[Deucaon]

Anyhow as for making an assault rifle not an assault rifle, I think that's kind of a cop out. Allowing people to have a great white in their homes as long as it's under six feet in length and is kept on a leash is still allowing people to have a great white shark in their homes.

Obviously you've never heard of the AR-15.

[Spoon Poetic]

What exactly is the point you are trying to make with that Wikipedia article?

[Deucaon]

Hoffman believes that an assault rifle must have automatic capabilities in order to be an assault rifle. My point is that an iconic assault rifle like the AR-15 didn't and doesn't have automatic capabilities which means that assault rifles are nothing but carbine versions of semiautomatic rifles with bigger clips. In other words there is no reason why civilians shouldn't be able to own them. And it's not like you can hide an assault rifle like you could a pistol so I'd feel safer with more assault rifles and less pistols (or sawn-off shotguns and submachine guns for that matter). And let's keep in mind that making something illegal won't harm criminal trade. If guns start costing twice as much then drug dealers (for example) would just sell twice as much or for twice the value. The Mexican drug wars spilling over into America and guns (among them assault rifles) flooding the markets in the USA just shows that borders cannot be controlled as efficiently as gun control advocates would like everyone to believe.

[civilian_number_two]

Ahem. Saying that it would be inefficient or useless to register guns because illegal guns would still exist is like saying that registering sex offenders is useless because there will be unregistered sex offenders still at large.

Surely a registry would do SOME good? Doesn't fingerprinting help resolve crimes? Keeping in mind that one needs to have an arrest record in the first place in order for a fingerprint record to exist ...

[Deucaon]

I never wrote that registering guns would be bad. I don't even understand your trail of thought. Registering guns is what legalizes the ownership over them which is what I am for: More legal owners. And if you mean registering illegal guns on the market then that's going to be a bit difficult because criminals don't like to proclaim their ownership of illegal goods.

This reminds me of when Michael Moore got that gun from the bank after he opened an account (he got it 2 weeks after he opened the account by the way) and he was making a fuss about how dangerous it would be to "hand out guns in a bank" yet he doesn't ask himself why the hell would anyone would rob a bank with a gun registered to their name.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 23 April 2009 - 12:35 AM

[civilian_number_two]

This argument goes a ways back. At one point yes, we did discuss gun registry, and every libertarian worth his salt argues that gun registry is an invasion of privacy.

The Michael Moore thing was silly yes; he was just trying to make a comment on the gun culture of the US. It was a decent place to start his movie, since the image of guns and banks is pretty much firmly fixed in the tradition of the so-called "Wild West." The idea of a bank giving guns to people for opening accounts is a bit crazy, but no crazier probably than giving out any other sort of sports gear, like say a crab net or cross trainers.

If all you want to talk about is close-range house-to-house defense against criminals, armed with assault rifles and only vulnerable to assault rifles, we have been there and we have done that. You in fact already conceded the point that criminals are not staging house-to-house close-range city warfare for your precious jewelry and DVD collection, although in the meantime I set up ICMBs that I can launch from my panic room. So I am covered even if they do. Unless of course they escalate to some sort of anti-missile battery or strategic defence initiative. Time will tell.

[J m HofMarN]

...So.... because its hard to keep guns from flowing across the border to mexican drug cartels, the best bet is to eliminate gun control entirely, because then something something.

As for this nonsense of the AR15, I still have no idea why a civilian would need that, and please don't bring CQB back into this. This debate was already over, whyh dont you start some new absurdity you can try to convince us about?

[Deucaon]

This argument goes a ways back. At one point yes, we did discuss gun registry, and every libertarian worth his salt argues that gun registry is an invasion of privacy.

The Michael Moore thing was silly yes; he was just trying to make a comment on the gun culture of the US. It was a decent place to start his movie, since the image of guns and banks is pretty much firmly fixed in the tradition of the so-called "Wild West." The idea of a bank giving guns to people for opening accounts is a bit crazy, but no crazier probably than giving out any other sort of sports gear, like say a crab net or cross trainers.

If all you want to talk about is close-range house-to-house defense against criminals, armed with assault rifles and only vulnerable to assault rifles, we have been there and we have done that. You in fact already conceded the point that criminals are not staging house-to-house close-range city warfare for your precious jewelry and DVD collection, although in the meantime I set up ICMBs that I can launch from my panic room. So I am covered even if they do. Unless of course they escalate to some sort of anti-missile battery or strategic defence initiative. Time will tell.

If everyone in ethnic and racial enclaves across the US had an AR-15, do you honestly believe those areas would be plagued with crime as they are now? And if everyone in areas plagued with civil war had an AR-15, do you honestly believe atrocities would be as widespread as they are or that tyranny would reign as it does? More guns among law abiding citizens is the solution, not the problem.

[Deucaon]

And if anyone thinks that the government can regulate the illegal weapons that are already in the US (I think this is what CN2 was thinking when he wrote his last reply but I misunderstood), they're out of their minds. Like I wrote, criminals aren't in the habit of proclaiming their guilt. The only thing you can do is equalize the playing field between those who follow the law and those who don't. And let's face it, even if the police managed to miraculously get to your house in under 5 minutes, they would still be too late (regardless of what said criminals would be doing at your house). Short of having a police officer on every street corner or turning every house into a fortress, it's not going to work. It's much cheaper and much more efficient if every household is armed.

[Gobbler]

I like what they're planning to do over here, after that kid ran amok. (Honestly, I can sympathize a tiny little bit - if I would have had to spend my whole school time with those Swabians here, I wouldn't be that sane either).

Now they've been making some of the usual politicial fuss over banning killer-computer-games and even forbade one of the electronic-sports-league matches here in Stuttgart, whilst simultaneously allowing those stupid traditional Schützenfests ("Marksman festival", a get-together with guns and beer, lovely combination), but nevermind about that.

There's a new initiative which calls for partial amnesty if you turn in your illegally owned weapons. Not sure how that's gonna work out, mentality towards weapons isn't as loving as it is in the States, but I like the general idea.

[Deucaon]

It's funny how politicians in Germany believe that they can stop random outbursts of violence by controlling the thoughts of every citizen and impeding their ability to defend themselves. I wonder how they even came to that conclusion.

[Gobbler]

There'll be elections soon, so of course they have to spout a lot of nonsense about those young whippersnappers and their violent games. And guess who's the demographic majority.

[civilian_number_two]

And if anyone thinks that the government can regulate the illegal weapons that are already in the US (I think this is what CN2 was thinking when he wrote his last reply but I misunderstood), they're out of their minds. Like I wrote, criminals aren't in the habit of proclaiming their guilt. The only thing you can do is equalize the playing field between those who follow the law and those who don't. And let's face it, even if the police managed to miraculously get to your house in under 5 minutes, they would still be too late (regardless of what said criminals would be doing at your house). Short of having a police officer on every street corner or turning every house into a fortress, it's not going to work. It's much cheaper and much more efficient if every household is armed.

You are saying that "SHORT OF turing every house into a fortress ... it's ... more efficient if every household is armed" (elision and emphasis mine). So rather than turn every household into a fortress, we should turn every household into a fortress. And all to fight a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. I DO NOT own an assault rifle, and I walk about unarmed in dark and daylight every day. I have NEVER SEEN roaming gangs of armed thugs, let alone been attacked by one. I don't read about them in the papers either. So nope, no need here for assault rifles in every home.

Before you cite that one example we all know of, or find another less known, or manufacture something out of an absurd hypothesis: NO, there is no need to go to extreme lengths to eradicate a minor problem. The extreme lengths you propose are unecessary. All that was necessary to prevent the attacks on Columbine was a gun protocol in the school, and armed guards at the entrances. Many schools have these now; no need for every student to be walking around with an AR-15. Disarmament is more efficient than armament; besides, arming everyone will nto remove tyranny. It will only demand that the tyrants be more lethal, and the tyrany will be of those who are better shots. Again, what cleaned up Dodge City was not MORE guns, but FEWER.

If everyone in ethnic and racial enclaves across the US had an AR-15, do you honestly believe those areas would be plagued with crime as they are now?

Yes. There would be far more assault-rifle-related crimes, for sure. We have already had this discussion, and you conceded: your argument was that criminals will ALWAYS be better armed than the populace. you said that if the populace had nothing, the criminals would have knives and baseball bats. That if the populace had knives and baseball bats, then the criminals would have pistols. That if the populace had pistols, then the criminals would have shotguns. That if the populace had shotguns, then the criminals would have assault rifles. The you concluded that if the populace had ARs, that the criminals would have no recourse. I retorted that the criminals might then have IEDs, grenade launchers, rockets, landmines, tanks and tanktraps, howitzers, jet fighters, advanced weapons training and cross-continent communication. In fact, as follows from your argument, whatever the populace had, the criminals would be one step ahead of that. So I said that if that's true, then I would rather the people had nothing, because then the criminals would only have knives and baseball bats. And you conceded. Feel free to present the same logic and I will come to the same conclusions.

And if everyone in areas plagued with civil war had an AR-15, do you honestly believe atrocities would be as widespread as they are or that tyranny would reign as it does?

Yes I do. Unless the civilians had the communication and discipline of the armies, they would be no match for their armed invaders. And you are jumping streams here, insisting that we tacitly accept atrocities if we desire a populace not armed with these AR-15s you praise so highly. The military of a country is there to defend against invaders, and we are talking about the cities of The United States of America, not some Third World example of atrocity and injustice. The US military would be on hand to defend against an invading army, and it is unnecessary for it to defend against well-armed and disciplined gangs, because such entities do not exist. You can't get from areas worldwide suffering under civil war to the conclusion that the citizens of Baltimore need to be armed with AR-15s. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW.

More guns among law abiding citizens is the solution, not the problem.

No it is not.

[Slade]

Cobnat's third-to-last: So you advocate people resolving all of their differences via violence or threats of violence? That does not sound like a society I want to be a part of.

Cobnat's second-to-last post: Civ already responded to you, but ok, let's just do away with all laws. They just hinder people who would follow the law anyway, right?!

Cobnat's last post: That's an utter non-sequitur. No, because you mentioned Germany after Bert... Gobbler did does not make your accusation coherent, relevant, or based on any facts.

[Deucaon]

You are saying that "SHORT OF turing every house into a fortress ... it's ... more efficient if every household is armed" (elision and emphasis mine). So rather than turn every household into a fortress, we should turn every household into a fortress. And all to fight a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. I DO NOT own an assault rifle, and I walk about unarmed in dark and daylight every day. I have NEVER SEEN roaming gangs of armed thugs, let alone been attacked by one. I don't read about them in the papers either. So nope, no need here for assault rifles in every home.

Having an assault rifle in your safe isn't the same as boarding up every window of your house. Now the reason why you can walk around is because there isn't a lot of crime at your location. Good for you. Many, especially those living in poorer areas, don't have that luxury. Now since your area doesn't have a problem with crime, you don't really need a gun. However, if and when every citizen in the crime ridden areas has an assault rifle then criminals might move onto your crime free paradise.

Before you cite that one example we all know of, or find another less known, or manufacture something out of an absurd hypothesis: NO, there is no need to go to extreme lengths to eradicate a minor problem. The extreme lengths you propose are unecessary. All that was necessary to prevent the attacks on Columbine was a gun protocol in the school, and armed guards at the entrances. Many schools have these now; no need for every student to be walking around with an AR-15. Disarmament is more efficient than armament; besides, arming everyone will nto remove tyranny. It will only demand that the tyrants be more lethal, and the tyrany will be of those who are better shots. Again, what cleaned up Dodge City was not MORE guns, but FEWER.

1. Having entire areas of cities engulfed in strife and warfare isn't a "minor problem". Having drugs easily available on the streets in said areas isn't a "minor problem". Having kids drop out of school in order to join gangs isn't a "minor problem". There is a reason why the Black population in the US has decreased by 1/3rd since the end of segregation.
2. So even though schools don't get enough funds to pay their teachers a decent salary, you believe they are supposed to pay for high tech security measures and security guards?
3. Comparing Dodge City and ethnic/racial enclaves of today is like comparing the War of American Independence and the Vietnam War. The guns of yesteryear aren't the guns of today. Guns back then weren't mass produced thus weren't as plentiful thus weren't as cheap as they are today. Nor was Dodge City plagued by same problems said enclaves are today. Nor is Dodge City or any contemporary city on the same societal, environmental, economical or political pedestal.

Yes. There would be far more assault-rifle-related crimes, for sure. We have already had this discussion, and you conceded: your argument was that criminals will ALWAYS be better armed than the populace. you said that if the populace had nothing, the criminals would have knives and baseball bats. That if the populace had knives and baseball bats, then the criminals would have pistols. That if the populace had pistols, then the criminals would have shotguns. That if the populace had shotguns, then the criminals would have assault rifles. The you concluded that if the populace had ARs, that the criminals would have no recourse. I retorted that the criminals might then have IEDs, grenade launchers, rockets, landmines, tanks and tanktraps, howitzers, jet fighters, advanced weapons training and cross-continent communication. In fact, as follows from your argument, whatever the populace had, the criminals would be one step ahead of that. So I said that if that's true, then I would rather the people had nothing, because then the criminals would only have knives and baseball bats. And you conceded. Feel free to present the same logic and I will come to the same conclusions.

Obviously British citizens not having weapons has saved them from an increase in crime rates. Or perhaps outlawing knives is in order?

Now this argument is about assault rifles (and to a larger extend, guns in general) so I "conceded" that I wasn't in support of people having explosives. I also "conceded" that I wasn't in support of people having shotguns for the same reasons. As I pointed out earlier, you can't compare assault rifles to explosives/shotguns because one is concentrated firepower and the other isn't. That aside, it's easy to produce pipe bombs and petrol bombs. And IEDs are just that, "Improvised Explosive Devises".

Though if you want to look at an example of what would happen if gangsters had more/better weapons than the establishment then look at the strife in Mexico, Columbia and the countries between those two. Now the thing about that is that if the government fails (and it probably will) then there is nothing to stop the citizens being at the mercy of the gangsters. In fact there is nothing stopping them being at the mercy of gangsters now. Of course if they were armed, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Yes I do. Unless the civilians had the communication and discipline of the armies, they would be no match for their armed invaders. And you are jumping streams here, insisting that we tacitly accept atrocities if we desire a populace not armed with these AR-15s you praise so highly. The military of a country is there to defend against invaders, and we are talking about the cities of The United States of America, not some Third World example of atrocity and injustice. The US military would be on hand to defend against an invading army, and it is unnecessary for it to defend against well-armed and disciplined gangs, because such entities do not exist. You can't get from areas worldwide suffering under civil war to the conclusion that the citizens of Baltimore need to be armed with AR-15s. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW.

Militiamen can be easily trained. The important thing is that there is a lot of people who have guns and know how to shoot. No one in their right mind would try to commit an atrocity against people who are armed and determined. Deterrent is the best weapon. An important note is that weapons among citizens not only protects citizens from foreign armies but also from their own government (which usually commits the atrocities).

No it is not.

Yes, it is.