I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.

1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history

In before lock.

(but agreeing with op)

Five people including a pregnant woman were killed in Indianapolis' 'largest mass casualty shooting' in more than a decade

It's basically the same for extending the idea that more guns make us safer--the same should hold true for countries/nukes. Every country armed to the teeth would supposedly bring world peace--instead of what would most likely happen

This one is just funny to me. A gun malfunctions it may kill or injure the person using it and the people around the user. If a nuke malfunctions it could kill millions or way more. I like how in depth you thought of this. Just needling you bro.


Also what do you say about countries eventually toppling allowing outside forces to conquer the region if there is no resistance. All things end, even Rome.......



Also have you ever had a riot outside your house? What about a bear? What about a group of youngsters that sling narcotics from a street corner and just happen to be mad at you for whatever reason?


These are real scenarios where relying on game wardens or cops won't work out to well for you. The US is a wild land both for wildlife and the hominids. Sometimes protecting yourself is just what you got to do. I guess a spear will do, now where do I find spears?

I live in congleton, of course I have had a group of youths having a riot outside my house .
People will inevitably get annoyed with each other and use violence, the point is that the level of equipment that they are carrying increases the amount of damage done

Also note that the rioters will have guns and will shoot back at you

I fear that this thread will blow up soon with Gun Nuts v Anti-Gun nuts
But pleased to see its all good so far
I (as a Brit) also look in amazement (and horror) at the American attitude to guns
People seem to view themselves as brave patriots defending thjere life against any prospective government oppression, but it seems more likely that they just like guns because they are a bit scary and make the owners feel cool/empowered.

It's funny how all these scenarios you painted to justify guns don't seem to happen in other developed countries that have very strict gun laws. We don't even have to go very far. Like Canada for example.
I'm not against guns and gun ownership. I think guns and their recreational use, like hunting, are very much a part of America's culture. But we desperately need stricter gun laws. Having 10 year old kids having guns, and having just anybody walk up to a gun show without any form of ID or license is not protecting the 2nd amendment.
What America needs, and it's been made painfully clear with recent events at the country's Capitol, is a mentality change and an attitude change, not more guns.

So own all the guns you want, but have ownership regulated so they can be kept away from crazy people and criminals? Perhaps through licensing and registration even?

Crazy idea, but I think it might work.

As a member of the "rest of the world", I for one believe in the right to bear arms, not only for self defense but also to overthrow the government should it turn tyrannical. I think the reason for the stark divide in public opinion between the USA and the rest of the world on this issue, is because America was the only nation conceived in liberty. America as a nation was founded explicitly to limit government (hence article 1 section 8 of the constitution) and to empower the people. Other nations embrace collectivism and the notion of "the greater good" over the rights of the individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

You put it beautifully. Almost like a constitutional scholar.
And I myself don't claim to be an authority. The thing is, we sometimes get confused about the true meaning of some things in the constitution. Perhaps while it is so loosely worded and left to a lot of interpretation.
It's become very obvious to me that most Americans have never even read the constitution and don't really understand it.
Back about 30 to 40 years ago, the big thing with conservatives was they shouldn't pay any taxes at all, because that's supposed to have been part of what the American Revolution was supposed to have been about, protesting taxation. As one can see by the articles I linked, that's not how our founding fathers really felt about it at all.
We can go back and forth forever, but the founding ideas were to safeguard individual liberty but not for the individual to be given a free licence to organize and become tyrannical himself. Because when the individual rejects all authority, he becomes a menace to the greater society and chaos ensues.
And that's what happened in Washington D.C.
Those people were not patriots exercising their individual rights. They were there to enforce by violence their perceived rights by denying them to others.
They all belong in prison and yes,we need gun reforms.

Still hilarious that the right in the US thinks that if it ever came to an overthrow of the government that stupid small arms would even be relevant when the government has exclusive use of pretty much all the weaponry that would prove decisive in an actual conflict. And that's only at the actual battlefield level. When it comes to the command and communication network needed to coordinate operations the rebels would essentially have nothing beyond bugles and maybe light signaling. Anything else that uses a transmitter would be useless. Most modern rebels would die or be arrested before they even know who was shooting at them.

The entire idea is complete nonsense and has been since 1865. Because back then the rebels had not only guns but also artillery, explosives, cavalry, even a navy. Plus not only did they have weapons parity but they had experienced generals and line commanders to implement it all and a motivated supply infrastructure behind it all. And they still lost.

LOL.

This.

What always amazes me is how many of the gun nuts don't want to give even a fraction of an inch on anything. A registered weapon for self defense is one thing; assault weapons for all (yes, there's a bit of hyperbole there) are quite another. But any time someone comes forward with even the most basic of changes that seem like extreme common sense, the NRA and co. have to fight the change to its death. I guess there's some silly thought that it's just one big slippery slope or something.

Since both sides in a battle will use whatever weapons are available to them the fact that one side has access to automatic weapons, and the other has access to laser guided missiles seems to put one side at a disadvantage

I was a young conservative forty years ago, and very few conservatives have ever been of the "taxation is theft" variety. Even the Libertarian Party has never been against taxation per se. (I voted for Ed Clark in 1980, who was the Libertarian Party candidate for President.)

Having said that, many conservatives were (and remain) opposed to the Federal Income Tax.

fyp

Fourty years ago I didn't really have a political affiliation. I really wasn't that political when I was younger. The first time I voted was for Bill Clinton though so I guess I always leaned more liberal.
But back then, politics weren't as divided as now. I listened on the car radio to people like Limbaugh, among many others; I loved talk radio; Now I can't stand the guy.
But to put it in better context, that's where I first heard those sentiments, on talk radio. So I guess maybe it wasn't as wide spread as I imagined.

I seem to remember an American guy spewing a lot of hatred towards his own country not long ago, and trying to create a movement to attack it from overseas. He had a bunch of guns too, some of them even fully automatic.


But Obama killed him with a flying robot before he fired a single shot. Got his son later too, just for good measure.

Lol small arms.

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2021/02/0...rrant-sunrise/

Breaking News: America no longer land of the free!

Just one man's opinion, but I always figured a big part of freedom is financial security. And that was a part of what made America land of the free. Because of America's general prosperity. But a big part of freedom also is living in safety and without fear.
Guns are not making Americans safe. They're making it that even the FBI is no longer safe from doing their job.
And if you feel that you live in a country where you need a gun to be safe, you're not living free. You're living in fear.

Before Limbaugh, talk radio overall was generally at least tolerable (at least here in Los Angeles). Limbaugh kinda dumbed down the whole genre.

Politics being politics and also containing a practical component, the GOP is probably salivating at the idea of gun law reform bills from the Democrats. I suspect it would give them an easy rally point and allow them to escape the current split in the party, and they could run the bills themselves (if they even pass a narrow senate majority) up to a conservative-majority supreme court, where gun law has undoubtedly been a strong part of the vetting process. It's also the one issue that unites every right-wing extremist group in the US.

None of these are arguments not to do anything, but it's an issue that will require clever political deftness, and I suspect no lasting change will really ever come until the partisan rift on this issue at the voter level is at least somewhat mended.

"Huuurrr Duuuuurrrr, but the government has got tanks and fighter jets, what're you guntards gonna do against those with your little glocky glocks?"


The guns aren't for attacking the military, they are for attacking the communist secret police that go door to door to haul you off to the FEMA camps.



“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

+1

Certainly having a gun is going to be more effective than not having a gun, when it comes to fighting against a tyrannical government. And even if you are not successful, it is better to die trying to be free than to live as a slave.