Another School Shooting: Roseburg Oregon 13 Dead.



SteveGG said:
But on the flip side - it's already too late.

There are far too many guns in the States, and there's no way the government nor the people will be willing to institute the draconian policies required to clean them up.
Click to expand...

Confiscation of firearms can happen in the U.S. But it's unlikely as long as we remain a constitutional republic.

All that is required, however, is for the U.S. to adopt a constitutional dictatorship.

Most folks scoff at that idea. But it's usually because they assume only third-world countries have - and can ever have - that form of government. History has shown that assumption to be wrong. Dictators have risen in and been embraced by cultured societies.

Once a constitutional dictatorship (or full-blown dictatorship) is in effect, confiscation of firearms becomes much easier. A dictator who harbors no fear of losing an election in 4 years would (understandably) be more willing to implement "draconian policies," including regular home searches, and if firearms are found, imprisonment and even execution.

The question isn't whether confiscation of firearms is possible in the U.S. It's whether a constitutional dictatorship could ever surface here.

The answer is that it can arise anywhere. From Judge Alex Kozinski in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002):

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Click to expand...


Once a dictator has risen and consolidated power (possibly with help from the military), confiscation of firearms becomes an expectation.
 
JakeStratham said:
Once a dictator has risen and consolidated power (possibly with help from the military), confiscation of firearms becomes an expectation.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the whole fucking point of the second amendment and exactly why it would never happen. Nobody in the US is going to bow down to a dictator. It goes against everything the country stands for.

That might be the dumbest thing I've read on the Internets today.
 
Criminals disobey laws by definition. Keeping guns out of law-abiding citizens hands is not going to reduce crime. In fact, it will increase crime by making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

BTW, in 2013 there were about 35,200 car accident deaths in the US which is higher than the number of people killed by guns. Also, that chart doesn't seem to differentiate whether the people killed by guns were rapists, murders, robbers, or innocent victims.

Estimated 35,200 US traffic deaths reported in 2013 - CSMonitor.com
 
I am very much enjoying this intellectual conversation about such an important issue to my U.S. brethren... :)

dreamache said:
The US has the world's most powerful military and still couldn't do fucking SHIT against an area a fraction the size of Texas, containing people armed with subpar weaponry (the Iraqi insurgence).

The US has every weapon in the book, and we couldn't fight a bunch of towelheads armed with outdated rifles.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. And I can't think offhand of any "limited war" that ended up being a complete success for the attacker the attacker. I believe even the Russian-Chechen invasion was resolved by letting a warlord remain in power there instead of getting into a drawn out bloodbath.

It's only when an entire country - including every man, woman, and child as in WW1 and WW2 - becomes fair game, that you can actually win a war. If you have to figure out which of the people are good and which are bad then you're doomed.

Having said that, i wouldn't want to be an Iraqi or Afghani fighting against the Americans right now. If the U.S. government decides to turn you or your town into paste, it's going to happen.

dreamache said:
The US has a vested interested in keeping its populace dumbed the fuck down and disarmed as much as possible; thus Mr. Obama (and any other gov. official) using these opportunities to make it difficult to own guns.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the former, and I recall hearing that gun laws are even slacker now than when Obama came into power.

Quick search reveals this:

During his first term Obama didn't call for any major new restriction on guns or gun owners. Instead he urged authorities to enforce the state and federal laws already on the books.

In fact, Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners.

---

Obama made curtailing gun violence a central theme of his second-term agenda after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012.

The president signed executive orders calling for mandatory criminal background checks on gun-buyers and several other measures that were unpopular in Congress including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
​
Source (unsure of publishing date): Gun Laws Signed By Obama - How Many There Are

So, if accurate, it appears he wasn't so bad for gun owners... unless you have a real hankering for an assault rifle or high-capacity magazines.
And if you do, I'm sure you can be both in the parking lot of most any gun show. ;)
 
charlesmartel said:
The Hutus and Tutsis killed about a million with just machetes and clubs.
Click to expand...

True - but that place was a wide scale event like "The Purge" in a country very different than the States has ever been.

