Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Guess where Mexico gets most of its illegal guns from

Guess where Mexico gets most of its illegal guns from (Page 3)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 11:59 AM
 
I edited it to say "what they put on a battleship". The tank analogy didn't really carry the difference in scale I'm trying to illustrate.

Of course, that's not big enough a scale either. Why do you even need an analogy? If you're looking for something which has that scale, pick a nuke. I assume I don't need to explain how that has an effect on foreign policy.

Let me put this another way.

If the government of the PRNK felt secure enough to let its citizenry go armed, I'd feel way more comfortable with them having nukes.

Of course, if they had an armed citizenry, they'd have much better things to do than build nukes. They'd borrow ours, and use the savings to close the Starcraft gap.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I edited it to say "what they put on a battleship". The tank analogy didn't really carry the difference in scale I'm trying to illustrate.

Of course, that's not big enough a scale either. Why do you even need an analogy? If you're looking for something which has that scale, pick a nuke. I assume I don't need to explain how that has an effect on foreign policy.
Yes, you do. Tell me what the difference is, because that's the point of my supposition of cognitive dissonance.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 12:12 PM
 
The point of armed citizenry is as an internal check against the government. Nukes are meant as a check against external governments.

If we have interest in checking governments, is not letting those governments get a counter-check antithetical to our goal?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The point of armed citizenry is as an internal check against the government. Nukes are meant as a check against external governments.

If we have interest in checking governments, is not letting those governments get a counter-check antithetical to our goal?
I thought the point of having a gun was self-defense and deterrence. Obtaining nukes is directly inline with those goals.

I mean, your point about check against the government has merit, but I'd say it's also more theory than reality (compared to my point).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 12:26 PM
 
I didn't say the point of having a gun, I said the point of "armed citizenry".
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 12:31 PM
 
So you weren't addressing my original point then?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 12:49 PM
 
I think I am, I'm trying to at least.

You're asking if there's dissonance between letting any ol' citizen get a gun and not letting any ol' country get a nuke.

I'm saying there's no dissonance because they serve the same function.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2013, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm comparing it to a bow.
You can be stupid-dangerous with a bow, too, and for the same reason. Both take training and practice to operate safely (for the operator) and effectively.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 11:15 AM
 
But, I assume your claim isn't that it's anywhere near a similar amount of training.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The point of armed citizenry is as an internal check against the government.
The last time we had to do that, we were a British colony. I don't think it's required here anymore.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 12:41 PM
 
Actually a bow takes more training not less. That's why the cross bow and then the musket replaced the bow in the first place.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
We don't define sins...generally Christians follow the laws that apply to where they live as best they can as well as try to follow the Ten Commandments and teachings of the Bible.
I'm pretty sure the Bible defines quite clearly what is and is not a sin. So does the Pope, if you're Catholic.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Actually a bow takes more training not less. That's why the cross bow and then the musket replaced the bow in the first place.
That's my point. I'm not sure Glenn agrees.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
The last time we had to do that, we were a British colony. I don't think it's required here anymore.
Do you think it has no deterrent effect?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think I am, I'm trying to at least.

You're asking if there's dissonance between letting any ol' citizen get a gun and not letting any ol' country get a nuke.

I'm saying there's no dissonance because they serve the same function.
Try the last line in the original statement:
Isn't the underlying principle between preventing nuclear proliferation and gun control the same?
What is the difference in intent between gun control and nuke control?


Second, do you disagree with this? (If so, why?)
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I thought the point of having a gun was self-defense and deterrence. Obtaining nukes is directly inline with those goals.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do you think it has no deterrent effect?
I don't. I think it's always been on the military. Do you think the military will turn against the populace? You're good. Do you think they will back the populace? You're not good. That leaves the option for the military to just stand back and watch. Has that ever happened? If the dictatorship has no or little protection, I don't think it matters what the populace is armed with at that point because there's too damn many. And that's if some low level military people don't chuck the keys to the local gun arsenal to a friend.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 01:38 PM
 
@Dakar

The intent of gun control is for the government to check it's citizenry.

The intent of nuke control is for the government to check other governments.

If the government isn't checking its citizenry, one can be fairly assured a play for nuke control is done in the interest of said citizenry, rather than the interest of the government.


This connects to your second question. Yes, having a gun, and having a nuke are for the same purposes. The problem with a country like NK (for example) is the interest in getting a nuke is purely governmental, and is in fact actively harming its citizenry.

As I said earlier, if the NK government was actually acting in the interest of its citizens, it would do exactly what SK does. Borrow our nukes, and use the resource savings to kick the world's collective ass at Starcraft and smartphones.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I don't. I think it's always been on the military. Do you think the military will turn against the populace? You're good. Do you think they will back the populace? You're not good. That leaves the option for the military to just stand back and watch. Has that ever happened? If the dictatorship has no or little protection, I don't think it matters what the populace is armed with at that point because there's too damn many. And that's if some low level military people don't chuck the keys to the local gun arsenal to a friend.
I think there's one important thing you're overlooking. The usual situation is the dictator is the military. So, yes. They are willing to attack the populace to maintain power.

Of course, this wouldn't be attacking the "populace" it would be attacking "domestic terrorists".
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 02:08 PM
 
(re: armed populace for deterring tyranny)
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I don't. I think it's always been on the military. Do you think the military will turn against the populace? You're good. Do you think they will back the populace? You're not good. That leaves the option for the military to just stand back and watch. Has that ever happened? If the dictatorship has no or little protection, I don't think it matters what the populace is armed with at that point because there's too damn many. And that's if some low level military people don't chuck the keys to the local gun arsenal to a friend.
Please consider the question from the other side: instead of presuming what will happen and asking how an armed populace could help (which is a perfectly valid approach), try presuming what we want to happen and asking how is the closest we can accomplish that (which is another perfectly valid approach). Presume that what we want is a balance of power, a system of checks and balances, similar to the long long list of other checks and balances that have served America well. How do you set up a balance against the military? What are the potential candidates for this force? I submit that an armed populace is the leading candidate for that problem. You would probably say that as time goes on and military technology advances while armed citizenry technology doesn't, that the effectiveness of an armed citizenry as a check against a modern military gets lower and lower, and will continue to do so indefinitely. And you'd be right. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still the best answer to the question (the question is what can we use to check the power of the military). The way to change the answer to that question is to find something better.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 03:13 PM
 
Give the citizens ready access to weapons better suited to fighting a modern military. Weapons that that just happen to be completely unsuitable for use in committing crimes.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Give the citizens ready access to weapons better suited to fighting a modern military. Weapons that that just happen to be completely unsuitable for use in committing crimes.
Like assault rifles?
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 03:45 PM
 
Lite surface to air missiles, SAWs and anti tank weapons.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 04:54 PM
 
The issue isn't weapons suited to fight a modern military, it's tactics.

You only need anti-tank weapons if you plan to assault a tank. That's not what guerrillas do.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 05:11 PM
 
Guerrilla tactics don't work well in a city. Man portable anti tank weapons work really well in a city. As seen in the Russian assault on Berlin.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 05:20 PM
 
Sure they do.

By the time frontal assaults of cities are happening, heavy weaponry has been stolen.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 05:26 PM
 
By the time frontal assaults of cities are happening everyone who stole heavy weaponry has been hunted down and dealt with because they're not in the cities and neither was the heavy weaponry.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sure they do.

By the time frontal assaults of cities are happening, heavy weaponry has been stolen.
Stolen using assault rifles
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
By the time frontal assaults of cities are happening everyone who stole heavy weaponry has been hunted down and dealt with because they're not in the cities and neither was the heavy weaponry.
Honestly, frontal assaults aren't needed. The objective is going to be to destabilize a government, not take and hold ground.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 11:49 PM
 
No the objective would be to pacify an unruly citizenry. To do to an armed citizenry would require an frontal assault. There's no way to flank NYC or LA.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Like assault rifles?
You talking about those scary-looking rifles that the military classifies as "small arms?"
"Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes." Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
You talking about those scary-looking rifles that the military classifies as "small arms?"
"Small Arms" is a non-support weapon an individual infantryman can carry. That includes RPGs and M134s; and depending on the branch of military, may include high calibre machine guns.

So yes, "small arms."
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
"Small Arms" is a non-support weapon an individual infantryman can carry. That includes RPGs and M134s; and depending on the branch of military, may include high calibre machine guns.

So yes, "small arms."
Exactly, I'm in the military...been in for 24 years, and nobody I know ever calls our rifles "assault weapons." It's a term I've heard from time to time outside the military but it's the media who's promulgated this term...maybe in an effort to strike fear and/or public outrage, maybe due to ignorance... The fact is, the list of weapons that Congress is proposing be banned includes scary looking weapons but exclude their non-scary looking variants along with larger caliber versions and weapons (which are the ones that are more dangerous). Seems like a feel good measure and an effort to garner politcal points...I wish they'd look at the root of the problem but that'd require effort and real research and there's no time for that.
"Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes." Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
No the objective would be to pacify an unruly citizenry. To do to an armed citizenry would require an frontal assault. There's no way to flank NYC or LA.
I'd say a frontal assault on a city by the government would help sell the resistance position.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 03:23 PM
 
Pardon my grammar/idiocy/whatever. Should have been "To do that with an armed citizenry..."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 04:57 PM
 
Again, marching on NYC would be an unpopular move for the government.

If the goal of the resistance is to destabilize the government, forcing the government to cause massive collateral damage (which it would if attacking a city) helps the resistance in its goal.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Isn't the whole point of a tool to make a job easier?
You got me there.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
So we get rid of crime by not considering it a crime anymore? How very anarchic of you. "Oh I'm sorry did I get in you're way. Here have the keys to my car too. My wife? Yes she is pretty. I stole her from the guy down the street." You know there's a reason beyond religion for all those morals.
Fail, I can't believe you misunderstood that so badly, perhaps it was on purpose.

Remove Republican Ideology
- Not helping the poor
- Not providing Basic Services and basic quality of Life
- Not selling out people for profits

Remove Religious Ideology
- You are not forgiven when you die. You are just DEAD
- You only have one life and this is it, make something of it

American Ideology
- Everything is black and white there is no middle ground or grey.

If some one who is unemployed had access to food, shelter, transportation, heat, water, washrooms with warmth, comfort, full belly, you wont have people robbing people or stealing to have a full belly.

If you treat drug addictions as a medical issue and provide prescription doses of drugs of the addiction with a follow up treatment and detox plan when the patient is ready they can use there checks on rent and food and not drugs. They dont have to break into cars, steal, rob people to make the money to go buy the drugs. Same time the drug pushers are out of business and go away too.

Self Harm such as using drugs should not be a criminal event either

Selling Sex (Oh here is religious Ideology in the way again) shouldn't be illegal. It should be regulated and taxed. You deal with most of that stuff the crime rate drops. You are left with mentally sick people shooting up schools, molesting and raping people and random murders. The only people that ever deserved to be locked up or in a institute. 2 Men get into a bar fight while drunk, shouldn't be any thing more then a trip to the drunk tank to cool them off. Domestic disputes, teenagers will still tie up some police resources but not nearly as much as the war on drugs, and what we do to ourselves.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Exactly, I'm in the military...been in for 24 years, and nobody I know ever calls our rifles "assault weapons." It's a term I've heard from time to time outside the military but it's the media who's promulgated this term...maybe in an effort to strike fear and/or public outrage, maybe due to ignorance... The fact is, the list of weapons that Congress is proposing be banned includes scary looking weapons but exclude their non-scary looking variants along with larger caliber versions and weapons (which are the ones that are more dangerous). Seems like a feel good measure and an effort to garner politcal points...I wish they'd look at the root of the problem but that'd require effort and real research and there's no time for that.
The only legit use of "assault rifle" I've heard is to differentiate it from a "battle rifle", which under most circumstances is going to be more dangerous than the "assault" variety. You could hunt elk with one.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:30 PM
 
Battle rifle:



Again, more dangerous than an M-16.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, you're more likely to pick on an easier target. Just ask DC.
Stand 2 people side by side and give one a gun to put under his jacket. Which one is the easy target. Ops cant tell, shoot them both.

Look at 2 houses side by side and one has a gun and one does not. I need my drug fix. F*** it im just going to make sure I got me a gun and go in shooting.

Explain to me this concept of easier targets again.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Stand 2 people side by side and give one a gun to put under his jacket. Which one is the easy target. Ops cant tell, shoot them both.

Look at 2 houses side by side and one has a gun and one does not. I need my drug fix. F*** it im just going to make sure I got me a gun and go in shooting.

Explain to me this concept of easier targets again.
So under both your circumstances, a criminal is just as likely to strike? He's taking a 50/50 shot in your situation, don't you think he'd give it a second thought? Versus guaranteed no gun?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Economic pressure with or without drug addiction is certainly ample motivation for many to turn to crime, but robbing a liquor store with a knife or a bat is a totally different prospect to robbing one with a gun. Even mugging someone is different. If you wave a knife at someone and demand their cash chances are they'll give it to you, but they are far more likely to succeed or at least survive attacking you if you only have a knife than if you have a gun.
Its already been mentioned here and I've said it before too but shooting someone is much more remote and much less personal even from a few feet away.

If you have a gun in your home, whether its in a cupboard, a drawer, a safe or wherever, sometime you are going to look at it and think: "I could just rob someone". If you see a knife in your kitchen, you're going to think "I could make some lunch."
The poorer or more desperate you are, the more often that thought will occur (The robbery, not the lunch)
Fubar, just means the robber isn't going to rob you with a knife, instead he will rob you with a gun, or worse shoot you first then rob your corpse. We have lots of robberies here in Canada. Most are committed with someone saying they have a gun who don't or with a knife and most of the time no one is physically hurt. I can promise you this, if stores and people carried guns here, the criminals wouldn't say they had a gun even through they don't. They wont use a knife either. They will make sure they have a real gun to counter the possibility of the target having a gun. This is why the thinking is flawed. Im for guns. They do make a difference in some situations like that woman in the tailor home who shoot a guy that spent minutes trying to break into her home. She had the time to get the gun, load it, and aim it and shoot the guy. You also have shoot outs at stores where the clerks shoot at the robbers and the robbers shoot back. Innocent people have been killed in the cross fire. Store clerks have been killed in these exchanges. Good law abiding people have also gone to jail for 20+ years for rash spur of the moment shootings out of anger.

Economic hardship, mental illness and drug addiction cause the crimes. Not the guns. And having a gun does not STOP or PREVENT the crimes either. Proper social networks in bad times, good health care, strong communities prevent the crimes. There wouldn't be a gun debate if we took care of what caused the crimes and mass murders.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Sure..... What a bunch of liberal BS. Personal responsibility, integrity and character are beyond your mental grasp.
Who are you to decide personal integrity and character of some one else. I dress like a slob, that's against your personal expectations. Will you try and ban me....

If some one is high on drugs and jumps out of a window, I think personal responsibility kicks in loud and clear. The laws that should apply are those that affect others. Drinking and driving affects others, so ban that. Smoking up crack on your couch is only bad to that person, don't ban that. Smoking crack and driving, that's bad so ban that.

Stop being for a nanny state
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So under both your circumstances, a criminal is just as likely to strike? He's taking a 50/50 shot in your situation, don't you think he'd give it a second thought? Versus guaranteed no gun?
A second thought to what, starving for food or drugs or being killed. The starving is a much more immediate pain. The only thing the criminal might think about is how much force he might have to use to stay alive. If that means shoot on site and rob a dead corpse so be it. This is why crimes are (or appear to be) so much more violent in the US.

Every country on the planet has problems with theft. But you don't see the same level of violence from the robberies in many of the countries, not commonly anyways. Over the 14 years my Grandma worked at 711, she had 3 robberies while at work. She was punched once. Never shot. Never stabbed. No gun ever used. Why would some one use a gun when you know there are no guns in the 711. You dont need to a knife is enough to get away.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
A second thought to what, starving for food or drugs or being killed. The starving is a much more immediate pain. The only thing the criminal might think about is how much force he might have to use to stay alive. If that means shoot on site and rob a dead corpse so be it. This is why crimes are (or appear to be) so much more violent in the US.
With over half the nation on food stamps, no one here is starving that isn't making that choice.

Every country on the planet has problems with theft. But you don't see the same level of violence from the robberies in many of the countries, not commonly anyways. Over the 14 years my Grandma worked at 711, she had 3 robberies while at work. She was punched once. Never shot. Never stabbed. No gun ever used. Why would some one use a gun when you know there are no guns in the 711. You dont need to a knife is enough to get away.
....Why? Because they are readily available. Criminals don't follow the law. "Alright, guys, guns are banned so we're switching to knives."

The situation you've described is only if we can make all guns magically poof their way out of existence. What is your practical solution to that problem?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2013, 11:28 AM
 
Ratio of responses to my one-liners - 10:1

Ratio of responses to my well thought-out posts - 1:4


We reap what we sow.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2013, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Battle rifle:



Again, more dangerous than an M-16.
Far more "dangerous" because it's a 30 cal round. Considering nationwide that the homicide rate with all long guns (not just assault weapons) is at or below 5% and has been since 2004, the ban on assault weapons seems counter to it's stated objective. To me, its the government trying to disarm the populace. The real threat comes from handguns which are infinitely more dangerous just because they can be easily hidden on a person. Also, why has the gov't purchased 2.6 billion rounds of ammo recently creating an artificial shortage? That's enough ammo run a a war for decades.....training? I smell something dishonest.

The police should never be more well armed then the populace is able to be - that's when you get corruption and brutality.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Apr 5, 2013 at 03:05 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2013, 02:27 PM
 
To be fair, you get corruption and brutality long before that point.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2013, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be fair, you get corruption and brutality long before that point.
We already have to a small degree. But with all the pressure from the left to ban "assault weapons", those officials are either woefully under-qualified to speak on the matter or have an ulterior motive in doing so when one examines the data.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think there's one important thing you're overlooking. The usual situation is the dictator is the military. So, yes. They are willing to attack the populace to maintain power.
In that case, I've gone cart before the horse. How does a military dictator get into power?

So in essence, an armed populace doesn't deter government tyranny, it deters military tyranny. Makes sense, as one of the more highlighted points of modern democracy is civilian oversight of the military.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
(re: armed populace for deterring tyranny)


Please consider the question from the other side: instead of presuming what will happen and asking how an armed populace could help (which is a perfectly valid approach), try presuming what we want to happen and asking how is the closest we can accomplish that (which is another perfectly valid approach). Presume that what we want is a balance of power, a system of checks and balances, similar to the long long list of other checks and balances that have served America well. How do you set up a balance against the military? What are the potential candidates for this force? I submit that an armed populace is the leading candidate for that problem. You would probably say that as time goes on and military technology advances while armed citizenry technology doesn't, that the effectiveness of an armed citizenry as a check against a modern military gets lower and lower, and will continue to do so indefinitely. And you'd be right. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still the best answer to the question (the question is what can we use to check the power of the military). The way to change the answer to that question is to find something better.
I think I started to address this above. A tyrannical military would likely see a disarmed populace as key to pulling off a bloodless coup. It certainly bears more thought from myself. However, my first knee-jerk is this requires the would-be dictator to solidify his power base and chain of command, and I'm not sure how feasible that is within a democratic system.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,