Another reason banning guns won't work

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Lightbeard » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:14 am

As we all know banning things is how we stop people from using them

.....

or we create an illegal black market
Image
User avatar
Lightbeard
 
Posts: 4602
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:03 pm

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Melathys » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:53 am

found this, and I thought it was an interesting idea.

AMERICA'S HUNTERS ---

The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all but a handful will return home safely.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.



A friend is a police detective here in New Zealand. I asked her about the issue and she said the police don't want to carry guns, because if they do then the criminals will arm themselves. Police are happy enough to have taser/spray backed up by the shotgun in the car.


Like I said, I'm glad that they can find people willing to endanger themselves like that. Criminals have the benefit of the doubt by knowing that we do not want to hurt them, much less kill them. We don't get that benefit, we have to assume that they want to kill us, because the moment we stop assuming that is the day we don't go home at night. Complacency kills.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Flex » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:29 pm

Melathys wrote:found this, and I thought it was an interesting idea.


That's not really a new idea. Of course there's a whole bunch of things about that to take with a grain of salt.
We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.
User avatar
Flex
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:46 pm

well that is the reason Japan never invaded
they had talked about it but due to the gun toting nature of the west, they felt it was going to cost too many lives to try it
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Paxen » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:07 pm

Melathys wrote:Like I said, I'm glad that they can find people willing to endanger themselves like that. Criminals have the benefit of the doubt by knowing that we do not want to hurt them, much less kill them. We don't get that benefit, we have to assume that they want to kill us, because the moment we stop assuming that is the day we don't go home at night. Complacency kills.


I'm pretty sure unarmed police forces have some of the lowest casualty rates around. The effect that criminals don't go around armed all the time is real.

If it would work for a police force to suddenly stop carrying weapons is a different matter.

Note: Norway has both unarmed police and a higher firearms density than the US - we got tons of hunters too.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Skye1013 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:35 pm

bldavis wrote:well that is the reason Japan never invaded
they had talked about it but due to the gun toting nature of the west, they felt it was going to cost too many lives to try it

So they kamikazed our ships instead?
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:47 pm

you are comparing different times in the war
when they were considering it is in the planning stages, before pearl harbor

they didnt start kamikazi-ing until we had started pushing them back. (44 i believe is when it started, might have been late 43)
it was more of a desperation tactic. trade 1-4 pilots for an aircraft carrier, carrying thousands of sailors and the launch point for most of our naval might

and when compared to the number of lives that would be lost invading, kamikazi was a drop in the bucket
remember what finally got them to surrender - losing 2 cities to the only atomic weapons ever employed in anger. at the end of the war, we were facing the same choice they had contemplated, do we invade and run the risk of losing untold numbers of troops, or do we leave it alone and go for a different tactic?
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby fuzzygeek » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:53 pm

bldavis wrote:you are comparing different times in the war
when they were considering it is in the planning stages, before pearl harbor

they didnt start kamikazi-ing until we had started pushing them back. (44 i believe is when it started, might have been late 43)
it was more of a desperation tactic. trade 1-4 pilots for an aircraft carrier, carrying thousands of sailors and the launch point for most of our naval might

and when compared to the number of lives that would be lost invading, kamikazi was a drop in the bucket


WWII is a far more interesting discussion than the original, which is inevitably going to devolve into "Well I don't see why what works for *us* wouldn't work for *everyone*." I approve of this threadjack.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:09 pm

youre welcome :)
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Skye1013 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:43 pm

Melathys wrote:America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Without the military to back that up... that firepower won't mean much. If that was all we were relying on, then all it'd take are some foreign aircraft and a good launching point and none of those hunters would even have a chance to fight back.



*Puts on "what if" hat*

If Japan hadn't attacked the US when they did and assisted Germany (more) with the conquest of the Soviet Union instead, do you think:

a) the US would have gotten involved anyway?
b) we'd all be speaking German/Japanese/Italian today?
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Arnock » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:19 pm

I think the US probably would have gotten involved. The Government largely wanted to aid our European allies, but WWI was still heavy on the minds of the public. Pearl harbor threw public opinion behind the war effort.

However, it might have been much later before we did get involved, and at that point, it might have been too late.


But, then again, if I remember right, Japan attacked us because we stopped selling them oil, or somehow prevented them from getting oil, which may have messed up and stymied their assault on the USSR. I'm not a historian though, so I may just be talking out of my ass.
Image
Courage not of this earth in your eyes
Faith from far beyond lies deep inside
User avatar
Arnock
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:36 pm
Location: Everywhere and nowhere

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Skye1013 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:03 pm

Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know, but I'm feeling lazy) says they were getting 80% of there oil from the US, and when the US embargoed it, Japan had to decide whether to end/minimize their campaign or seek oil elsewhere. They choose to conquer other areas to obtain oil and eventually attacked the US because they perceived the US as already having declared war and wanted to preempt the navy.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:30 pm

Arnock wrote:I think the US probably would have gotten involved. The Government largely wanted to aid our European allies, but WWI was still heavy on the minds of the public. Pearl harbor threw public opinion behind the war effort.

However, it might have been much later before we did get involved, and at that point, it might have been too late.


But, then again, if I remember right, Japan attacked us because we stopped selling them oil, or somehow prevented them from getting oil, which may have messed up and stymied their assault on the USSR. I'm not a historian though, so I may just be talking out of my ass.

another what if part is what if Japan held off for a year or so on pearl harbor, and germany focused on getting britain conquered before getting into the eastern front
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby fuzzygeek » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:16 pm

bldavis wrote:another what if part is what if Japan held off for a year or so on pearl harbor, and germany focused on getting britain conquered before getting into the eastern front


Britain wasn't in as dire peril as commonly believed due to Germany's lack of naval ability to land an occupying force. Discuss.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:46 pm

while this is true, had they kept up the choke hold they had on Britain it would have eventually ended in the surrender (and possible resistance in) the british isles
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Passionario » Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:06 am

bldavis wrote:im all for gun ownership, but there is no reason for a private citizen to have a semi-auto assault rifle, a high caliber sniper rifle or anything like that


One could argue that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, a possible reason for this.

After all, if the citizens' right to bear arms is supposed to be a safeguard against tyranny, then it's only reasonably to ensure that the strength of said arms is sufficient for this task. If a potential tyrant can only command soldiers armed with rifles and bayonets, then citizen should have access to rifles and bayonets of their own. If said tyrant can unleash drone aircraft, killer satellites, cruise missiles and nukes - why, it stands to reason that the anti-tyranny force should have access to an arsenal of similar grade!

Skye1013 wrote:If Japan hadn't attacked the US when they did and assisted Germany (more) with the conquest of the Soviet Union instead, do you think:

a) the US would have gotten involved anyway?
b) we'd all be speaking German/Japanese/Italian today?


Unless the US joined the war on the side of the Axis, USSR would defeat both Germany and Japan.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:13 am

all they would have to do is withdraw and let the winter do a number on them, and then counter attack next spring

worked against Napoleon, and the Germans in WWII
and the Japanese would be even worse off, as they would have to go through US supported China, or Siberia

as for that arguement, my dad had same thing to say
my counter point was....ok when do we git: grenades, shoulder fired missiles, tanks, air strike support, and tons of other cool toys!
and a good hunter with a scoped rifle can be a VERY effective sniper, esp since armies have little to no facial armor.
yes it would be a tough shot, but it is a tough shot no matter what you are firing.
and what if they come at us with something bigger than infantry? fight back with tanks? ok they call in an airstrike, and blow us all up...that worked graet didnt it?

on the other hand
need to protect your family and home from a zombie invasion, riot or some thing else other than a mass invasion? pretty sure a semi-auto rifle and/or a decent guage shotgun will do just fine for closer range fighting, and if you want long range, well scoped deer rifle...plus you would need training for most longer range fighting to even be effective
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Brekkie » Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:18 pm

bldavis wrote:and a good hunter with a scoped rifle can be a VERY effective sniper, esp since armies have little to no facial armor.
yes it would be a tough shot, but it is a tough shot no matter what you are firing.