It would take a pretty serious apocalyptic scenario for a million Americans to suddenly start shooting and stabbing each other.

And if some guy with a machete or club comes running towards me and another guy in a field, he'd better be able to run faster than the guy he chooses to chase, because he'll only get to pick one of us and the other guy (unless he runs in the same direction) will certainly get away.

With a gun, the attacker can be in a wheelchair, towing a tank of oxygen behind him, and take both of us out no problem.


charlesmartel said:
Also, the above chart doesn't say how many those of deaths were self-defense.
Click to expand...

...against other people with guns? ;)
 
charlesmartel said:
Criminals disobey laws by definition. Keeping guns out of law-abiding citizens hands is not going to reduce crime. In fact, it will increase crime by making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

BTW, in 2013 there were about 35,200 car accident deaths in the US which is higher than the number of people killed by guns. Also, that chart doesn't seem to differentiate whether the people killed by guns were rapists, murders, robbers, or innocent victims.

Estimated 35,200 US traffic deaths reported in 2013 - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

You're not seriously pulling the "cars kill more people than guns" argument are you? Because that's pretty fucking stupid if you are.

Cancer kills more people than guns too. So let's ban cancer.
 
charlesmartel said:
BTW, in 2013 there were about 35,200 car accident deaths in the US which is higher than the number of people killed by guns. Also, that chart doesn't seem to differentiate whether the people killed by guns were rapists, murders, robbers, or innocent victims.
Click to expand...

You're also being deliberately obtuse. The chart clearly states "deaths by firearms", as in ALL deaths by firearms. There are usually around 30,000 a year, give or take, with roughly 10,000 homicides and 20,000 suicides and a handful of accidental discharges, etc. It's almost always 1/3rd of gun deaths are homicides, give or take a little.

2013: 11,208 deaths by homicide, 21,175 by suicide, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge, 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). There were 84,258 nonfatal injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
 
SteveGG said:
...against other people with guns? ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know how it is in Canada but in the US you can use deadly force if you think your life is in danger. The attacking person doesn't have to have a gun. He could have a knife, a club, or just his fists. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean he's not dangerous. You can be knocked out. And it's not uncommon among certain thugs in this country to kick you in the head when you're knocked out, which can result in brain damage or death.

Two years after attack, Bryan Stow family fights for care
 
Fatbat said:
You're also being deliberately obtuse. The chart clearly states "deaths by firearms", as in ALL deaths by firearms. There are usually around 30,000 a year, give or take, with roughly 10,000 homicides and 20,000 suicides and a handful of accidental discharges, etc. It's almost always 1/3rd of gun deaths are homicides, give or take a little.

2013: 11,208 deaths by homicide, 21,175 by suicide, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge, 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). There were 84,258 nonfatal injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

If people want to kill themselves, they'll do it with drugs, rope, or guns. That's not a reason to limit or ban guns.

With respect to homicides, they can be justifiable or non-justifiable homicides. If 10,000 robbers and rapists are killed, would that make you upset? I would celebrate. In fact, I would hope for a larger number. Also, who exactly is committing the non-justifiable homicides? Is it black and Mexican gangs? That seems to be the case in Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun controls in the country.
 
I seriously don't get this obsession with guns. Do you seriously think owning a rifle will help you resist a government that controls the most powerful military in the world?

Seriously guys, time to grow up. America is exceptional but not THAT exceptional. It IS a fucked up, abnormal thing for a country to have more guns than people, and to be so obsessed with objects that are designed to kill.

And no, you wouldn't have this insane level of mass shootings if you had gun laws similar to those of any other developed country.

Just my perception as a non-American who loves many things about America but sometimes is just at a loss with things like this.
 
charlesmartel said:
I don't know how it is in Canada but in the US you can use deadly force if you think your life is in danger. The attacking person doesn't have to have a gun. He could have a knife, a club, or just his fists. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean he's not dangerous. You can be knocked out. And it's not uncommon among certain thugs in this country to kick you in the head when you're knocked out, which can result in brain damage or death
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you there. A person defending themselves or their family from a serious attack should be able to use enough force to render the attacker incapacitated - not just limited to "reasonable force", which I believe is the law here.

