General News Discussion

[Guest]

It's not a great defense for needing guns.

[Guest]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="tonyblair" data-cid="3884243" data-time="1355565620"><p>

You need a gun to defend yourself against someone who has a gun.... ??<br />

I think there's a flaw there</p></blockquote> it works perfectly. You get a gun to defend yourself against someone that has a gun, I get a gun to defend myself against you, someone else gets a gun to defend themselves against me....

[t8yman]

[Rufus Gwertigan]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="t8yman" data-cid="3884261" data-time="1355569848"><p>

<br />

<br />

so you've got a 1/27964 chance of being shot to death in the USA according to those figures.<br />

pretty slim really.</p></blockquote>

That figure equates to 7 people a year in a population the size of Hull. Why is that a necessary risk ?

[Ed209]

But thats just those that die. 100000 people get shot every year whcih is around about a 1/3000 chance of getting shot every year. Those odds don't look so good to me

[kaosmark2]

Self defence

From intruders, the government, wild animals, and nut jobs with guns.

[kaosmark2]

So is it just that you (assuming you are a gun owner) feel that you should be able to have one and go out back and do target practice or is there more to it?

What I'm trying to uncover here is why are people (particularly in the US, though not exclusively) still fascinated by gun ownership? Is it a psychological thing? Is it that without one, one would not feel safe at night?

Perhaps it's that I'm not a gun owner and (zombie apocolypse scenario aside) never will be, but I just don't get it and I'm yet to find someone who explains it deeper that just 'it's our right so we are exercising it' - which just seems like a non-argument.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="kaosmark2" data-cid="3884295" data-time="1355574248"><p>

<br />

A gun wouldn't be that effective in a zombie apocalypse. Between reloading, ammo supplies and needing to significant concentrated damage to the upper spinal cord, a shotgun would be the only type of much use. I'd want a sword, failing that a baseball bat or some other single-swing bludgeoning weapon with reach.</p></blockquote>

What about a tank or some other armoured vechile. A Scimitar can travel the length of the UK on one tank of fuel and you can have a splatfest along the way.

Edit: it has a built in kettle as well.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Rufus Gwertigan

[Ed209]

So is it just that you (assuming you are a gun owner) feel that you should be able to have one and go out back and do target practice or is there more to it?

What I'm trying to uncover here is why are people (particularly in the US, though not exclusively) still fascinated by gun ownership? Is it a psychological thing? Is it that without one, one would not feel safe at night?

Perhaps it's that I'm not a gun owner and (zombie apocolypse scenario aside) never will be, but I just don't get it and I'm yet to find someone who explains it deeper that just 'it's our right so we are exercising it' - which just seems like a non-argument.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Ed209" data-cid="3884302" data-time="1355576429"><p>

Itruns very deep in the national identity. They see it as a birth right. They believe they are the only truly free nation on earth and their right to bear arms is intrinsically linked with that freedom. In their eyes they are only free if they are allowed guns, Take away their guns and you're taking away their freedom.</p></blockquote>

There is an irony that the right to bear arms was part of Independence from Britain. Britain has no such clause yet compare gun crimes.

I love this country for its eccentricity. We have an unarmed police force and tight gun laws. I know we are not unique in that, but with all the faults that our society has I am proud of that. I have been in trouble with the law more than a few times. I know that I would never be granted a licence for a firearm. I have never wanted one anyway. Why? Because I would use it. That's what a weapon is for.

[feral chile]

Itruns very deep in the national identity. They see it as a birth right. They believe they are the only truly free nation on earth and their right to bear arms is intrinsically linked with that freedom. In their eyes they are only free if they are allowed guns, Take away their guns and you're taking away their freedom.

[AcademicPistol]

You cannot parry a knife attack with a gun. You cannot shoot away a bullet that's being fired at you.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="feral chile" data-cid="3884311" data-time="1355579653"><p>

Only their freedom to shoot someone. Why own a gun if you never intend using it? Why then, would you think the right to carry firearms (shoot people) is anymore an aspect of freedom that the right to carry an axe around, in case you fancied chopping off some heads?<br />

<br />

I just don't get it - of course you can stab/hack someone to death as well as shoot someone, but it's still against the law in the UK to carry an offensive weapon.</p></blockquote>At the end of the day Fersl to be defensive with a weapon you have to be offensive with it.