ACTUALLY...

they are issuing us with these now...

Image

lol cylons.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:46 pm

in that case, how is that assault rifle gonna help?
(do have a slight case for the 50 cal rifle)
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Arnock » Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:15 pm

Deathwing marines?
Image
Courage not of this earth in your eyes
Faith from far beyond lies deep inside
User avatar
Arnock
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:36 pm
Location: Everywhere and nowhere

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Levantine » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:01 pm

Brekkie wrote:lol cylons.

My face when.

Image
User avatar
Levantine
 
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: NQ, Aus

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Dantriges » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:35 am

Not sure if the 2nd amendment would help much against tyranny today. Most tyrannies use the support of the majority, suppress a minority and gt enough propaganda not to send in their soldiers battling with the civilians on the streets. It is nice for asymetrical warfare. It seems assault rifles, RPG-7 and IEDs are tools that are good enough to annoy even the most modern army. the question is, would americans today, actually do battle with their own army? And well the arab spring wasn´t fought with weapons in many countries. Ok one of the gulf states was able to suppress it, Syria and Lybia have or had civil war. IIRC Iran was able to suppress any ideas the populace had of overthrowing the parasitic leeches sitting in their government. The eastern bloc fell more or less peacefully.

So you can overthrow tyrants with or without warfare, depending on the local system. Sometimes abetter armed resistance movement would have helped. But I am no expert on the middle east. No idea if Syria had a lot of weapons in civilian hands pre civil war. Somehow I doubt it.

Considering american politics I am not sure if people would actually agree when they live under a tyrannical system. Someone´s death to america could be another´s savior of the country.

Seems to me the 2nd amendment is more or less an anachronistic last stopgap measure with questionable value.

Other points:
Invasion: Well an actual invasion across the oceans is rather unlikely. I don´t think the japanese dropped that thought because of guns in american civilian hands but invading a bigger country with a bigger industrial and population base with a population that isn´t actually welcoming the invaders is hardly a good idea. Home advantage. Attacking targets that are closer and have a smaller or nonexistant army seemed to be the better option for Japan. especially if you consider that the US won´t deliver them the oil they need to fight and they haven´t securedother available resources.
So the need for partisan patriots defending american soil is more or less nonexistant unless you fear an invasion from Mexico or Canada.
Other foreign threats will use terrorism or if America really goes to war with another superpower (who else would consider it, even today) and there are still nuclear weapons, it will be a nuclear exchange. The most likely competitor for 2nd superpower is or will be China and well bombing the US is stupidity written large. Besides America´s obvious answer with nukes of their own, they would demolish a very important trade partner and well China invested a lot in the USA. Unless times are getting really desperate and assaulting will be more profitable or necessary than trading we won´t see another major war between the big players.

Russia-Japan. Anactual declaration of war would have helped Nazi Germany even without one japanese soldier setting foot on russian soil in Wladiwostok. Stalin was able to transfer the siberian divisions to the western front because the eastern border was safe. The siberians were quite important in the earlier stages of the invasion as Stalin lost quite a lot of manpower during Germany´s openening moves. Probably Moscow would have fallen, perhaps Stalingrad as well. If it would have had any other effect than prolonging the final result is idle speculation.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby bldavis » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:54 am

which is why when i play axis and allies as the axis, my first priority for japan is to get a bit more navy, and then invade siberia...lessen pressure on my eastern front for germany, and easy land grabs for japan! :D
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:11 pm

Should the Chinese want to take America, they would just dump their US currency, resulting in an economic collapse of the US. You wouldn't need guns to fight off the Chinese, but you would need guns to fight off your neighbor from taking the last of your canned goods. Only when Americans are done killing off other Americans would the Chinese army come in.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Another reason banning guns won't work

Postby Darielle » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:11 pm

See, their morals, their "code"... it's a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these uh, these "civilized people" .... they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Next

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest