Nagini's Neville Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Oh I'm sure guns are a topic of issue everywhere I only mean that American citizens seem to stand alone in the belief that we have the right to arm ourselves. I don't think it's that anyone can get a gun at anytime, it's the the wrong people can get guns when they try hard enough. In America the places with the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence. So while that may be an answer in other countries it clearly either is not an answer here or it is not being implemented correctly. Our police are out of control. They kill unarmed citizens daily. Of course not all police are bad but even the good ones operate under this "it's my job" mentality in an attempt to remove the blame from themselves. I maybe have some extreme views but I don't believe the government should ever be able to tell me what is best for me or how I can protect myself. Being able to defend yourself adequately is a basic human right IMO & not a right to be given or taken by the government or any other entity. That being said in my ideal world guns wouldn't exist. Weapons wouldn't exist. If they never existed, were never made, no one had access to them, I would feel comfortable with that. But while criminals, government, military, police, & other citizens have access to them, I want access to them also. My post was not meant as a critique! I don't think I can judge the situation in the US, since I'm not even living there. It was just a commentary. Especially citizens' relationship to the police (vice versa) in the US is just baffling to me, since in my country it's so different, even if their motto apparently has an evil origin (@Luzifer's right hand) Not that that necessarily means that can't lead to different sorts of conflicts. And there are for sure other problems in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said: My post was not meant as a critique! I don't think I can judge the situation in the US, since I'm not even living there. It was just a commentary. Especially citizens' relationship to the police (vice versa) in the US is just baffling to me, since in my country it's so different, even if their motto apparently has an evil origin (@Luzifer's right hand) Not that that necessarily means that can't lead to different sorts of conflicts. And there are for sure other problems in Germany. Oh I know No offense taken I was just babbling on about the topic lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I agree it's an American issue. But I assure you it's no fantasy. Look at the way America tries to bully the rest of the world. Imagine what they would do to the citizens if there was no resistance. If America wanted to treat its own citizens the way it does the rest of the world there would be nothing the guns of ordinary people could do to stop that. What, you think there wasn't resistance in these other countries? It's not as if there isn't repression and huge inequalities domestically anyway. Most of that kind of thing no longer comes via the gun, except in flashpoints which, again, if the American state decided it wanted to impose things via force they would, quite casually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, polishgenius said: If America wanted to treat its own citizens the way it does the rest of the world there would be nothing the guns of ordinary people could do to stop that. What, you think there wasn't resistance in these other countries? It's not as if there isn't repression and huge inequalities domestically anyway. Most of that kind of thing no longer comes via the gun, except in flashpoints which, again, if the American state decided it wanted to impose things via force they would, quite casually. I disagree but again, whether we would win the fight or not I want the chance to defend myself. I'm not going to give up just because you or anyone else thinks we couldn't put up a fight or have no chance of winning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I disagree but again, whether we would win the fight or not I want the chance to defend myself. I'm not going to give up just because you or anyone else thinks we couldn't put up a fight or have no chance of winning it. Yeah sure my dad and his generation were giving up because they didn't have guns when they worked against the communist regime in Poland. They and others gave up so hard the Soviet Union fell. FFS. Nelson Mandela, that famous giver-upper. Martin Luther King, oh craven surrender!! I'm sorry but what are you even talking about? In the meantime the US has by far the highest murder rate of any nation in the 'developed' world but we're supposed to believe that freely accessible guns make you safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 I'm sympathetic to the idea that more restrictive gun laws would be...not necessarily entirely positive if applied in the USA. Laws, after all, do not exist in a vacuum. And they don't take effect without human activity. They have to be enforced. And criminal law enforcement in the USA comes with its own set of problems. If gun ownership becomes further criminalised, there's a definite danger that it becomes just another vector to target people who are already the disproportionate victims of American law enforcement. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating doing nothing. Something about guns in America needs to change. But I'm not convinced that the criminal justice system is the best way to effect this change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Yeah sure my dad and his generation were giving up because they didn't have guns when they worked against the communist regime in Poland. They and others gave up so hard the Soviet Union fell. FFS. Nelson Mandela, that famous giver-upper. Martin Luther King, oh craven surrender!! I'm sorry but what are you even talking about? In the meantime the US has by far the highest murder rate of any nation in the 'developed' world but we're supposed to believe that freely accessible guns make you safer. I didn't say any of that so what are you talking about? I'm talking about my basic human right to defend myself. Against the government or anyone else that wants to do me harm. I have that right & don't believe anyone has the right to take that away from me. Period. It has nothing to do with anyone without guns giving up. You are saying basically that having guns would do me/us no good in a fight against the government. I'm saying to you, pardon me if I don't just take your word for it & turn my guns in. Furthermore that isn't the only reason I want them. No one, including myself has said anything about "freely accessible" guns. Regardless of what is happening or has happened in any other place or time it is a fact that the places in the US who have banned guns have seen a rise in violence, including gun violence. Ask someone from Chicago how they feel about not being able to own a gun & how much safer they are. Whether that is because the ban is not being implemented properly or because it simply doesn't work I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, Liffguard said: I'm sympathetic to the idea that more restrictive gun laws would be...not necessarily entirely positive if applied in the USA. Laws, after all, do not exist in a vacuum. And they don't take effect without human activity. They have to be enforced. And criminal law enforcement in the USA comes with its own set of problems. If gun ownership becomes further criminalised, there's a definite danger that it becomes just another vector to target people who are already the disproportionate victims of American law enforcement. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating doing nothing. Something about guns in America needs to change. But I'm not convinced that the criminal justice system is the best way to effect this change. I can agree with this. Something absolutely needs done. I wish I had the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: You are saying basically that having guns would do me/us no good in a fight against the government. Yes. That is what I'm saying. In the time the second amendment was instituted it was not true. Now it is. And as for defence against everyone else the statistics make it pretty clear that having guns the way USians have them doesn't make y'all any safer. 4 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: It has nothing to do with anyone without guns giving up. When you say 'pardon me for not giving up' when I say guns wouldn't help you, you don't think that's saying that if you didn't have your gun you've given up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 18 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Yes. That is what I'm saying. In the time the second amendment was instituted it was not true. Now it is. & my stance is that regardless of the 2nd amendment it is a basic human right to defend themselves. Even if you think it would be futile. 19 minutes ago, polishgenius said: And as for defence against everyone else the statistics make it pretty clear that having guns the way USians have them doesn't make y'all any safer No they don't. 19 minutes ago, polishgenius said: When you say 'pardon me for not giving up' when I say guns wouldn't help you, you don't think that's saying that if you didn't have your gun you've given up? Clearly we have some miscommunication going on. I didn't say Pardon me for not giving up, I said pardon me for not just taking your word for it & turning my guns in. I'm saying that the chance that the fight would not be won is not an argument to make yourself further vulnerable by giving up the best weapon you have. Furthermore you are assuming that in this hypothetical tyranny that the US military would fight on the side of the government to which I completely disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 9 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Furthermore you are assuming that in this hypothetical tyranny that the US military would fight on the side of the government to which I completely disagree. If *that* were to happen then you don't need your guns anyway since the military vastly outstrip anything you could possibly bring to the table. 10 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Clearly we have some miscommunication going on. I didn't say Pardon me for not giving up, I said pardon me for not just taking your word for it & turning my guns in. Sorry, I conflated two quotes from you. My bad but you did say 'I'm not going to just give up' which has the exact same implication. That if your government is trying to opress you and you don't have a gun, you're giving up. Basically it sounds like you're more comitted in this hypothetical scenario to the last blaze of honourable glory than the tough slog of long term workable resistance, but I can't read your mind, maybe you're just casting about for justifiable reasons to keep your gun. Or maybe you do believe that you can fight the government with your relative peashooters and your relative lack of training but t And I'm sorry if I sound disrespectful - I don't know you personally but I have no respect for almost any pro-gun argument. Like someone said above, they almost universally rely on pretending the rest of the world does not exist. And yes, Liffguard is right, in the state the US is now you couldn't just walk in and take everyone's guns away, there's all sorts of reasons why you'd need to approach it very carefully and slowly with lots of checks on authority and lots of education and attitude-changing along the way. But none of that changes the fact that 'I need my gun or I'm not safe' is a nonsensical argument backed by basically nothing. Like, yes, there would be occasions when people would be killed or robbed by guns but those things happen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: & my stance is that regardless of the 2nd amendment it is a basic human right to defend themselves. Even if you think it would be futile. No they don't. Clearly we have some miscommunication going on. I didn't say Pardon me for not giving up, I said pardon me for not just taking your word for it & turning my guns in. I'm saying that the chance that the fight would not be won is not an argument to make yourself further vulnerable by giving up the best weapon you have. Furthermore you are assuming that in this hypothetical tyranny that the US military would fight on the side of the government to which I completely disagree. So in your hypothetical, if the government is turning on its own people, and the military sides with the people, who exactly are you defending yourself from? A bunch of bureaucrats and janitors wielding office supplies ? According to my Facebook feed, the current fashionable guns rights crowd talking point for when someone says that guns would be useless against the US military is to point to Afghanistan. At what point does your basic right to defend yourself include a situation where you are accidentally shot and killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: In America the places with the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence. So while that may be an answer in other countries it clearly either is not an answer here or it is not being implemented correctly. I suspect it's more than the places with the most violence have the strongest incentive to enact stricter laws. But no law is going to be very effective when alternative jurisdictions are an easy drive away with no border controls; gun control needs to be done at the Federal level. 3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I'm saying if I meet someone, say, at a gun shop & they want to purchase my gun. I do not have access to the equipment I need to perform a background check on them. Then ban private sale of guns. Only allow licensed gun dealers to buy and sell them. Problem solved! 3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I don't take offence to it. You did say gun show though so that was why I replied the way I did, & I'm sure you are aware that many people talk about the "gun show loop hole" whether they are truly under the impression that this can only happen at gun shows or are being purposefully inflammatory I'm not sure. A gun show is a good place for people who want to sell guns to meet people who want to buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 22 minutes ago, polishgenius said: If *that* were to happen then you don't need your guns anyway since the military vastly outstrip anything you could possibly bring to the table. I've stated this isn't the only reason I want them but let's say there was an attempt to over throw the government & the military sided with the US citizens. Or at least most of them did. There would still potentially be looting, rioting, etc. I couldn't have the military at my door all day & night, I would be expected to protect myself. 25 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Sorry, I conflated two quotes from you. My bad but you did say 'I'm not going to just give up' which has the exact same implication. That if your government is trying to opress you and you don't have a gun, you're giving up. No, i'm saying if my government is trying to oppress me & I do have a gun & I just willingly give it to them because I might not stand a fighting chance against them then I'm stupid. 25 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Basically it sounds like you're more comitted in this hypothetical scenario to the last blaze of honourable glory than the tough slog of long term workable resistance, but I can't read your mind, maybe you're just casting about for justifiable reasons to keep your gun. Or maybe you do believe that you can fight the government with your relative peashooters and your relative lack of training but t I have no wish to participate in an resistance, workable or otherwise & certainly am not interested in going out in a blaze of glory. I merely want to be able to defend myself. If I have guns & don't need them to defend myself - no harm no foul. If I don't have them & do need them to defend myself then I'm in a world of trouble. I think it's very presumptive of you to assume I have "relative peashooters" or a lack of training. 