But killing them should be a last resort, especially if we're talking about a bar fight versus someone bursting into your home and threatening your family's lives.
 
DarkWolf said:
I seriously don't get this obsession with guns. Do you seriously think owning a rifle will help you resist a government that controls the most powerful military in the world?

Seriously guys, time to grow up. America is exceptional but not THAT exceptional. It IS a fucked up, abnormal thing for a country to have more guns than people, and to be so obsessed with objects that are designed to kill.

And no, you wouldn't have this insane level of mass shootings if you had gun laws similar to those of any other developed country.

Just my perception as a non-American who loves many things about America but sometimes is just at a loss with things like this.
Click to expand...

So you're arguing citizens should be allowed to own fully automatic rifles? I concur.
 
potentialeight said:
The most powerful military in the world couldn't beat a bunch of people living in caves who had rifles.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, it doesn't exactly serve their purposes to come in and drop fucking bombs on their own civilians and decimate them. Without the civilians (the tax cattle), they don't exist.
 
charlesmartel said:
I don't know how it is in Canada but in the US you can use deadly force if you think your life is in danger.
Click to expand...


Yeah - like the avg American has enough IQ to decide if their life is really in danger vs their pride is in danger. Like they'd take the extra minute to figure out how they feel instead of pulling out a gun and blasting.

So - some dumb American thinks his life is in danger, and then he's the new Zimmerman. Kewl. Murikan life goes on - don't change a thing, tomorrow there'll be another dumbass patriot who felt his pride challenged and shoots someone.

I'm not against disarming Murikans - but they should clamp down on giving out guns properly. Last time I was in Murika, I could go to a pawnshop of one of the 12129312 pawnshops on the roads/highways to bumfuck towns of America - and get a 357 longbarrel for like 300-400 bucks w no waiting period. cash for gun. It was a lot more exciting to me at the time being a 15 year old.

When you have avg Murikans with their small businesses "just trying to make a living in this recession" selling guns on the side and avg murikans too stupid to know if their life is in danger - it's like kids selling guns to kids. Which always works out well, right?

Once again, before gun pussies cry and wrap a barrel around their lips - not against guns, just against giving them to stupid people who "think their life is in danger". Allow people with over a certain IQ to access them only. Then there'll be a lot less of them being sold on the side, and a lot less people who "think their life is in danger". I know it's not realistic because the avg 2nd amendment nut is dumb - but, it's not like any of the bullshit discussed here will ever turn to action :)
 
DarkWolf said:
I seriously don't get this obsession with guns. Do you seriously think owning a rifle will help you resist a government that controls the most powerful military in the world?
Click to expand...
Hahaha wow, this is such a laughable idea. Vietnam and Iraq did just fine with much worse than us. Also do you really think that in the event of some sort of governmental coup, the military would be entirely on the government's side? It's pretty doubtful.

Seriously guys, time to grow up. America is exceptional but not THAT exceptional. It IS a fucked up, abnormal thing for a country to have more guns than people, and to be so obsessed with objects that are designed to kill.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that most people own firearms to protect themselves and their family, as well as hunt animals. Some people own them simply for sport. Try to look at it holistically.


And no, you wouldn't have this insane level of mass shootings if you had gun laws similar to those of any other developed country.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't have this level of mass shootings if it wasn't for the media consistently talking about them, thus encouraging copy cats. Also, why aren't there more shootings in the "hot spot" of gun ownership of the south? They all seem to happen in places that have tighter gun control.

And personally, I'd rather be in the US as opposed to England which seems to be banning long-handled steak knives.

Just my perception as a non-American who loves many things about America but sometimes is just at a loss with things like this.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you live, but I'm sure there are things I'd just LOVE to change about your country. I consider the right to bear arms to be a pretty powerful thing.


Also, SteveGG, did you know that during the time the 2nd amendment was passed, this was available?

Finally, the Supreme Court itself ruled that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. And grammatically...
2nd-Amendment-Grammar.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom