Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[Quazimofo]

Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).

I mean, yeah, a lot of those non-lethal options are notoriously short-ranged. However, in a city environment (where most of this violence takes place), if someone is so far that you cannot incapacitate them non-lethally with a ranged tazer (or are those publicly available? I can't remember), then it is fair to assume they are far enough away there is some kind of cover in the way you can duck behind until they bugger off, or get close enough for the non-lethal weapon to be effective. Because cities tend to have a lot of man-made structures and devices in them (and boxes), which tend to make it difficult to hit people with ranged attacks due to line of sight and material density stopping or misdirecting attacks.

And yeah, that doesn't apply to all situations, but until we get publicly-issued tactical dreadnaught armor, defenses will have situations in which they fail. Including the counter-attack defense

 

[Strazdas]

snip

The point i was making, which you happily ignored, that guns, guns dont have benefits, so the retrictions have nothing to outweigh.
The same corelation with crime can be made with games. games got very popular during last 20 years too. does that mean games caused crime rate to drop? no. then how can you argue same correlation for guns?
I agree that there is no easy answer to violence problem, but ignoring certain facts does not help. I agree that a better mental health system is needed in US, better education system is needed eveywhere, but trust me, try living here in Lithuania, youll beg to get back to american education, it is one of the best out there. We dont need more after school programs,we need after school programs not to imagine that we are living in 19th century. you know, do things that modern people do, instead of things like church music listening or reading some farmers thoughts.
People who dont want guns already have them off their homes.
There are plenty of people who already do education and prevention of obesity (admitedly, unsucesfully), we need people fighting with all problems, not just one thats causing most deaths atm.
and please, your constitution does not allow any civilian to bear arms. it says militia there, clearly. are you militia? no? then constitution does not protect your arm rights.

Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).

Because the rights in question are those of owning a gun and not non-lethel defence weapons.

 

[Alfred P. Herman]

Take up as many sword/bladed weapon fighting styles as possible, fill house with swords and other various cool looking bladed weaponry(in cases, and sharpened)and hope I never have to use them, but be prepared to look stylish while using them.

I feel if we all just dropped guns altogether, and focused on swords/melee weapons we'd be a lot better off.
1.everyone would have to go face to face seeing the fear in their eyes, feel the blood coming down the blade, feel the blade cut through flesh, realizing that they too are fleshy mortals whose life can just as easily be ended, and most, save some psychos who would be killing people regardless,would be much more hesitant to kill folk willy nilly.
2.It would require a bit more skill which would mean more training, which would mean more time.(as opposed to guns which is essentially "point to kill")
3. It would be a lot harder to conceal effective killing weapons, smallest blade I can think of is a dagger which is generally used for parrying.

I'm sure I'm over simplifying it somewhat, but I thought I'd put in my entirely unhelpful two cents in.

 

[TornadoADV]

"Regulation" is double speak for "Take Away" in Capital Hill. Don't want citizens with modern handguns and rifles? Regulate their magazine size so small that they can't function or fit in the weapon they are designed for. Or make it illegal for weapons to have certain furniture to such an extreme degree that no modern weapon is made that way to any functional degree.

Here's a thought: you don't need a modern gun.

you don't need any gun, but that is besides the point. unless you live in a war torn country where violent raids occur on a daily basis with no semblance of authority, you have no need of a device that dispenses lethal rounds at 60 rpm, nor do you need to dispense 60 of them at a time.

when gangs of 60 criminals are involved in 1 burglary, then it will be a different story.
when you are hunting animals that fight in packs and can kill you from 10 meters away, then it'll be a different story.

I don't really care what you think, an armed populace keeps the government honest. Without weapons the people of the United States have no way of removing the government if the government oversteps it's bounds, because once the second is gone, you can bet that the first and the fifth are soon behind it.

Take up as many sword/bladed weapon fighting styles as possible, fill house with swords and other various cool looking bladed weaponry(in cases, and sharpened)and hope I never have to use them, but be prepared to look stylish while using them.

I feel if we all just dropped guns altogether, and focused on swords/melee weapons we'd be a lot better off.
1.everyone would have to go face to face seeing the fear in their eyes, feel the blood coming down the blade, feel the blade cut through flesh, realizing that they too are fleshy mortals whose life can just as easily be ended, and most, save some psychos who would be killing people regardless,would be much more hesitant to kill folk willy nilly.
2.It would require a bit more skill which would mean more training, which would mean more time.(as opposed to guns which is essentially "point to kill")
3. It would be a lot harder to conceal effective killing weapons, smallest blade I can think of is a dagger which is generally used for parrying.

I'm sure I'm over simplifying it somewhat, but I thought I'd put in my entirely unhelpful two cents in.

A bladed weapon does not make a 5'2", 90 lb woman equal to a 6'0", 200 lb man. Guns are the great equalizer.

So, in essence they've banned guns. Except two sentences prior, you say that they haven't banned revolvers. So either revolvers aren't guns, or they didn't ban guns and you're making wild accusations to dramatize your empty rhetoric. Which is it?

Revolvers have very poor performance against body armor and even with a speed loader, are cumbersome and slow to reload. Which means they are little good in protecting the populace from a government gone wrong.

Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).

I mean, yeah, a lot of those non-lethal options are notoriously short-ranged. However, in a city environment (where most of this violence takes place), if someone is so far that you cannot incapacitate them non-lethally with a ranged tazer (or are those publicly available? I can't remember), then it is fair to assume they are far enough away there is some kind of cover in the way you can duck behind until they bugger off, or get close enough for the non-lethal weapon to be effective. Because cities tend to have a lot of man-made structures and devices in them (and boxes), which tend to make it difficult to hit people with ranged attacks due to line of sight and material density stopping or misdirecting attacks.

And yeah, that doesn't apply to all situations, but until we get publicly-issued tactical dreadnaught armor, defenses will have situations in which they fail. Including the counter-attack defense

People can fight through MACE to the face and with Tazer Guns you have one shot to hit at very close range or you have to risk hand to hand combat if you have the old fashioned dual pronged contact Tazers. In the United States, with enough money, you can have a better weapon and better body armor then any Infantryman out in the field today.

 

[Fuzzed]

The significance of a skateboard to you is fun. The significance of guns to gun owners is protection of their homes and often insurance against a corrupt state.

If you view anything as the thing that maintains your rights, and that thing is also a deadly weapon, and millions of people in your country hold this same view, you can expect a revolt of some kind.

You mean to tell me that gun owners also do view their guns as fun? Why do they take them hunting? Why do they take them to the gun range? Why do they show them off to their neighbors and friends? Why do they show their kids?

The percentage of people who just own one gun that they keep in their bedside table next to their box of condoms and bible (and never show another soul on this planet) for the purposes of protecting their home against a "corrupt state", against intruders (against zombies), and to protect this so-called rights your talking about is so low its fucking unbelievable.

You don't need a gun to be courageous. You don't need a gun to lead a revolt.

 

[TornadoADV]

The significance of a skateboard to you is fun. The significance of guns to gun owners is protection of their homes and often insurance against a corrupt state.

If you view anything as the thing that maintains your rights, and that thing is also a deadly weapon, and millions of people in your country hold this same view, you can expect a revolt of some kind.

You mean to tell me that gun owners also do view their guns as fun? Why do they take them hunting? Why do they take them to the gun range? Why do they show them off to their neighbors and friends? Why do they show their kids?

The percentage of people who just own one gun that they keep in their bedside table next to their box of condoms and bible (and never show another soul on this planet) for the purposes of protecting their home against a "corrupt state", against intruders (against zombies), and to protect this so-called rights your talking about is so low its fucking unbelievable.

You don't need a gun to be courageous. You don't need a gun to lead a revolt.

Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?

 

[Raytan941]

Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).

I mean, yeah, a lot of those non-lethal options are notoriously short-ranged. However, in a city environment (where most of this violence takes place), if someone is so far that you cannot incapacitate them non-lethally with a ranged tazer (or are those publicly available? I can't remember), then it is fair to assume they are far enough away there is some kind of cover in the way you can duck behind until they bugger off, or get close enough for the non-lethal weapon to be effective. Because cities tend to have a lot of man-made structures and devices in them (and boxes), which tend to make it difficult to hit people with ranged attacks due to line of sight and material density stopping or misdirecting attacks.

And yeah, that doesn't apply to all situations, but until we get publicly-issued tactical dreadnaught armor, defenses will have situations in which they fail. Including the counter-attack defense

It's all well and good to talk about non-lethal options but the fact of the matter is non-lethal weapons even under ideal circumstances are just not that effective of a deterrent. Can you scare off or disable an attacker with pepper spray or a taser or stun gun? Yes its possible, can you scare off or disable a truly determined attacker with pepper spray or a taser or stun gun unless you get in a lucky shot probably not. If non-lethal options were as effective as firearms then cops wouldn't carry firearms, they just are not and until someone comes up with an equivalent of a star trek phaser they wont be.

Let's do a rundown of a few of the popular non-letal options out there.

Stungun's are limited to melee range and sorry folks but it does not work like the movies if you shock someone with a stungun they don't fall to the ground knocked out cold. Getting hit with a stungun hurts it may cause someone to falter or fall down but the effects wear off in seconds, it is possible to cause someone to black out if you have a sufficiently powerful stungun and you hold it on them long enough but you can also kill someone by doing that. Stunguns are easily defeated by thick clothing someone wearing a winter jacket for example, try hitting them in the torso with a stungun and they may only feel a partial shock or none at all.

Taser's, essentially the same thing as a stungun but these are the ones that shoot out the prongs and can deliver a shock from a distance usually of 15-30 feet. And before someone says it, yes it is weird that the melee range weapon is called a stungun while the one that actually shoots a projectile is called a taser but stunguns were developed before tasers and I guess it seemed like a good name at the time. The problem's with a taser are numerous firstly is it's a one shot device, though I think one company recently came out with a two shot taser. Secondly they are notoriously inaccurate and considering they only have a range of 15-30 feet to begin with and have a reputation of being extremely inaccurate over such a short distance is saying something. Thirdly if only 1 prong fails to connect with the skin of your target it wont do anything. Finally just like with a stungun it is easily defeated by thick clothing.

Pepperspray/mace this is an interesting one in some case's this can be a more effective deterrent then either of the previous two options but in other cases it can be about the worse thing you can try and use to defend yourself. The range on pepper sprays vary' s about to ten feet to thirty or more if you have one of those large cans. The problem's with pepperspary is unless you hit an attacker in the face with it it's totally useless. Also up close at melee ranges your just as likely to end up spraying yourself as your attacker, there's probably not a veteran police officer in the country that has not been hit with his own spray or the spray of another officer at one time or another while trying to use it on a suspect.

So there are just a few examples of the problems with non-lethal options, however I saved the two biggest problems for last. First multiple attackers, sure in some situations those 3 options might be useful vs one attacker but vs two or three or four, I don't think so. Second, an armed attacker/s the effectiveness of those non-lethal options quickly drops to nil when confronted with an attacker armed with a gun.

And for the record non-lethal use of a gun to defend oneself happens ALL the time and most of the time it goes unreported to the police. If you are armed and you are confronted someone who intends to do you harm simply pulling your gun out and showing that you are armed and prepared to defend yourself with deadly force is enough to send most people packing, non-lethal defensive use of a so called lethal killing machine with no other purpose then to kill confirmed.

 

[Fuzzed]

Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?

Ok. So the the percentage of folks who have more than one weapon (that they don't show anybody) jammed next to their gigantic box of condoms and their King James Bible in their bedside nightstand is also extremely low.

And life isn't a video game, dog. If the US government (who also has access to nukes) decides to wage oppression (which would never happen, ever), they have the friggin entire military, tanks and badass F-22's to throw at it's own people. Whatever you have stored in your closet for a rainy day is so friggin useless it's not even funny.

 

[TornadoADV]

Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?

Ok. So the the percentage of folks who have more than one weapon (that they don't show anybody) jammed next to their gigantic box of condoms and their King James Bible in their bedside nightstand is also extremely low.

And life isn't a video game, dog. If the US government (who also has access to nukes) decides to wage oppression (which would never happen, ever), they have the friggin entire military, tanks and badass F-22's to throw at it's own people. Whatever you have stored in your closet for a rainy day is so friggin useless it's not even funny.

You don't understand how to fight an asymmetrical war, that's your own fault. Why don't you bother reading up on such things? Being a USAF veteran, I can tell you that AFBs are some of the most easily breached bases in the world. A civil war in the US would see the majority of military bases overun by armed civilians considering almost all of them are near or surrounded by cities of at least 10,000 people. The only safe place the US Military could operate from would be MEUs and CSGs, everything else would be crawling with rather upset american citizens.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Good to see that this thread has gone just about as well as I had hoped. Whenever a topic relates to something like this, all the trolls come out.

 

[Raytan941]

The same corelation with crime can be made with games. games got very popular during last 20 years too. does that mean games caused crime rate to drop? no. then how can you argue same correlation for guns?

I never said that I think guns made the crime rate drop I said that's what some groups like the NRA claim and I said I disagree with that statement. I do think that the fact that we have more gun's and less crime in this country now then 20 years ago is an interesting fact and I think it disproves the anti-gun lobby's claim of more guns = more crime.

and please, your constitution does not allow any civilian to bear arms. it says militia there, clearly. are you militia? no? then constitution does not protect your arm rights.

Oh please this again? really? I'm not even gonna get into it because it's a whole debate in and of itself, if you want to learn about the 2nd amendment and it's meaning check my post history. But let's just go with this, the supreme court has already ruled that the 2nd amendment allows the individual right of a firearm for self protection.

 

[Ryotknife]

Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression. Also, why the restriction to just one weapon for self defense? If a person has two or more for self defense it suddenly doesn't count?

Ok. So the the percentage of folks who have more than one weapon (that they don't show anybody) jammed next to their gigantic box of condoms and their King James Bible in their bedside nightstand is also extremely low.

And life isn't a video game, dog. If the US government (who also has access to nukes) decides to wage oppression (which would never happen, ever), they have the friggin entire military, tanks and badass F-22's to throw at it's own people. Whatever you have stored in your closet for a rainy day is so friggin useless it's not even funny.

which makes the assumption that the entire military would follow the government when in all likelyhood they will fracture as soldiers and vets tend to prize freedom/american rights/constitution/yadda yadda more so than the common citizens as that is what they are fighting and bleeding for.

But hey, continue to talk about a subject you know nothing about and continue your anti-american bigotry.

Not to mention the country is filled with armories whose defenses include a barb-wire fence and a dozen or so people. All you need is a few hundred people to overrun many of the american bases or armories. They are designed to keep out intruders and thieves, not a small army.

government operated Power plants have much better defenses.

Oh, and dont count on the National Guard to fire on their own families considering every state and territory has a national guard compromised mostly of locals.

 

[Fuzzed]

You don't understand how to fight an asymmetrical war, that's your own fault. Why don't you bother reading up on such things? Being a USAF veteran, I can tell you that AFBs are some of the most easily breached bases in the world. A civil war in the US would see the majority of military bases overun by armed civilians considering almost all of them are near or surrounded by cities of at least 10,000 people. The only safe place the US Military could operate from would be MEUs and CSGs, everything else would be crawling with rather upset american citizens.

Oh my God....How have I slipped through life till this point without learning how to fight an asymmetrical war properly? I need to hit the books! Forget about what Pynchon and Faulkner were talking about, give me Asymmetrical War for Dummies now!

 

[Fuzzed]

which makes the assumption that the entire military would follow the government when in all likelyhood they will fracture as soldiers and vets tend to prize freedom/american rights/constitution/yadda yadda more so than the common citizens as that is what they are fighting and bleeding for.

But hey, continue to talk about a subject you know nothing about and continue your anti-american bigotry.

Not to mention the country is filled with armories whose defenses include a chain link fence and a dozen or so people. All you need is a few hundred people to overrun many of the american bases or armories. They are designed to keep out intruders and thieves, not a small army.

government operated Power plants have much better defenses.

Oh, and dont count on the National Guard to fire on their own families considering every state and territory has a national guard compromised mostly of locals.

Ya. Sorry. I didn't realize I was talking with someone who has been part of taking over 21st century governments. I'll back off.