TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 195

Thread: Route 91 Harvest Music Festival Shooting - Gun Control Thread

  1. #101
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    We had a lone shooter in Dallas last summer killing police officers. They killed him using C4 and a robot. Imagine the response to a real rebellion.
    If someone does something stupid like kick off a rebellion (which I doubt'll happen anytime soon), the only hope these future rebels have of winning will be to run off into the woods, and become guerrillas. As Afghanistan and Iraq have shown us, our military isn't that well equipped to handle hit and run tactics over long periods of time.

    Though any homegrown rebellion will have a few distinct disadvantages compared to their ME counterparts, mainly that our homegrown variety will be fighting a war right in the middle of a highly developed 1st world nation that just happens to be the backyard of one of the better trained, and most technologically advanced military in the world.

    Really, their best bet would be to die on live TV in a way that garners the most sympathy from the public.

  2. #102
    Er, the Taliban also had weapons far beyond what are available here. Unless there's a big black market for aircraft, tanks, RPG's, and so on that I'm unaware of.

  3. #103
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I would not say that the average American voted Trump into office. When you divide the number of Trump votes by the population, it's 19%. And the voters who really swung the election to Trump are pretty average working class people who voted for him simply because they were sick of losing manufacturing sector jobs.
    I know Clinton won the popular vote. And I know only 55% of Americans did vote. Still, a huge number of people voted for Trump.
    And about all the people who didn't vote: it makes me think of this quote:



    You could argue that the people who didn't vote, and allowed Trump to become president, do carry some responsibility too.

    For some reason, I find it hard to picture an American who would vote for Trump, but also vote for stricter gun-control laws.


    I also find it weird how Americans think the right to own a gun is their basic right.
    A bunch of smart people, from all over the world, once wrote something called "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un...mportant_ideas
    Right to healthcare is there.
    Right to free speech. (The US is doing a better job than most European countries there).

    But nowhere does it mention that people have a fundamental right to carry guns around.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 6th Oct 2017 at 19:58.

  4. #104
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    Small arms fire isn't going to do shit against a drone. And if things were really serious, you have artillery. That's before even discussing real bombs, cruise missiles, tactical nukes, etc.
    Yes, and using real bombs or cruise missiles, let alone tactical nukes, against your own population is exactly the sort of thing that galvanizes public and international opinion against you and triggers defections within your military, and pretty soon you have a proper civil war on your hands. Whereas riot police subduing unarmed civilians is over quickly and barely a blip on international news. At a basic level, widespread personal armament raises the political cost for a government to enact its will on its populace.

    And that's leaving aside the ability of partisans to use personal arms to steal military equipment. Remember that even when the Constitution was written, the British military had a massive advantage in equipment. They had artillery, naval warships, proper military muskets, ammunition stores, etc that gave them an enormous advantage over rag-tag rebels with hunting rifles. The first order of business for those rag-tag rebels was stealing the means to fight a conventional war through the use of said hunting rifles. The same principle has held true in virtually every irregular conflict since, from French Resistance members in WW2 using air-dropped Welrods and Stens to steal German military equipment to the Syrian rebels using their rusty AKs to steal BMPs and artillery from Assad's military.

    Like I said before, I'm not big on the resisting-tyranny justification for gun ownership, but history does bear out the principle that personal arms can make a difference against modern technology.

  5. #105
    A resistance wouldn't get far enough to require heavy munitions imo. The moment an armed uprising starts, there will be drones everywhere.

  6. #106
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    The Taliban lost all their heavy stuff in the beginning. For the last 15 years, they've been getting by on small arms, mortars, RPGs, IEDs, etc. It seems to be pretty easy for them to steal and/or smuggle arms of that nature. Same for every other insurgency everywhere.

    The potential success of a rebellion would totally depend on the cause behind it and the size. If it's a Whiskey Rebellion thing, involving a few hundred guys in one state, they would get put down pretty easily by federal law enforcement i.e. FBI, ATF, etc. But if the cause is sufficient enough to spark a nationwide or even a major regional rebellion, that would be a different story entirely. Think of the numbers for a second. If just 10% of the population supports the rebellion, that's 32.5 million people. If they own guns at the average rate, that's about 29 million guns in 12.5 million households supporting the rebellion. With that amount of popular support, they could muster an armed fighting force of a few million. Whereas the number of Taliban is currently estimated to be around 25-30k.

    Also, the prevailing attitude of the US military is categorical opposition the idea of fighting other Americans, so unless we're talking about a terrorist group that the whole population hates, don't assume the military is going to stay united and follow orders. If a significant percentage of the population is behind the rebellion, you can bet that a significant percentage of military members and law enforcement will get behind it too. The way I see it, if you just get 10% of the population behind the rebellion, either the government folds or it's a full-on civil war.

    It seems like kind of a pointless hypothetical discussion, but I'm sure it factors into some people's thoughts about owning a gun.

  7. #107
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    You could argue that the people who didn't vote, and allowed Trump to become president, do carry some responsibility too.
    I think there are plenty of people regretting that right about now.

    For some reason, I find it hard to picture an American who would vote for Trump, but also vote for stricter gun-control laws.
    I know a few personally, who voted for Trump either because of his campaign focus on jobs or because they couldn't stomach Clinton. Also, a lot of the more rural towns around here lean strongly Democratic but are full of gun owners.

  8. #108
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I agree with catbarf. You can't win against a population that doesn't want to be governed. Just look at India, for example. And they didn't even have guns for the most part.

    Also, these guns will probably come in real handy in case of a civil war.

  9. #109
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    ...
    I also find it weird how Americans think the right to own a gun is their basic right.
    A bunch of smart people, from all over the world, once wrote something called "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un...mportant_ideas
    Right to healthcare is there.
    Right to free speech. (The US is doing a better job than most European countries there).

    But nowhere does it mention that people have a fundamental right to carry guns around.
    It mentions a right to liberty and security of person, from which can be inferred a right to self defense. Self preservation is the most natural right in the world. If the government cannot guarantee my personal safety every minute of every day from every threat to my well being posed by someone who intends me ill, then it doesn't have the right to deny me the means to defend myself. A gun is a great tool for self defense.

  10. #110
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    A gun is a great tool for self-defense only if you know how to use it and if you handle it responsibly. Otherwise it's a liability to the gun-owner and everyone around them.

  11. #111
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Can't disagree with that. I don't think guns are for everyone. There's plenty of my acquaintances with whom I wouldn't ride in a car if they were driving, much less be around them carrying a firearm. Off the cuff an ideal situation, for me, would be something like: individuals are free to purchase, own and carry firearms on their own property after passing a background check. A concealed carry license would be required to carry a gun off your property, with the licensing authority legislated to issue a permit to all adults age 21 or over that pass a basic proficiency exam. Firearm/hunter safety would be a required course in high school. Businesses should be allowed to ban firearms on their premises, with strict punishments for violating the ban. States already have the ability to regulate this type of issue, so I think the situation in this country is fine as is; don't like the guns laws in your state? Move. Or deal with it. But stop trying to make the rest of the country match you. I think more federalism is the answer to most of the problems in this country, though.

  12. #112
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    It mentions a right to liberty and security of person, from which can be inferred a right to self defense. Self preservation is the most natural right in the world. If the government cannot guarantee my personal safety every minute of every day from every threat to my well being posed by someone who intends me ill, then it doesn't have the right to deny me the means to defend myself. A gun is a great tool for self defense.
    That's like saying:
    Everybody has the right to energy. We can't trust the government with nuclear energy (see 3-Mile Island 38 years ago). Therefor every citizen has the right to build and operate a nuclear power-plant in their backyard.

  13. #113
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    I sense some straw men descending on this thread like many an internet "debate". Overall though it seems relatively sensible.

    Whenever I go through a thread like this I feel less confident that there is a good answer, or even a bad one, like many problems with human behaviour. This whole gun issue becomes high profile on top of a pile of other more statistically significant causes of death.

    The idea of people gunned to death always carries more weight in people's imaginations.

  14. #114
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: Girl with the Patreon Tattoo
    My conclusion is that the USA are too fucking far gone to be helped, it's full of people with good intentions but powerless and held back or misled by institutionalized and cultural violence. The good news is that it's slowly becoming less and less relevant to the rest of the world.

  15. #115
    Yes, but I think both of you kind of miss the point.

