ESOCommunity

In addition, how detrimental is a lack of fully-automatic guns in guerrilla warfare?

so, is this Texas shooter, and the former Las Vegas shooter, playing "guerrilla warfare" games?

fei123456 wrote:200 years ago guns can help against bad governments. and now? fight the fighters/tanks?
we'll need some X-wing to do rebel jobs.

I woldn't so quickly dismiss the will of man.

Besides, in these situations rebels get funded by outside governments who might benefit from the change in leadership.

Well the US has the most powerful military presence in the world but I'd imagine its members wouldn't like firing onto home turf and families and friends.

Nonetheless citizen possession of firearms is probably crucial if ever a situation (god forbid) would arise. We've seen the damage illegitimate governments can do (genocidal damage).

The way i kind of see it, if someone is really deranged enough to commit a crime like, they will find a way through the black market to obtain a weapon.
There are plenty of cases in which guns have saved people which mainstream media likes to ignore (a few of the initial articles i read left out the fact that a hero citizen actually stopped the killer with his own weapon in this case)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-c ... criminals/

JulyBurnsOrange wrote:The way i kind of see it, if someone is really deranged enough to commit a crime like, they will find a way through the black market to obtain a weapon.

Well then atrocities of equal magnitude should be proportional around the world (regardless of firearm legislation) and they very clearly are not.

deleted_user wrote:

JulyBurnsOrange wrote:The way i kind of see it, if someone is really deranged enough to commit a crime like, they will find a way through the black market to obtain a weapon.

Well then atrocities of equal magnitude should be proportional around the world (regardless of firearm legislation) and they very clearly are not.

yeah thats definately a fair argument. It just seems like theres so many more fucking lunatics from the US as well tho like jheez its a damn shame :(

USA differs in ways other than gun legislation. The assumption that the legislation is the sole or main cause of USA's deadly violence is a wild one.

I dunno about "wild." Sole contributor? Not really. Un-ignorable? Almost certainly.

Yeah in usa buying guns easier so increases mass shootings, question is how much? I would argue a killer would get a gun legal or illegal, easy or hard way.

Makes me feel somewhat desperate and powerless.

Gunlaws won't change any time soon and still these things keep going on...

deleted_user wrote:

fei123456 wrote:200 years ago guns can help against bad governments. and now? fight the fighters/tanks?
we'll need some X-wing to do rebel jobs.

I woldn't so quickly dismiss the will of man.

Besides, in these situations rebels get funded by outside governments who might benefit from the change in leadership.

Well the US has the most powerful military presence in the world but I'd imagine its members wouldn't like firing onto home turf and families and friends.

Nonetheless citizen possession of firearms is probably crucial if ever a situation (god forbid) would arise. We've seen the damage illegitimate governments can do (genocidal damage).

Everyone and their grandmother had guns in 1930's Germany. It didn't help anyone. No rebellion in the modern world will succeed against a tyrannical government without foreign aid or domestic army backing. It's pretty much been like that since the 18th century revolutions.

It's all about American culture; people love their guns and in most places population density isn't high enough for gun-related neurosis. Likewise, mass shootings are overplayed as a phenomenon; spree shooters actually kill far less people compared to gun-related suicides and and other type of gun homicides. Spree shooters raise the American death rate per 100,000 by less than 1, and if I recall correctly, by less than 0.01.

On the other hand, you can praise the shooter for knowing what guns are good for. The funny thing is, guns aren't even good military arms anymore. Against an armored man, small arms fire is essentially useless; the majority of military casualties are the result of supporting weapons like machine guns, grenades, artillery, or airstrikes. The only thing guns are good for is shooting Bambi or children.

i'm not saying china>USA, but it's the truth that it's 100 times safer living in china.
it's UNIMAGINABLE that people are killed by guns here.

umeu wrote:

deleted_user wrote:

fei123456 wrote:200 years ago guns can help against bad governments. and now? fight the fighters/tanks?
we'll need some X-wing to do rebel jobs.

I woldn't so quickly dismiss the will of man.

Besides, in these situations rebels get funded by outside governments who might benefit from the change in leadership.

Well the US has the most powerful military presence in the world but I'd imagine its members wouldn't like firing onto home turf and families and friends.

Nonetheless citizen possession of firearms is probably crucial if ever a situation (god forbid) would arise. We've seen the damage illegitimate governments can do (genocidal damage).

Everyone and their grandmother had guns in 1930's Germany. It didn't help anyone. No rebellion in the modern world will succeed against a tyrannical government without foreign aid or domestic army backing. It's pretty much been like that since the 18th century revolutions.

Well it's a good thing then that foreign aid and domestic army backing is a near guarantee. Besides, Hitler won his first presidency democratically, or at least he gained power legally. I'd hardly say there was climate for revolution. Even if what I just said is false, the inaction of citizens with grounds to rebel is little argument against rebellion in nature.

The amendment is dated, sure. But doesn't man deserve some sort of means to fight back against illegitimate political power? It can turn out to become one of the more destructive forces in history. Political power is by definition the master of man - the ability to kill and take all lesser rights from him indefinitely.

If he surrenders every defensive ability then what is to keep the power in check? If political power is given automatic free reign what makes it moral and noble?

deleted_user wrote:

umeu wrote:

Show hidden quotes

deleted_user wrote:

fei123456 wrote:200 years ago guns can help against bad governments. and now? fight the fighters/tanks?
we'll need some X-wing to do rebel jobs.

I woldn't so quickly dismiss the will of man.

Besides, in these situations rebels get funded by outside governments who might benefit from the change in leadership.

Well the US has the most powerful military presence in the world but I'd imagine its members wouldn't like firing onto home turf and families and friends.

Nonetheless citizen possession of firearms is probably crucial if ever a situation (god forbid) would arise. We've seen the damage illegitimate governments can do (genocidal damage).

Everyone and their grandmother had guns in 1930's Germany. It didn't help anyone. No rebellion in the modern world will succeed against a tyrannical government without foreign aid or domestic army backing. It's pretty much been like that since the 18th century revolutions.

Well it's a good thing then that foreign aid and domestic army backing is a near guarantee. Besides, Hitler won his first presidency democratically, or at least he gained power legally. I'd hardly say there was climate for revolution. Even if what I just said is false, the inaction of citizens with grounds to rebel is little argument against rebellion in nature.

The amendment is dated, sure. But doesn't man deserve some sort of means to fight back against illegitimate political power? It can turn out to become one of the more destructive forces in history. Political power is by definition the master of man - the ability to kill and take all lesser rights from him indefinitely.

If he surrenders every defensive ability then what is to keep the power in check? If political power is given automatic free reign what makes it moral and noble?

He didn't. He was elected chancellor, which was basically a ceremonial function at the time. He then usurped power by staging a fire in the reichstag and used that to call martial law. my argument wasn't also against rebellion being justified or anything. It was just to show that civilians having guns doesn't mean they will use them to fight vs illegitimate governements. In fact, as the beerhall putch shows, they might use them to create illegitimate governments. Either way, I'm not arguing for blanket ban of guns. Just saying that the rebellion argument is often just thrown out there as if its the end all argument, while it isnt.

Sure it's not the end all be all. But it's an argument nonetheless. I'm not even necessarily arguing for it in the current state of worldly and militaristic affairs - just thought I'd bring it up.

As I mentioned political power is the utmost power one can have over another. In some way that should be in check. Legal possession of firearms is one way to do that.

JulyBurnsOrange wrote:The way i kind of see it, if someone is really deranged enough to commit a crime like, they will find a way through the black market to obtain a weapon.
There are plenty of cases in which guns have saved people which mainstream media likes to ignore (a few of the initial articles i read left out the fact that a hero citizen actually stopped the killer with his own weapon in this case)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-c ... criminals/

In Dutch we have a saying which basically translates to opportunity creates thieves. Apparantly it also creates mass murderers.

Many things happen because its easy for it to happen. The argument that it would still happen if it was harder might seem feasible in theory, but usually doesnt hold up in reality.

JulyBurnsOrange wrote:The way i kind of see it, if someone is really deranged enough to commit a crime like, they will find a way through the black market to obtain a weapon.
There are plenty of cases in which guns have saved people which mainstream media likes to ignore (a few of the initial articles i read left out the fact that a hero citizen actually stopped the killer with his own weapon in this case)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-c ... criminals/

Ah this must be why you are on my pest list.

benj89 wrote:not really if you consider that if the shooter gets killed, the death toll stops. I'm not really into the gun debate, to me a citizen should be able to be armed to protect himself after solid background checks. I'll buy a glock as soon as I get a house and a family

Of course you will – you're living in a land where anyone at all could kill anyone at all at any time. I would be fucking scared.

deleted_user wrote:How do we feel about firearms being allotted as a means to rebel against an illegitimate government? I mean, having that option seems nice.

As if one could rebel against the biggest military power in the world.

zoom wrote:

benj89 wrote:not really if you consider that if the shooter gets killed, the death toll stops. I'm not really into the gun debate, to me a citizen should be able to be armed to protect himself after solid background checks. I'll buy a glock as soon as I get a house and a family

Of course you will – you're living in a land where anyone at all could kill anyone at all at any time. I would be fucking scared.

My view is that there is something more wrong with the ethos; i.e, violence is the best answer to problems, and one should be prepared to shoot one's fellow citizen to death. As to general fatalities, remember that in countries where guns are more strictly controlled, you see rampages by people using vehicles to run over pedestrians. You see knife attacks. In general where there's a will to kill, there's a way. Gun control does not deal with the rampage problem, but it definitely manages general problems of civility and machismo.

Again, yes – it's just that more guns means more—and more serious—violence. I feel less scared knowing some lunatic might run me over than knowing every lunatic has an armed weapon.

sapikles wrote:where is your god now!!! the shooter screaming...

That question has been answered I am sure of.
May he be merciful to all those people and their loved once.

zoom wrote:

benj89 wrote:not really if you consider that if the shooter gets killed, the death toll stops. I'm not really into the gun debate, to me a citizen should be able to be armed to protect himself after solid background checks. I'll buy a glock as soon as I get a house and a family

Of course you will – you're living in a land where anyone at all could kill anyone at all at any time. I would be fucking scared.

I would do the exact same thing if I happen to live in France or anywhere else. It's just a matter of not depending on 911 to protect yourself and your family against psychopaths/poor ppl, which are sadly a part of every country. Quick google search told me that in France, about 4.5k armed robbery happened with guns in 2015, and 5.5k with knifes.

The point is, the world is violent, and I want to be able to defend myself. Now if you can't acknowledge that, either you grew up in a very privileged environment, either you are willing to depend on police/luck for your own safety - I'm not.