30 minutes ago, polishgenius said: And I'm sorry if I sound disrespectful - I don't know you personally but I have no respect for almost any pro-gun argument. Noted. I don't have any respect for an anti-gun argument either so I suppose we are even. 31 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Like someone said above, they almost universally rely on pretending the rest of the world does not exist. How? How does being pro-gun rely on pretending the rest of the world does not exist? 32 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Liffguard is right, in the state the US is now you couldn't just walk in and take everyone's guns away, there's all sorts of reasons why you'd need to approach it very carefully and slowly with lots of checks on authority and lots of education and attitude-changing along the way. Again, I'm not against change, I'm all for figuring out a way to deter the gun violence. But the laws implemented in the US so far have had the opposite affect. If there are things that work so well in other countries our government clearly is aware of them & is not implementing them either because they don't actually want to stop the gun violence &/or they are ignorant. 34 minutes ago, polishgenius said: But none of that changes the fact that 'I need my gun or I'm not safe' is a nonsensical argument backed by basically nothing. Like, yes, there would be occasions when people would be killed or robbed by guns but those things happen anyway. LOL "I need my gun to be safe" is an nonsensical argument but "you couldn't fight the government anyway so might as well not have guns" or "yeah you might robbed or killed with out your gun but those things happen anyway" is not a nonsensical argument?? You seriously don't think that your chances of being robbed or killed are less if you carry a fire arm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 34 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: So in your hypothetical, if the government is turning on its own people, and the military sides with the people, who exactly are you defending yourself from? A bunch of bureaucrats and janitors wielding office supplies ? In my hypothetical situation some of the military would potentially side with the government but most of them would not. There would still be armed citizens fighting for the government, hired arms, security teams, etc. You guys pick on small part of my post to come at. Assumingly, because it's the easiest to argue against but this is not my # 1 reason for owning firearms. It is just another among many. If you believe bureaucrats & janitors can only wield office supplies this conversation is pointless. The government, the janitors, everyone in between are just people too & can be bad & good & own firearms or not & use them for good or not. 38 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: According to my Facebook feed, the current fashionable guns rights crowd talking point for when someone says that guns would be useless against the US military is to point to Afghanistan. Well, yeah they seem to cause an awful lot of trouble for our military. 39 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: At what point does your basic right to defend yourself include a situation where you are accidentally shot and killed? Why would there ever come a point where my basic right to defend myself includes a situation where I am accidentally shot & killed? Shot & killed by who? My self? Someone else? I don't think I'm understanding the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 36 minutes ago, felice said: I suspect it's more than the places with the most violence have the strongest incentive to enact stricter laws. But no law is going to be very effective when alternative jurisdictions are an easy drive away with no border controls; gun control needs to be done at the Federal level. Maybe. The thing is though a ban on guns is never, ever going to pass through in the US. There are too many armed citizens & government officials that are not willing to give that up. People speak of "gun control" as if you can just go out & get a gun from anywhere, at any time, & run around willy nilly shooting on the streets with it. There are gun control measures in place. There is a lengthy process to buy a gun in America legally. The fact that the people doing harm with them are virtually unaffected by these measures is proof that these measures ARE NOT WORKING. The answer is not to keep doing the same thing & expect a different result. Something new needs to be brought to the table. Something we can work with & agree upon, but most importantly something that deters gun violence. 40 minutes ago, felice said: Then ban private sale of guns. Only allow licensed gun dealers to buy and sell them. Problem solved! I don't see it as a problem so I would never advocate for only licensed gun dealers to buy & sell them. That statement was not something I was saying needed fixed, it was stated as a potential reason as to why private gun sellers are not required to do a back ground check when selling their fire arm. Also this is only the case in some states. (Roughly half) The other half have rules in place requiring background checks between private citizens & even the ones that don't require a background check there are other rules in place. For instance in the state I live in you are not required to perform a background check on a person you are selling a gun to but you also may not knowingly transfer firearms to anyone who is prohibited by federal law from owning them, nor may you transfer a handgun or assault rifle to anyone under 18 except within a parent-child relationship. It differs state to state but no where is there just an open ground to give guns to whoever you wish. 49 minutes ago, felice said: A gun show is a good place for people who want to sell guns to meet people who want to buy them. Sure, so are gun shops. What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: You seriously don't think that your chances of being robbed or killed are less if you carry a fire arm? You're probably deliberately missing the point- nobody wants to take just your guns away. My chances of being killed are obviously far less if there are far fewer guns. Robbed, not necessarily, but I don't think my having a gun will make me less likely to be killed if someone tries to rob me, it just means both sides are more likely to kill someone. 33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: How? How does being pro-gun rely on pretending the rest of the world does not exist? The argument that you need guns to be safe relies on pretending that there aren't lots of countries where we can't have guns where we're safe. We already covered this... 33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I think it's very presumptive of you to assume I have "relative peashooters" or a lack of training. You have a good stock of miniguns and missile launchers, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: In my hypothetical situation some of the military would potentially side with the government but most of them would not. There would still be armed citizens fighting for the government, hired arms, security teams, etc. You guys pick on small part of my post to come at. Assumingly, because it's the easiest to argue against but this is not my # 1 reason for owning firearms. It is just another among many. If you believe bureaucrats & janitors can only wield office supplies this conversation is pointless. The government, the janitors, everyone in between are just people too & can be bad & good & own firearms or not & use them for good or not. Well, yeah they seem to cause an awful lot of trouble for our military. Why would there ever come a point where my basic right to defend myself includes a situation where I am accidentally shot & killed? Shot & killed by who? My self? Someone else? I don't think I'm understanding the question. A right to defend yourself is useless if someone accidentally kills you. What's not to understand? Accidents happen. A gun as self defense is more likely to kill you or someone you know than it is to save your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, polishgenius said: You're probably deliberately missing the point- nobody wants to take just your guns away. My chances of being killed are obviously far less if there are far fewer guns. Ok well if I'm deliberately missing the point there really is no use in furthering a discussion with me is there? My contention is that is matters from who the guns were taken from to achieve the far fewer guns. If more gun checks do not deter criminals from getting guns but only make it harder for law abiding people to get guns then this is the population that the guns will be taken from to achieve the "far fewer" guns. This in turn does not make your chances of being killed less if there are far fewer guns. There needs to be something implemented to take the guns out of the criminals hands. Something that works. Then, yes, fewer guns in criminals hands = you being far less likely to be killed. I'm trying real hard to have a conversation with you & not an argument because I'm a firm believer that an argument is an effort to prove who is right while a conversation or discussion is to find out what is right. You are making that difficult with your insults though. 12 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Robbed, not necessarily, but I don't think my having a gun will make me less likely to be killed if someone tries to rob me, it just means both sides are more likely to kill someone. Sure, both parties will just pull their guns & shoot each other dead. I happen to have 3 different family members, one being my husband who have thwarted robberies because they carry firearms. No one was killed in any of the instances. 14 minutes ago, polishgenius said: The argument that you need guns to be safe relies on pretending that there aren't lots of countries where we can't have guns where we're safe. We already covered this... No the argument that I need guns to be safe in America relies on the fact that these gun laws or bans that seem to work so well in these other countries are not being implemented here. Our government is corrupt & our police force is corrupt. Explain to me how, in this situation, it would be a good idea to relinquish our guns giving further power to the people who are corrupt to begin with & trust them to keep us safe? Maybe what we have is not a gun issue so much as a government & police force issue. 17 minutes ago, polishgenius said: You have a good stock of miniguns and missile launchers, do you You never know right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: A right to defend yourself is useless if someone accidentally kills you. What's not to understand? Accidents happen. A gun as self defense is more likely to kill you or someone you know than it is to save your life. Someone accidentally killing you has no bearing on whether or not you carry a gun or are allowed legally to carry a gun so how does this pertain? The bolded is simply not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.