    Part of the reason why that "fascism" is so successful is because of Obama. He actively cultivated this image of himself as a genteel, educated, left wing academic expert to the public while implementing policies that were by and large fascist including what the ACLU described as "the biggest surveillance state in the history of the world", a foreign policy even more militaristic than Bush's (although far more secretive and more reliant on covert support for insurgencies), interfered with the justice system to protect bank executives, and used the full power of federal agencies to destroy political opposition.

    And at the same time most of America's Democrats lapped it all up and generally handled the dissonance by pretending all of those things never happened.

    Here's the harsh reality: almost every "fascist" action people were scared of Trump doing (with the notable exception of deporting illegal immigrants), was something that Obama actually did during his time in office.


    The US maybe headed in a "fascist" direction, but the most effective implementation of that fascism hides itself under the guise of socialism, caring for people, and cults of personality based on the perceived goodness of its leaders.

  16. #116
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I think much of it is a cultural thing, and I completely respect those from the U.S who feel the need to have a gun. Nothing at all negative intended in that last sentence.

    Myself though, the only guns I've seen in real life is from those that do hunting and police.

    A few nights ago, I was going through the video list of one of my favorite Youtuber's "The 8-Bit Guy". His channel (I thought) was 100% just about retro computer repairs, and retro videogame related. On going through his old videos though I come across a video of his from 10 years ago, where he's giving instructional steps on how to conceal a pistol on your person. He's showing off all these different pistol holders, placing the holders on himself and whipping out the pistol. All the while with a complete blank look on his face.

    I just found the video very chilling and disturbing. But as I've said, it's likely a cultural thing. The only guns I ever want to see in real life are those held by a cop. And hopefully a good, non corrupt one.

    I can link the video if there is interest. Or just type the guys name in Youtube and scroll down to the absolute beginning of his videos.

  17. #117
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Part of the reason why that "fascism" is so successful is because of Obama.
    Bullshit. If launching a full scale invasion into a foreign country, implementing mass surveillance programs, using torture and detaining people indefinitely somehow seems less militaristic and less fascist to you, I think it's safe to say you have some pretty big blinders on. A lot of the things you accuse Obama of, he inherited from Bush.

    Also, Obama was not soft on illegal immigrants. He wasn't known as the deporter-in-chief for nothing. Obama deported more people than any single president in the US history. In fact, he deported more people than all the US presidents of the 20th century combined.

  18. #118
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    If I have to fault Obama for anything, it's that he wasn't quite the hope and change we were all hoping for. He never scaled back the Patriot Act, and while he did deescalate our involvement in the Middle East, he didn't disengage us entirely like a lot of people were hoping.

    It boggles my mind that we have people claiming him as both a fascist and a communist, claiming he destroyed the country, was divisive, and blah blah blah, when for all intents and purposes, he was a fairly bog standard US president in policy, actions, and the implementations thereof.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 7th Oct 2017 at 12:49.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    If I have to fault Obama for anything, it's that he wasn't quite the hope and change we were all hoping for. He never scaled back the Patriot Act, and while he did deescalate our involvement in the Middle East, he didn't disengage us entirely like a lot of people were hoping.

    It boggles my mind that we have people claiming him as both a fascist and a communist, claiming he destroyed the country, was divisive, and blah blah blah, when for all intents and purposes, he was a fairly bog standard US president in policy, actions, and the implementations thereof.
    He didn't "de-escalate" by any stretch of the imagination.



    Preferring highly secretive, clandestine operations and bombing campaigns vs. large and flashy "boots on the ground" options doesn't make him less militaristic than Bush. The effects are arguably even worse. Kickstarting a revolution in Syria didn't just cause a massive number of civilian deaths the way Iraq did. Because of that astoundingly stupid foreign policy action Obama's white house was solely responsible (almost...some other NATO nations contributed in smaller ways) for the migrant crisis that is now tearing Europe apart. Even Bush didn't achieve that level of political destablization.

    And he isn't a "communist", and him being "fairly bog standard" is borderline fascist because "bog standard" is pro-torture, pro-war state, pro-surveillance state, pro-police state, pro-wall street, and pro-corporate corruption....which is exactly why the only candidates people could stand were the ones who positioned themselves as being against the "bog-standard" politicians.

    The only reason people are calling it "socialist" is because the movement has adopted a platform that includes social welfare policies (which were, for reference, part of the Nazi platform as well) and because they cloak themselves in cultural Marxist identity politics.

    Even the old ACLU president has gone on record stating that Obama's civil liberties record was worse than Bush, and there's one Forbes article that goes into a bit more depth but has another way of stating my point:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai.../#775e98ce4037


    The thing that's remarkable to me about the Obama administration is how willing his cult of personality has made moderate liberals willing to vicariously defend the indefensible. I mean hell. His PR was so effective that most people are completely clueless about the fact that the Obama administration had, as of 2011, set records for deportations


    I think before I've posted list 20-30 items long of facist-ish policies that Obama has implemented. All of them can be easily verified from reporting available on Democrat loyalist websites, let alone more "centrist" sources.

  20. #120
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    You're wrong in a number of places. Obama didn't kickstart the civil war in Syria. It had been going on since the Arab Spring, long before Obama threw our collective hat into the fray a couple years later via arming various rebel groups across the country (though why we keep doing this, I have no idea. It rarely ever seems to turn out well for us). Basically, Syria is at unfortunate nexus of interests, with Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia, ISIS, and the US all having deeply vested and opposing goals in the region.

    Blaming Obama or the US solely for the clusterfuck currently going on there is shortsighted, to say the least. We're but one of many moving parts responsible for Syria.

    As for the people voting for an outsider to counter what the establishment has wrought, yeah, we're all seeing how well that's turning out. Not only has Trump escalated our involvement in Syria, and ramped up engagements in other Middle Eastern countries, but he's been all but daring North Korea into a playing a round of brinksmanship chicken to see who blinks first. A dangerous game to play when it's nuclear warheads we're shaking at each other.

    If this is the great change our populist movement has brought about, well, I guess the new boss isn't all that different from the old boss. Bush's war, and the fallout from it all, is still ongoing.

  21. #121
    Unlikely it would have gotten far without CIA (and French/Israeli) support for the rebels. Assad already had support from Russia so I doubt the rebellion would have lasted very long.

    Overall...I think Trump's militancy is one of my biggest dissapointment, even if the statement that he's "escalated our involvement in Syria" isn't entirely accurate.

    My single biggest point in his favor was that he was promising an end to Western interventionism, and out of the various candidates he seemed one of the few that was reasonably likely to do it (after Sanders and Paul). His sudden shift towards a NeoCon policy has been somewhat disturbing to watch and it's interesting that shifts in that direction tended to coincide with departures of his initial cabinet.

  22. #122
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Overall...I think Trump's militancy is one of my biggest dissapointment, even if the statement that he's "escalated our involvement in Syria" isn't entirely accurate.
    His militancy shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone, considering his hardline rhetoric is what helped him win the presidency. He openly claimed he'd fight ISIS head on, utterly destroy them, even if he did occasionally contradict himself by claiming to pull us out of the Middle East.

    And he did escalate it in the sense that we now have a few thousand boots on the ground in Syria. The whole point of Obama engaging in a proxy war using Syrian rebels was to prevent that, which, yeah, you could view as a cynical workaround to his claims that he'd engage no more troops in ME affairs.

  23. #123
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Tony, if you don't see the difference between a clandestine operation and a full-scale invasion, I don't know what to tell you, really. You are basically equating the bombing of terrorist camps to military invasions. Not to mention that some of those terrorist groups are a threat to the US.

    Also, many of these conflicts were not started by Obama, they were inherited from Bush or a direct consequence of Bush's actions. Some of these countries were also bombed by Bush, btw.

    Also also, Obama withdrew troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and at least decreased the population of Guantanamo, even if he wasn't able to close it.

  24. #124
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2003
    Location: Cambridgeshire UK
    This was an interesting thread until Tony took it off topic. Can we get back to talking about gun control please?

  25. #125
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: CT, USA
    I agree with ffox - it's a very broad topic with widely differing viewpoints, but let's please try to keep it on the subject of whether gun control could have made a difference in these mass shootings such as the latest case in Las Vegas.

    @Tony_Tarantula - maybe open a separate thread on the successes/failures of Obama's presidency, foreign policy options under Trump, etc. which are also likely to stimulate much discussion, but it's just too much for one thread.

    Thanks to all for your comments & on-topic opinions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •