Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

Everyone agrees that private citizens should not be allowed to own nuclear warheads. Governments have nuclear warheads. When you understand this, the details of what precisely you are allowed are pretty irrelevant.

Governments generally won't use nukes on themselves. The first time that happens, the populace will revolt and start killing LEOs, politicians, and any soldier they encounter. Besides, you don't need nukes to use guerrilla tactics against a government.

You don't need guns, either.

I'm still waiting for someone even marginally knowledgeable on firearms to emerge from the anti-gun side of things. I'm referring to anti-gunners as a whole, but just within the microcosm that is WP PPR I can think of Raptor, myself, and John Browning as people having at least expert knowledge on the subject who often argue for firearms rights, with Ace of Spades and a few others right behind us, but not of a single informed poster on the anti side. I'm aware that technical knowledge is not the same thing as policy setting, but you'd think that people with such strongly held opinions would make at least a minimal effort to learn about the subject. Sadly, insults and invective seem to be preferable to facts and research among the anti-gun set.

True, but they sure are a nice way to reach out and touch someone that poses a threat.

I would also postulate than in a true civil war scenario, it would play out in a similar fashion to how the "war between the states" played out. Many top Union generals defected to the Confederacy during this due to both identifying more with their state than the national government and for ideological reasons. Were there to be a modern incarnation, much the same would inevitably follow. I would expect a minimum of 20-30% of the armed forces to defect if the revolt were to be started for extremely justifiable reasons and bring their equipment and expertise with them. Thus, it would fulfill Mao Zedong's imperative in his writings "On Guerrilla Warfare", where he states that a standing army is necessary to win a war. (No matter what your political feelings about communism, I suggest reading the writings of Mao Zedong and Che Guevara on this subject as they have far more first hand experience with it.) Plus, a civil war is VERY different from a foreign war. Right now, drones can be controlled from half way around the world, so command and control are out of reach of the other side's combatants. However, the change of location suddenly brings these installations into play.

Again, I am not supporting an insurrection. I am, however, supporting leaving in place the means for it to come about should this government become a serious threat to individual liberty. Please don't be so naive as to say it could never happen in a modern representative republic. The 20th century was replete with examples of this very thing happening and most of the time gun confiscation was one of the first steps taken before absolute power was seized. Sorry, but I trust no construct of man or civil society to keep me safe. There are too many examples throughout history that prove that it will not.

You don't need to worry that I might think that you are dangerously subversive. Actually, I am quite fond of insurrections. I certainly don't think that we have seen the last aggressive fascist government. I even suspect that the US might turn fascist. But I think you are kidding yourself if you think that privately-owned guns will make the crucial difference.

It's like the old saying: "If voting made a difference, they'd make it illegal." If power structures really thought that privately-owned guns posed an existential threat to them, they would do something about it much more forcefully.

Well, at least it seems that we agree that the corporate-state is the true enemy to the freedom of mankind. I am not a big gun person myself, having only fired one during two separate sessions at a gun range. I would much prefer taking them apart and seeing how they work to actually shooting them. I don't think they are the solution for the problems of the world. In practical terms, they are a tool of very limited use and only need be employed in the most severe of circumstances. However, they are a very useful tool for those circumstances and I cannot support limiting their availability to people who can pass the criminal background check. Unfortunately, bad people will still get access to them as not all bad people have criminal records. The thing is though, that is the price for living in a free society. You do take the risk that people will make bad choices that abuse those freedoms and that you are not going to live in 100% safety.

I'd prefer the odds that come with him having smaller magazines so that I could slip out. That's what people were doing once he switched weapons and had to reload. Shooters have also been tackled while reloading in the past.

But because some gun nut somewhere wants to jerk off thinking about fighting the government, we have access to 100 round drums

The type of governments that you'd want to violently revolt against are the ones who wouldn't hesitate to nuke themselves.

Earlier you said: “I would measure it based on the elimination of gun-related violence.” Underscoring added by me. I was just wondering how you’d accurately determine the effectiveness of gun control after factoring in all the variables.
Call me an uncouth hick but it seems like anyone who values law and its legality and constitutionality would only want to see effective laws passed and not just feel good measures that lessen the very integrity of law in general.


Even the first ten amendments alone, enacted in 1791, of the constitution are still fully applicable in the 21st century.
Why even have a constitution when it can be whimsically changed to appease whatever is in vogue at the time?

I think at this point it's quite obvious that your position is that "guns-r-bad" with nothing of substance behind it and that laws should be passed just because.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNDZGvSfzI4&feature=fvwrel[/youtube] if this lady didnt have a gun to defend herself she and her baby would have been dead!

That is entirely your opinion. That you consider yourselves "experts" says a lot about why you consider anyone who argues against you uninformed. This sort of self-congratulation will not lead people to want to have a serious debate with any you since it leads to the reasonable conclusion that it will not have a fruitful or informative result. I would also limit the knowledgeable pro-gun people here to you, John and Ace, since the three of you don't revert to scatology and insults within two or three posts

If this man didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have defended himself against a suspicious youngster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman

Ugh this isn't the time to talk about gun control Vexcalibur have some RESPECT!

I think the only sensible thing to do at this point is to host a massive NRA convention in Aurora, preferably with lots of no-nonsense, straight-talkin' guest speakers

I guess, given the source, that you're advocating magazine capacity laws. Usually anything over 10 rounds is considered high capacity by the hand wringers. There are probably tens or hundreds of millions of 30 round AR15/M16 magazines and AK47/AK74 magazines already in the hands of the private sector.
About all a ban would do is raise the prices and/or create a black market.
Those 100 round Beta mags are expensive as hell. I don't have one or plan to buy one because of their expense and unwieldy bulk. I don't know how reliable they are but I did see one bind up at the range a while back. About all they are is an attempt to turn a rifle or carbine into a half-ass sustained fire weapon which it still won't be no matter what.
Anything I'll ever want or need to do with an AR15 can be done with standard 30 rounders and it doesn't take me long to do a mag swap with them.

You're saying that the time it takes to swap mags (a few seconds with a little diligent practice) you could vacate the premises. Well, you'd better be a gnat's eyelash from the exit to assure success with that.


He must have been slow. I figure he bought the guns and didn't spend much time practicing with them. Not even reload and weapon transition drills that could have been done at home, let alone going somewhere for some live fire exercises.


True but it's not an option that is going to present itself all that often and it is very time critical.
Tackling someone doesn't always end it since he might be able to quickly defeat you.
Better odds are to use that time to put a few holes in him from some kind of cover if possible.

In a scenario like this you are fighting the individuality, not his gun. I know what an AR15 can do but not necessarily what the operator can do.

Last edited by Raptor on 22 Jul 2012, 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.