Is it time to talk about guns?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Mar 24, 2021.

  1. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

  2. noodist_jen

    noodist_jen Member

    So offer a REAL solution! And fuck you, you don't know me, let alone what I feel. I don't take you, or your position seriously, because you don't have any REAL answers to these problems, which I DO take seriously.
  3. wrat1

    wrat1 Members

    Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives (

    Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”

    My bold
    noodist_jen likes this.
  4. noodist_jen

    noodist_jen Member

    You'll make a great politician some day. You haven't offered a single valid solution and you point the finger of blame toward the people. Bravo! I would never vote for you, but you would win because most people are sheep, so you 'woold' win the majority vote.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2021
  5. noodist_jen

    noodist_jen Member

    DGU = Defensive Gun Use? I'm just guessing by the context. And that's EXCLUDING military and police scenarios!
    wrat1 likes this.
  6. noodist_jen

    noodist_jen Member

    Don't tell me what I "seem to feel," you have no idea what I feel. We all want the gun violence to stop, but we have vastly different ideas on how to make it stop. In my opinion, your plans to 'create more laws' will just create more victims.
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator


    Sorry but you seem to think wars are inevitable - you even seem - i’m sorry to say - to be looking forward to some new American Civil War, which i find rather distasteful.

    War to me is not the inevitable outcome and for me the one that you do most to prevent because war is not a good thing.

    There are known problems with the US political system that can be addressed and should be attempted but to not even try to bother and instead look forward to an armed conflict to sort it all out seems like madness.

    You mean in the US - well the festering sore of slavery should have been taclked a lot sooner than it was and if it had been there may not have been a civil war - even at the founding many realised that the situation was untenable and corrupting

    Again it might not have happened if people had listened to the grievances put forward my the colonists and many in the British parliament were on their side and aslo remember, the Continental Congress, petitioned King George III denying that independence was the Americans’ objective, and appealing to him to protect the colonies. And when war came many colonists fought on the British side.

    Also I add here that for enslaved people in the colonies, it was the British who represented liberty, not the white Americans with many slaves who could have fought for the British in the war.

    No, I'd say there were several sides to most arguments - I choose the one that makes the most sense to me in a rational and reasonable way, this comes about through debating the different arguments and seeing which stand up to scrutiny and which don’t and can often involve compromise and consensus.

    But you don’t seem to have a good argument for your position and no counter arguments to what has been presented in opposition, i mean look at your replies and often you are not even attempting to address them.
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator


    I’m not sure what your rational argument is since you don’t actually explain - but i’m confused as to what it is - given your examples i mean you say

    ‘An unarmed populace is always subjugated by its government’

    But the Boxer’s actually supported their government (which was an absolute Monarchy) and in 1930’s Germany many of the people that were armed actually supported the Nazis so you could say that the armed populace helped in bringing about Nazis tyranny.
    soulcompromise likes this.
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator


    Again i’m confused and unsure what your argument is - I mean to begin with who is this ‘our’ in

    If the ‘our’ here is gun owners, Isn’t one of the (flawed) big pro-gun arguements that people have guns to to prevent crime? As in the slogan ‘ “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

    Can you explain your thinking?

    And again a vast number of government activities are aimed at deterring crime so can you explain what you mean?

    Who are the ‘powers that be’?

    Actually if you look at gun control proposals they are often aimed at handguns because as you say a vast majority of crimes involve such weapons - so your assertion seems to be incorrect.

    This just seems to come across a paranoia.

    Again you seem to be implying there is a ‘them’ and ‘us’ - who is the ‘them’ and who the ‘us’?

    Again people have presented measures to try and lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal - you don’t seem to have put up any rational argument against them.

    Sorry but this has already been covered many times, the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals were purchased legally and then either given or sold on to the criminal or stolen from the legal owner.

    Many of the gun control measures proposed are aimed at closing off those routes to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal.

    With any illegal guns, once found, been ‘disappeared’ by being destroyed. It cannot be done through a snap of the fingers Thanos style but will work over time to limit the number of existing guns in circulation and the ease of access to them.

    Again already covered in post 37

    These would be national laws the same through all the states and a Federal department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country.

    So there would be one set of minimum/standard laws that local areas would have to adhere to.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2021
  10. FritzDaKatx2

    FritzDaKatx2 Vinegar Taster

    I've been reading lately how the more ambitious reloaders out there who dont mind religiously cleaning their barrels have learned to weather the ammo shortage with a homebrewed version of the primer compound used back in the 30-40 Krag to recycle their primers.
    Legal to do for personal use, risky.

  11. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    The Penn & Teller video doesn’t make much sense either

    To repeat this is something from 200 year olds ago things have moved on and clearly the 2nd amendment isn’t fit for purpose today.

    Also what ‘tyrannical state militia’ did the writers fight against?

    What tyranny was there before 1776?

    Those fermenting the rebellion certainly began calling British rule tyranny because…well they were trying to ferment a rebellion, but actually many colonists were happy or at least apathetic to British rule.

    As Francis D Cogliano asks -Was the American Revolution Inevitable?

    Writing with the benefit of hindsight in 1818, John Adams, one of the central figures in the American Revolution, recalled that Americans were committed to independence in their hearts long before war broke out in America in 1775. Adams' comment suggests that American independence was inevitable: this was not the case.

    In 1763, Americans joyously celebrated the British victory in the Seven Years' War, revelling in their identity as Britons and jealously guarding their much-celebrated rights which they believed they possessed by virtue of membership in what they saw as the world's greatest empire. Americans had contributed significantly to the recent victory both militarily and financially….In 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers.[my bold]

    It was only when the British parliament (against many members opposition) began rising taxes in the colonies (that was going through a recession at the time) that the colonists started getting annoyed

    And remember their call was - "No taxation without representation"

    It wasn’t a call against tyranny or for war - it was asking to have representation within the British Empire in Parliament.

    If it was tyranny they were basically asking to be part of the tyranny.
    Even when the war began there were American colonist who stayed loyal to the British Crown for example William Franklin the son of Benjamin Franklin was a loyalist who worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war on the side of the British and of course the famous and much maligned name been Benedict Arnold.

    The historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

    Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2021
  12. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter


    History has it that these said 'militias' have never been any good. Further, the tyranny they stand against today is liberal progressive majority-rules democracy.

    What do they hope to accomplish?

    In the context of militia I feel the gun ownership, particularly of assault weapons like the infamous AR-15, is basically a means of intimidation and coercion.
    Flagme15, Balbus and Piobaire like this.
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    The Defensive Gun Use arguement - is actually very bad for the pro-gun lobby if you just think about it for a minute

    The argument is that guns are good at tackling crime

    But it has already been established that the general crime rates of the US are not that different than other comparable countries with much lower levels of gun ownership or eaase of access to guns.

    But if guns are good at tackling crime - then the US with its much much higher rates of gun ownership and ease of access to firearms should have much lower rates of crime than places witthout.

    But it doesn't - in other words ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to relate to lower general crime rates.

    Some gun people argue that these crimes stopped by DGU are not reported - but if that's the case then the US has higher crime rates than comparable countries that don’t have guns so actually they are doing a lot better at tackling crime than the US with guns.

    But the US has vastly greater gun related deaths and injuries compared to those countries where ease of access to guns is lower.

    So ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to tackle crime but does increase the likelihood of people getting killed or injured by a gun.

    Any rational and reasonable person would conclude that it would be better to take ease of access to guns out of the equation when tackling crime, for both law enforces and citizenry
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2021
    MeAgain likes this.
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    I like Penn and Teller as magicians but they don't know what they're talking about in this video.
    A well regulated militia is made up of "the people", or citizens of the country. Militias were private citizens called upon to support the standing army or lack of a standing army. That's why "the people" had a right to bear arms, to support the government not overthrow it. Note the militia is to be well regulated, it is not a 20 year old kid or a gang running around with weapons.
    When the Constitution was written organized militias were formed to protect against Indians and foreign invasion (the French). Previously Washington called upon the the Virginia Militia to fight in the French and Indian War. The Virginia Militia was organized under governmental authority, was well paid, and was used to protect the colonies from foreign invasion (the French again) and Indian attacks, not the British or local government.
    When the Revolution broke out militias were organized to support the colonial governments, not rebel against them.
    Note the words well regulated, trained, defense of the state, and strict subordination to the civil power.
    Militias operated under direction of colonial governments.

    After the Revolution the citizens of Western Pennsylvania organized what would today be called "militias" to protest agaisnt governmental tyranny in the form of the whiskey tax.
    The "people" of Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties claimed the tax was unfair.
    "Militia" groups in Washington county protesting governmental tyranny tarred and feathered tax collector Robert Johnson. A warrant server sent to serve Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered, and other governmental officials were attacked.
    In Pittsburgh the Mingo Creek Association took control of the real local militia and set up their own court system; in response to governmental tyranny.
    Alexander Hamilton, remember him?, "drafted a presidential proclamation denouncing resistance" (or protest of governmental tyranny) which President Washington signed. Washington recognized that an insurrection had formed.
    Tax collectors were assaulted at gun point and had their homes broken into. Illegal "militias" laid siege to Morgantown, Virginia (becasue of governmental tyranny).
    On July 15, 1794 while serving warrants a Federal Marshal was fired upon at a farm. The "people" were using firearms to protest governmental tyranny.
    On July 16 30 Mingo Creek "militiamen" surrounded tax collector General Neville's home on Bower Hill and demanded he and others surrender. He responded by firing on and killing a "militiaman". The "militiaman" returned fire and a battle ensued. Neville defended his home from invasion with the help of his slaves. Invasion by what we today call a militia.The insurrection was expanding.
    The next day the militia returned with 600 men commanded by Major James McFarlane and with "10 U.S. Army soldiers from Pittsburgh under the command of Major Abraham Kirkpatrick".
    The house was set afire, several people were killed, and General Neville captured.

    On August 1 7,000 people assembled at Braddock's Field to protest governmental tyranny. They wanted to march on Pittsburgh and burn it the ground, attack Fort Fayette, bring in a guillotine and succeed from the Union. A six striped flag was designed.

    How did Washington respond?
    He assembled a real militia under the federal militia law in support of the government. 12,950 men from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia were drafted into the well organized militia in defense of the government. Resistance to the draft was put down by over 800 militia men resulting in several deaths.

    Washington himself then lead the militia.
    As a result the insurrection collapsed, 2,000 men ran into the wilderness beyond the militia's reach 24 men were arrested, 10 stood trail, and 2 were sentenced to hang for insurrection.

    So much for militias being used to protest governmental tyranny.

    Continuing with Penn and Teller. They equate militias with standing armies....wrong.
    They seem to think militias aren't made up of people as they emphasize that the people being separate from militias should be allowed to own arms. So who makes up the militias, dogs and cats?
    Then they claim the colonists fought agaisnt a radical state militia. Who would that be? England sent her standing armies to fight, not militias.
    They claim the writers of the constitution made it impossible for governmental militias to take away "the peoples'" arms. Well we just saw that's completely wrong as Hamilton and the rest of the signers of the Constitution did just that, took away the arms of "the people" of Western Pa, et al during the Whiskey Insurrection.
    Finally they claim a comma is a period.

    Complete bull.
    Flagme15 and Balbus like this.
  15. granite45

    granite45 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    If more and increasingly lethal weapons were the way to reduce gun deaths, the US would long ago have reduced the gun deaths to zero. What kind of twisted logic can ignore the simultaneous increases in gun violence and gun availability? The same twisted logic also ignores the experience of the rest of the developed world where some level of gun control is associated with fewer gun deaths. Long past time to for t he clueless to get a clue. Seems like those listening to the gun lobby would also be interested in a purchase of a certain bridge in the greater New York area.
    MeAgain likes this.
  16. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    IMO, it comes down to percentages as usual. There is a percentage of people that will harm and kill others. Always been thus from the days of rocks and clubs used to subdue-harm-kill others for whatever contemporary reasons. The fact that there ARE weapons shows that a %age humans are a murderous bunch whether for political, social, or reasons of survival. Under the right conditions, an extremely high %age will kill----most will not go out of their way to harm or kill others, but speaking for myself--if someone attempts to harm/kill my family---they will get an immediate case of lead poisoning with no feelings of regret. Imo--there is no solution to this gun problem and there never will be unless ---I suppose there was/is an actual ,creator that gave a shit about the continual slaughtering in which humans continue to engage. Ri-i-i-ig-h-ht.
    FritzDaKatx2 and wrat1 like this.
  17. MartNorth

    MartNorth Supporters HipForums Supporter

    Having watched gun control talk for many, many years now it seems to have held true when the far left thinks they have he power to push something through we have a SHARP rise in mass shooting.
    SaraSara likes this.
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    So in your opinion the far left is responsible for mass shooting not those who commit the shootings?
    granite45 likes this.
  19. tikoo

    tikoo Senior Member

    Social irresponsibility is what gives the lunatics their fantasies . Insane war , for instance , invites a warrior's
    illusion of power with no regard for protecting community . The AR-15 becomes a black magical object . The
    lunatic warrior of anxiety walks alone , wishing to lay among the dead .
  20. Tyrsonswood

    Tyrsonswood Senior Moment

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice