examples throughout history where
> individual ownership of firearms has protected against violence by
> governments. While obviously there are also cases where the government
> has won, there are also cases where those being invaded have won, or at
> least put off for a long time their own demise. So it's not obvious that
> any government can squash any civilian resistance out of hand. If it
> were, we wouldn't really be still hunting terrorists, would we?
>
Ok, not going to really argue the former one, though I do think the jury
is out on whether personal protection is useful (since the statistics
show cooperation as about equal to resistance, there is a small margin
of *maybe* useful, based on your own statistics, but it would be a lot
clearer *if* the, "I gave him my wallet and got away alive", category
had a major failure rate).
As for history... Sure, the problem is that you run into a version of
the, "Atheists killed more people", argument. The argument, when used,
goes like this: X wacko was one, and they killed a bigger percentage of
people that Y non-atheist in the past, therefor religious wars where
never as bad as what an atheist could do. The key problem with the
argument has ***always*** been the same. It ignores the fact that a few
hundred nuts on horseback couldn't kill tens of thousands of people in
24 hours, as could bombs, or even machine guns.
The **exact same** problem exists when arguing, "Historically, there are
a lot of examples of people resisting governments." Yes, there are, but
most of them haven't been governments with access to nearly limitless
high technology. Even the ones with high tech often tended to be several
generations of tech "behind", bought from someone else, and limited in
supply, so once you blew up the 10 planes they had, they didn't have any
left to use against you. But, there is an added problem with this, which
I pointed out before, after a fashion. Its fairly rare for *enlightened*
people to be doing the resisting. What you get, in nearly all cases, is
people attempting to impose their own status quo, or change it, or
replace something they don't like, and most of the people that want to
do so tend not to be someone who wants to create/defend a democracy.
They tend to be people who want to undermine such things, replace them
with theocracies, or monarchies, of one sort or another, or still
believe in some sort of Maoist/Stalinist faux-communism, which is
basically little more than an Oligarchy, with pretenses at universal
distribution of goods and services. They don't have everyone's well
being at heart, and in a lot of cases, the result is worse than the
replacement. So much for resisting the predations of a bad government,
if all you replace it with is a worse one.
Like I said, its not how well armed, or how well you resist, that
changes things, its the inevitability that oppression doesn't work in
the long run, and can't do so, except in a complete vacuum. Armed
resistance may be useful, at the start, but only information will *win*
the battle, create a sound foundation, and result in an improved
government. And, what do we see as the first line of conflict with the
nuts in the US - misinformation, attempts to deny/hide the real
information, and denouncements of anyone that exposes it. The guns come
later, when you already have people convinced you are right, and to win
you have to get rid of the stubborn people, who still won't believe your
bullshit.
The changes that are happening around the world right now are all,
almost entirely, the same thing. Some armed conflict/resistance, but
governments are winning or losing, based on control of information, and
the spread of propaganda *not* how many people they arm, and resistance
is happening in a thousand different ways, due to the spread of
information, but guns and dead people are so much more interesting to
talk about, unless the guy with the gun is also running an internet
cafe. But, in the end, *winning* isn't about if you resisted with a gun,
its if you changed the flow of the information, and the result made
things better, instead of worse. Guns just make it easier, for both
sides, to screw up this process imho.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
