Guns as the great equalizer

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, so let's pretend that we have no constitution nor human rights in general and are all mere serfs.
Please tell us what "sane gun control" is and what the results have historically been in the US.

I should probably clarify something here. I did not say that those who require firearms because of who they are and what they do (ex. farmers, police, security guards, soldiers etc.) should be disarmed, but civilians who have no obvious need for them. I am not so naive as to think that there will be international peace and disarmament any time within my lifetime. As for Australia being a safer place because of the U.S., well, even if true it's also completely irrelevant to the discussion.



Hilarious. I don't think I could ever be afraid of someone who has an avatar of Clint Eastwood pointing a gun. Are we trying to compensate for a perceived deficiency here, some kind of inadequacy? Isn't this all rather Freudian?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 15082.html

Now we resort to pretending do we? There is no need to 'pretend', because you are not mere serfs, human rights do exist, there is a constitution, and this is just a - rather lame, I must say - attempt at diversion. Sane gun control would entail background checks, the elimination of high-powered military assault rifles (ex. AK-47's, M-16's) from the hands of those who clearly don't need them for any good reason, the disqualification of anyone with a mental illness or criminal history from owning a gun, and the registration and licensing of all gun owners by either the State or Federal governments, all of which is perfectly reasonable and justified.

Now before anyone responds to this with something along the lines of, "But it was the right to bear arms that gave us what you mention here", I would suggest you do a bit of research on the subject of U.S. history (hint: the intervention of the French - yes, those people that rednecks just love to hate - was crucial for the success of your revolution).

Yes, we shouldn't be bigoted, but to claim that 'none of these people are ever going to hurt you' is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

No demonstrated knowledge - well, believe it or not, I used to belong to a shooting club about 20 years ago. I had a licence, gun (.22 rifle), and for a while it was a hobby, but I just ended up getting bored with it all, and lost any residual need I may have had to make things go BANG! In other words, I matured.

What are you actually quoting here? Is this an attempt at humour? I ask because I really can't tell.



...and here we have it, in all its glory! The conspiracy theory that underlies virtually every attempt to bring sanity into this insane world. I don't suppose you could provide a little... you know, evidence to back up this claim of yours that the goal is not to prevent deaths but control people.



I'm not familiar with this shooting, so cannot at this time comment upon it, but will look into it.



Another one that I have not heard of. The reason for this must be the conspiracy of silence, the Illuminati-controlled mainstream media's suppression of knowledge of it. Yes, that's it



Personally, I wouldn't like either. You seem to be under the impression that getting shot wouldn't be so bad, that it would perhaps be like it is in a John Wayne film where the cowboy or Indian just falls off his horse with not even a hint of blood on his shirt.

Yes. Responsible use of firearms is one form of life that harms no one, and is just as valid as any other. Hence, why people shouldn't be bigoted because they have no interest themselves. If it harms someone through accident, then that's one thing we accept in life; whether a kid drowns or he shoots himself, it's the unfortunate effects of life. You can do measures to help prevent them, such as fences for pools and safes for gunz, but the most important thing is education above all.

If you're one of the unlucky people to be murdered, it's most likely going to be someone in your family or other close relation, and depending on where you live, it's going to be either done with a knife or firearm (no law will stop this from happening). This is highly unlikely anyway, and you shouldn't worry about it (there's many more things that you should be worried about if you're prone to worry).

Effectively no one will be a victim of a spree [or serial] killing.

As an aside:

Note the Monash shooting was done with a semi-automatic pistol.

Note how the massacre late last year with a knife killed more people.

AspieUtah, the original research that this article you have linked to links to, is a 216 page PDF which will take a while to get through. I'll have to read it when I have a lot of time at home. At the very least it should prove interesting, even if it ends up contradicting a claim I may have made here at Wrong Planet.

you spoke of requirements not motivation. police here aren't required to stop crimes, just punish those who did them.

why buy what you can just take. not like your nation alone could resist the EU, russia, US or china. if one decided to take you over. really you all rely on us and nato allies. that's why you can be so cheap on your military spending. Because politicians are only politicians while their nation exists, if they sell it to china then they won't be politicians. not to mention I doubt any nation's people would go along willingly with being sold to another nation.

it's a strategy that works. really look past politics, right or wrong it works. blitzcrieg. was used by germans to conquer and kill. but it was a good strategy, so good that most militaries still use it today. the americans used the same strategy in revolution war as the insurgents in iraq/afgan have. the vietnamese did as well. you need to learn not to connect successful strategies with political and moral standings. the taliban and is are fighting for what they want, their way of life. wrong as it is, they think it is the only way. so determined to keep it they fight a insurgency that beats their enemies will power. yep it's a great example of how a rag tag group with only small arms can manage to defy the whole world's military powers. afghan has beaten and pushed out so many world powers. they beat the british, they beat the russians they beat the us and nato. the middle east will likely never join the west in its views. still its a good example of how a group with just rifles can make a difference.

you're so blindly biased there nothing anyone could say to change your mind. you hate us, we don't really care about you besides you hate us and want to strip us of our freedoms to make you "feel" safer.

whats sane to you is not sane to 100million people.

just as it was considered sane to enslave people back 150 years or so ago.

it was considered sane to kill 6 million jews to the german leadership and nazi party.

it was considered san to forcibly spay/nuter people.

so many sane ideas are not looked back on as wrong and insane.

you use sane, common sense, etc to make the other side seem bad and wrong. this is a manipulative move. you're aim is to manipulate people to feel wrong about something that is ok and normal.

by labeling your ideas as san and common sense, that means anyone against them even if right is insane and doesn't have common sense. It's starting with a attack right away. really so many bad evil things were justified as sane and common sense. if you were on the other side you'd feel sick at seeing this done.

its only sane to reproduce with cloning and ban all sex and relationships. its common sense, by cloning we will obtain the prefect humans. well then we need to remove all the imperfect humans to make the world perfect and safe. its common sense. if you disagree you are just insane and lack common sense.




yep no harm has ever come from a government creating list of people.

high powered lol. do you understand the difference between 5.56(ar15) a mid power round and a .50bmg a high power round, then there's 20mm, 40mm, etc. lot of people consider anything under 7.62 to be useless. but you see a scary looking gun and assume it's this horrible kill 50 people with each shot fired gun. you have like 0 understanding of guns besides their names that you likely learned from cnn or other left news.

we already have laws restricting assault rifles, ar15, aks, etc are not assault rifles. if I put on some acu am I a soldier now? looks don't equal same. two things can look similar but not be the same thing.

let the gov say mental ill people blankly shouldn't' have guns and they'll classify everyone as mentally ill. heck drinking too much coffee is a mental illness. so now someone who drinks too much coffee can't have a gun. nope I much prefer the person by person basis of taking freedoms based on a person's actions rather than a you're were born different then me so you lose all your rights. based on stereotypes and discrimination. one would think an aspie who suffered from stereotypes and discrimination would see the logic in this.

they helped via navy a tiny bit and by starting a war in europe. but guess what we saved their asses 3 times or more since. so way more then even. people don't' like the french because they supported dictators and shitted on us after 9/11 then asked to be part of the money making rebuilding afterwards. "freedom toast and freedom fries" comes to mind.

whats your interest? would you be ok if your gove required you to register and be licensed and watched to beg them the permission to do it?

you're like is always ok with taking others freedoms and rights but throw fits when its yours that ar threaten.

I wasn't speaking of you personally that time, I was merely pointing out that you were describing a paranoid fear that you even admit isn't really rational, but when I or people like me express similar but more factual opinions, we are mocked and called paranoid.





As far as I know the only people boycotting me are His Partisanship and his sidekick, Eeyore, but even assuming that there are others, I'm willing to bet I'm not missing out on much intellectual stimulation. What you see as defensiveness is really exasperation and irritation due to being the best informed and most experience person here concerning a particular issue, and still having people who have no idea what they're talking about think they know better than I do, people such as yourself. It's a little like being a biologist at a creationist convention, logic and reason and facts are useless, so I've actually stopped trying to win arguments and have been pursuing more of a 'discredit and move along' strategy. It's pretty easy when the people I argue with often don't seem to know which end the bullet comes out of yet think they should have a say in legislating firearms policy, like having the Amish design highways...

Also, ad hominem

Ooh, ancient experience and condescension, that totally trumps my advanced degree, decades of experience, and residence in the country in question...

And this need is decided by you, of course.

You're the one that brought up entitlements and how the sociopathic US of A squanders its taxpayer dollar on defense spending.

It's America's influence on Australia that you were wrapped around the axle about, not my avatar. I bet you'd dislike my last two avatars even more.
I notice your starting to descend into the early stages of trollery. I guess when you know your argument is weak...

To what avail other than to make you and a declining number of others feel good? Surely, if your fears had any validity to them all those people that bought AR-15's and AK's in recent years went out and massacred as many people as they could find. So where are the bodies?

I did ask for rationale for this "sane gun control" but I guess you can't cough it up. Everything you've said here and will say here several others have already said in this forum over the years and failed pitifully.
You're no different.


Changing the subject?
And why to the rednecks hate the French?