Gun control is withering on the vine.

Post Reply New Topic

Knives are meant for ambushes and situations when they are all that you can have. Hand to hand against multiple assailants (criminals run in packs) with bats is a losing proposition.

Think demographics...

Plus, the "militias" there have no regard for laws, and they actively seek to incite the IDF to react militarily.

Good point to bring up. Notice how you never hear about shooting deaths in white neighborhoods occurring in numbers rivaling military casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notice how poor white neighborhoods tend to be safer than poor minority neighborhoods. I'm sure you could find exceptions to my statements, but I'm talking about a general trend.

Personally I think that if gang members were better shots and didn't hit so many bystanders, that they should be allowed to shoot each other all they want.

It actually is legal for civilians to own an M240 (and BTW it's not a light machine gun, that would be an M249, you're not fooling anyone) subject to local regulations, it just takes an awful lot of paperwork, a set of fingerprints, being subjected to an intensive federal background check, and a considerable outlay of money. Hell, there are a few GE Miniguns in civilian hands, think they ever are used criminally? In some states it's still possible to buy high explosives with a modicum of paperwork and proper identification, and yet we don't have any rashes of bombings.

To address your "point" more directly, gun control and it's procession have ample historical precedent, examples can be found from feudal Japan to Nazi Germany to modern England. Eventually, if not checked it always leads to total or near total prohibition and confiscation, often after a prolonged period of incremental restrictions. This strategy can be easily observed in contemporary American gun control organizations and their attempts to demonize specific categories of firearms, in order to make restrictions and prohibitions more palatable to potential voters. People who would balk at restricting hunting ammunition have no such problem when the same thing is called "cop killer bullets", or for hunting rifles when they are referred to as "medium caliber sniper rifles". It would be one thing if gun control was a novel idea and people like me were jumping to conclusions about the intentions of it's purveyors, it's quite another when numerous examples are available as a warning to where it always leads.



I agree, restrictions on personal freedoms should be kept to an absolute minimum. Where we may part ways is that I believe that freedoms are worth sacrifices, and am perfectly comfortable with the consequences of low amounts of regulation. Given the notable lack of success and negative consequences of previous attempts at prohibiting various items and substances over the years, I believe that the only beneficiaries of such policies are the criminals who profit from providing the forbidden item, and the law enforcers who are payed to try and stop them. Everyone else just gets screwed.



I'm not one to debate hypothetical scenarios, but let's try and inject a little reality into this.

For one, I don't advocate drawing on a drawn gun unless absolutely necessary, flight if possible is the better response. However, if the guy with the gun gets close enough to let's say take your wallet, especially if he isn't aware that you are armed, it is entirely possible to seize control of the situation. I don't normally like to use examples from fiction or videos in general, but this 18 second clip demonstrates a very realistic way to respond to a drawn gun, and is in fact nearly the exact technique that I learned in my martial arts training, though we did it without our own guns (or the gratuitous headshot once the guy is down...)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJlsc8GU50&feature=related[/youtube]

You're also assuming that most muggers use a gun, when knives, clubs and groups are all more likely to be encountered and all can be much more
easily dealt with if you happen to be carrying a gun. Further, gun carrying people do not give off "prey vibes" because they are fully aware that they can take care of themselves, and habitual criminals can and do pick up on that. I've posted the studies so many times here already that I'll leave it to you to google them if you're skeptical, but crime victim selection is a well studied phenomenon that the self assurance of an armed individual often short circuits, even if the criminal is also armed.

Next, imagine you're a criminal preparing to mug someone. You may be desperate but you're not crazy, you want to get the most return for the least amount of work, and just as importantly if not more so, the least amount of risk. You're not looking to kill someone, that brings down a lot of heat and risk, all you're looking for is a quick buck, that's the whole point of crime, to acquire things more easily than through legitimate means. The idea that you would intentionally target someone who is visibly armed is not rational or realistic, and casts serious doubt on your reasoning skills not to mention your intellectual honesty. Either mugger-you is a very poor hypothetical criminal, or actual-you doesn't have a problem with using "questionable" methods trying to "win" an argument; given your track record in other threads, I'm leaning towards the latter.



Again, you're assuming the "other side" is similarly armed, which is often not the case in violent situations. Crooks know that using a firearm in commission of a felony is a serious enhancement that adds years to a sentence, and will avoid this when possible. The common use of underage "shorties" to hold weapons until they are needed among drug gangs is plenty of proof of this. I've known people who deterred violent incidents through flashing, and the one thing that they had in common was that they were women being attacked by men. One of them was an ex-girlfriend who was chased during a road rage incident by an enraged man who blocked her car in and attempted to wrench her door open, until she displayed her G26 by tapping it against the car window, at which point the fellow decided he had pressing business elsewhere. This is a very common pattern, with men it tends to be multiple assailants or people wielding knives or clubs, but the way the incident plays out is usually quite similar. Someone threatens violence, a gun is drawn, and the aggressor exits the scene post haste.

No one is advocating "flashing" a gun at someone who has one drawn, that's just plain stupid and putting words in my mouth to boot, not that I'm surprised coming from you and all. And seriously, Old West put downs? Now you're not even trying.



Now who's living the "macho fantasy"? I'm a gunsmith, I hold a concealed weapons permit, I regularly buy and sell firearms of all kinds, do you really think I carry anything less than legal on me? Maybe your state makes you register guns, but where I live we still have some rights. As to "mugger-you"? He's dead or in prison, criminals that dumb don't make it very far before meeting one of those eventualities.



I'd rather the NRA focus on more constructive activities as well, but I still send them money when I'm able. When the anti-gun zealots stop spending their time and money trying to take my rights away, I'll stop spending mine stopping them, believe me I have better uses for it. As for everyone carrying a gun, I wouldn't force anyone to do so, but anyone who wants to that hasn't proven themselves unworthy should be allowed to. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and what is important to them, and our current CCW licensing program has an admirable safety record, with far less than 1% of permits revoked due to firearms related offenses. Frankly, I think you are misinformed and confused, and should do a little research on a topic before posting like you know what you're talking about.

Depends on the person. Some people will pull the trigger at such sudden moves and you'll be shot before your hand reaches the gun (or as it is reaching the gun). Others don't have killer intent when you're dealing with them so they'll be delayed in reacting. Then there's also how close you are and how quick you are. It's a craps shoot and I'd rather not gamble with my life in such a way.

I'm sure that the British were similarly against American colonists' forming militias.

Selling armaments is one of America's few remaining profitable industries.

It is very hypocritical not to be critical of Israel trying to prevent militias from obtaining weapons.

True, which is why I heavily qualified that statement and clip. However, having practiced that particular disarming drill against an airsoft gun, action will beat reaction more often that you might think, even with a drawn guy and a finger on the trigger. The difficulty in evaluating such a situation is that you don't know the true intent of the person holding the gun on you, maybe he just wants your wallet, maybe he thinks it's better to not leave a witness, or maybe things start out one way and the exercise of power causes him to want to wield it. Going along with the demands of the criminal is thus just as risky as attempting to disarm him, and the path taken is a function of your personal skill set, the circumstances, and your personal judgment. My intent was simply to refute the contention that even an armed individual is helpless in the face of a drawn gun, and that clip provides a realistic portrayal of one possible course of action. If you notice, Cruise initially feigns compliance with the mugger, and only strikes when his assailant drops his guard and approaches him. Pay particular attention to the way that he simultaneously twists his body out of the line of fire and deflects the gun with this left hand, then draws and fires with the right. This is a textbook response to this situation, and their are others like it tailored to other contingencies. In most cases the whole thing is academic anyway, but I enjoy learning such things in their own right, that they could save my life and protect my loved ones is a great secondary benefit.

America's independence and the Syrian/"Palestinian" independence are two entirely different things. Israel has offered it twice now, as far as I recall, and they refused it (at least while under the leadership of Arafat) because they want to make a big fussy show and have people like you fooled by it.

The Second Amendment reads:

Israel is clearly in violation of the Second Amendment, and is therefore no ally of the United States.



The 18th century British were just as unholy as 21st century Israel in trying to prevent militias from acquiring weapons.

That's our second amendment, in our bill of rights. It has nothing to do with how Israel responds to receiving ten thousand rockets fired from "militias" in Gaza.

Actually, Israel's armed and proficient citizens are a prime reason why the suicide bomb is such a common form of terrorism used there, prior to the early 90's terror attacks were often attempted with guns, only to have the attackers themselves gunned down by Israeli citizens.

Either we believe in the second amendment, or we don't.

Either we believe in militias, or we don't.

We can't have a double standard where one group of people has the right to arm itself and form militias, and another doesn't. That smacks of the perfidy of discrimination.

If Israel wishes to respond by killing tems of thousands of Gaza residents, that is perfectly fine. The Second Amendment has not been violated.

If Israel responds by preventing people in Gaza from acquiring weapons, that is a damnable violation of the Second Amendment. We really cannot countenance it.

If the British were wrong (as indeed they were) to attempt to prevent American militias from acquiring weapons, then the Israelis are doubly wrong (given that we live in a post-Second Amendment world) for trying to keep weapons away from the people of Gaza.

That's awesome. It's good to see common sense in action. What do you say to someone like pandabear though, who is arguing that Israel should allow insane enemies to have military hardware?

One cannot seek to deny weapons to Israel's enemies without bringing into question the divinely-inspired Second Amendment. As iamnotaparakeet says, gunning people down is certainly "awesome." Denying people weapons just ain't "awesome."

Israeli civilians actively defending themselves against armed aggressors, that is what is awesome. The second amendment is not divinely inspired, but it is sensible in consideration of the world we live in that lawful civilians should have both the right as well as the ability to protect themselves. Now you incredulous cretin, stop twisting my words.