I don't know. People say about defence blah blah blah. I am a big bloke and I was once mugged. I was kissed and just fell over but I have no idea what would have happened if I had a knife on me. Someone may be dead, and for what? An empty wallet and a bus pass?

[kaosmark2]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="kaosmark2" data-cid="3884295" data-time="1355574248"><p>

<br />

A gun wouldn't be that effective in a zombie apocalypse. Between reloading, ammo supplies and needing to significant concentrated damage to the upper spinal cord, a shotgun would be the only type of much use. I'd want a sword, failing that a baseball bat or some other single-swing bludgeoning weapon with reach.</p></blockquote>

What about a tank or some other armoured vechile. A Scimitar can travel the length of the UK on one tank of fuel and you can have a splatfest along the way.

Edit: it has a built in kettle as well.

[kaosmark2]

Someone has not been paying attention in ninja school

But seriously the American constitution is 225 years old, it could do with being looked at properly now.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="kaosmark2" data-cid="3884324" data-time="1355582883"><p>

<br />

A tank or armoured vehicle would be far more awesome. I just comparing handheld weaponry.</p></blockquote>

Come the apocsyclypse you need to think big and secure. While a sword is handy you can hardly sleep in it and it does not run over zombies.

[Ed209]

Only their freedom to shoot someone. Why own a gun if you never intend using it? Why then, would you think the right to carry firearms (shoot people) is anymore an aspect of freedom that the right to carry an axe around, in case you fancied chopping off some heads?

I just don't get it - of course you can stab/hack someone to death as well as shoot someone, but it's still against the law in the UK to carry an offensive weapon.

[lost]

I read the other day that the tea tax which started their disagreement with our government was 5%. Shows hows times have changed as anyone whos played colonization probably doesnt bother with the independence thing until 30 - 40% taxes

[feral chile]

Its to fight against anyone who may threaten their family, property, rights and freedom. Whoever it may be, including their own government. That idea is very dear to them. They don't like the government telling them to do stuff. A government which tries to take away their guns is in their eyes the kind of government which the right to bear arms is there for in the first place.

Hey I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just expressing the traditional view of the American people

Edited December 15, 2012 by feral chile

[Ed209]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="feral chile" data-cid="3884357" data-time="1355593769"><p>

<br />

Wouldn't they become terrorists?<br />

<br />

No wonder we're considered to be unlikely to start a revolution in the UK. When does a revolutionary become a terrorist?<br />

<br />

(Though considering their history, I can see why the possibility of revolt is sacred to Americans, since it justifies their entire existence - I'd never really thought about it before).</p></blockquote>

And that is where the history for the amendment is from. That very reason.

What they don't acknowledge is the sands of time and how what mattered 250yrs ago means a very different thing today

[t8yman]

It's more important today than it was 250 years ago. America is on the verge of tyranny with the way congress keeps pushing through more and more laws to take away freedom under the guise of protecting the public from terrorism. What started after 9/11 has gone way too far. Look up the NDAA and its ramifications for free speech, journalism and crushing dissent.

http://amberlyonlive.com/2012/10/09/why-i-say-fuck-the-ndaa/

Edited December 16, 2012 by t8yman

[Guest]

it's a weird sense of freedom to be against a system (obamacare) that protects people from not having any healthcare when they might need it...

(some) people who spout about personal freedom and freedom of speech seem to want the freedom to do what they want whatever the consequences are for others

[The Nal]

The annual gun market value in the USA is $6 billion. Money outweighs common sense unfortunately.

What can they (Obama) realistically do? Hes allegedly been "secretly" involved with anti gun groups all through his career. But changing, or even proposing a change, to the Bill of Rights would surely lead to more madness/protests/killings?

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is is odd though.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

"Well regulated".

This guy doesn't looks "well regulated" to me! Hes not Russian, he from Georgia USA. And its all legal!!

Also this is just for, like, recreation. They're not soldiers of anything.

Edited December 16, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

It's more important today than it was 250 years ago. America is on the verge of tyranny with the way congress keeps pushing through more and more laws to take away freedom under the guise of protecting the public from terrorism.

and yet the UK has pushed thru laws that are very similar, and we're not on the verge of tyranny.

We have laws that can be abused by those in power - just as the USA does - and while those politicians are quite happy to see laws abused (as they always are), we're still a long way from tyranny.

There's a lot to protest about and change, but tyranny isn't part of it.

[The Nal]

Some people. Honestly.