Yay, GUNS!

[Moontanman]

 

The American military now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 some 10 years ago.

 

http://www.rferl.org/content/drones_who_makes_them_and_who_has_them/24469168.html

 

 

 

I can see the movie trailer now.... Terminator X Aerial Drones take over the world....

 

 

"All my God, it's an aerial drone nest... look down there, millions of aerial drone nests.... They're replicating!!!! "

Edited December 30, 2012 by Moontanman

[Iggy]

 

I wanted to check the numbers. I'm not informed on the war in Syria, but I read that they're killing the Alawites. According to Wikipedia, the Alawites comprised 11% of the Syrian population.

In the quote above, you assumed that just under 2/3 of the U.S. population would have your back. Let's assume you have 90% of the population on your side. 311,000,000 multiplied by 0.9 is 278,000,000. To have 200,000,000 of them fighting with you, you will need 72% of them fighting with you. Here is a chart of the U.S. population divided according to age. If you start at age 0 and add up the percents for each age group, you reach 28% when you count the "15 to 19" section. Of course, there are also the extremely old people who cannot fight with you. So you will need about everyone age 18 and up fighting with you.

 

I would look up how many drones we have, but I've got to go. Sorry!

Anyway, if the government was killing that much of the population, they'd probably engineer an easily curable virus or something, then reserve the antidote for the people they like. They wouldn't use a bunch of drones.

 

Did you get the impression I was being particular with the numbers? I'm sure there was a point that's being very strenuously missed.

 

No one mentioned Syria or any other government. IMO, Syria doesn't use chemical weapons because they know the US will kick their ass.

 

No, that's not it. Syria doesn't use chemical weapons for the same reason nobody used chemical weapons in the second world war despite their being tones of the stuff about. Figure it out. Imagine the fear al Assad has of his populous and compare it to the indifference Saddam had for the Kurds when he gassed them. You'll get it. It has nothing to do with the US.

 

Basically, it comes down to trust. I trust my elected officials, present and future more than I trust the likes of you and Rigney...

 

Brutus trusted Caesar right up until he buried a knife in his chest. Tyrants exist. Your refusal to see them makes them no less real and it negates nothing about what must be done with them. "Sic semper tyrannis" means more than all the sniveling support they can receive from the likes of you.

 

 

And guess what? The more people like you want bigger and badder weapons, the more people will support monitoring people like you - what weapons and ammo you buy. How you store them. Who lives with you, around you. What websites you visit and what kind of opinions you post. In other words, you might help create the monster you fear.

 

 

Masochism. You hand the whip to your master and beg him to leave you bloody. Pure unadulterated masochism. I'll take no part in it.

[MonDie]

Did you get the impression I was being particular with the numbers? I'm sure there was a point that's being very strenuously missed.

 

Well the estimate of gunfighters was very high, and the estimate of the number of drones was low. You also failed to consider the other weapons at the government's disposal.

 

Masochism. You hand the whip to your master and beg him to leave you bloody. Pure unadulterated masochism.

 

Oh yeah, baby. He was making the point that the desire to eliminate guns is a natural reaction to guns being present. You can call them "whipped" all you like, but people will remain concerned about the safety of their children.

[Iggy]

 

Well the estimate of gunfighters was very high, and the estimate of the number of drones was low. You also failed to consider the other weapons at the government's disposal.

 

How very literal.

 

 

Oh yeah, baby. He was making the point that the desire to eliminate guns is a natural reaction to guns being present. You can call them "whipped" all you like, but people will remain concerned about the safety of their children.

 

I'm sure that's a fair way too look at it. I see him saying that it might just be acceptable for the government to strip people of their freedoms, their privacy, and their personhood if those people want to own a means of self protection, and it makes me ill. Defeat in the mind. Surrender. Masochism. I'm sure that's fair too.

[MonDie]

How very literal.

Yes, because nothing can defeat Satan's army of pink unicorns.

[Iggy]

Don't be silly. They're purple.

[MonDie]

 

 

I can see the movie trailer now.... Terminator X Aerial Drones take over the world....

 

 

"All my God, it's an aerial drone nest... look down there, millions of aerial drone nests.... They're replicating!!!! "

 

I get it now. It wouldn't be the whole population against the drones, it would be part of the population against another part of the population. The scenario does resemble the premise of Terminator.

 

The government turning on its people would be a matter of internal conflict. In the same way, a guy shooting up a movie theater is a matter of internal conflict. In both cases, you have one portion of the population trying to kill another portion of the population.

Now consider this. If we give guns to violent people, we increase the risk of internal conflict, whether it's small scale or large scale. If we reserve the guns for sane, non-violent people, the risk of internal conflict will be much smaller.

Of course, nobody is advocating putting all the guns (or military weaponry) in the hands of one person.

 

The argument rests on the premise that government officials are not trustworthy!

Edited December 30, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[rigney]

The American military now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 some 10 years ago.

 

http://www.rferl.org/content/drones_who_makes_them_and_who_has_them/24469168.html

 

Why is it that when someone uses "mistrust of power" as several of us have done to describe our feelings of government, do some idiots take it literally to mean rebellion and/or overthrow of the structure? Again, I ask, Why? Then to envision howitzers, drones, A-bombs, anthrax, bushmasters and all dispicable means fitting into such diabolical methods, describing what we might use to get these foul an evil deeds done. WHOO-EE!!! Get real my friend. If such a scenario was used to describe most people in America today, there would be few politicians or attorneys left to walk the streets. And why! Because they would all be locked away for the wacky shit most of them epitomize. Believe me, I love the type of government we experience. Anything else would be exploratory or passe. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." At present and for the past two hundred years or so, we as a free nation of people have been allowed to elect our government officials as to our constitution decrees. I never want that process to change .A lot of squabbling yes, but elected they are.The beauty of it all is, If a majority don't like the way things are going, they wait a couple of years and alter it by voting the incumbents out. Am I happy with how government tactics are being used at the moment? Hell No! But when enough people don't like the status quo, change will come legitimately. So lighten up, bed wetters and war mongers. But just remember, when honest people express their convictions openly, they usually have little to hide. But be extremely wary and careful of those who only smile, use intellectual jargon, or say nothing at all.

Edited December 31, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Why is it that when someone uses "mistrust of government" as several of us has done to describe our feeling, idiots take it literally to mean rebellion and/or overthrow of our government. Why?

 

Because that's the ONLY reason someone's stated "distrust of government" becomes relevant in any way in a thread discussing banning or regulating guns. People say, "Guns kill folks unnecessarily and we should try to take smart steps to minimize the availability of guns." Then, in response many people say, "I need my gun to defend myself against a tyrannical government if our leaders ever go awry."

 

Ergo, when someone uses "mistrust of government" as a feeling here in these discussions, us "idiots" take it to mean that people are actually talking about a possible armed rebellion and/or overthrow.

 

I know, we're quite silly for taking your words at face value. Gosh. Silly us. We should have been able to use telepathy to drive to the root of what you were thinking in your head instead of what you were presenting to us through text and with your words. I'll try harder, rigney. You sure did set me straight there.

[rigney]

I see that you still have that mouse in your pocket when referring to "US", I presume? It makes me feel bad to think that the words of others can be misconstrued so quickly by you. Seriously, some folks scare the bejabbers out of me with their shoot from the hip and zealous inclination to condemn without question. Those with a tangible and cognizant understanding of principalss usually take just a moment to justify such findings, while you somehow seem to do it instantantly. So! all I can say is: "Bless Your Heart"!, That is, since most of us just aren't quite bright enough to make that distinction so quickly.

Edited December 31, 2012 by rigney

[MonDie]

Our country is a group of individuals acting in concert. If someone passes a crazy law, there will be people who refuse to follow or enforce it.

The government can only forcibly take away our rights with threats of death and warfare. That's why we should keep the weapons in the hands of sane, non-violent people who don't have superiority complexes.

 

Edited after Zapatos made his post.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[zapatos]

The "Battle of Athens" is an interesting story of citizens fighting back against corrupt government. While I don't forsee much use for guns in battling the US Government, I understand the perspective of people who feel the need for guns to protect their rights, whether they are ever fired or not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[MonDie]

Sorry that I edited my post after you (seemingly) responded to it.

Those police were able to oppress citizens because they had weapons. If we didn't give guns to aggressive control-freaks, we wouldn't need to give guns to ordinary citizens.

 

I guess I just admitted that some government officials aren't trustworthy. This problem is especially bad in Chicago.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[zapatos]

Sorry that I edited my post after you (seemingly) responded to it.

No issue, I was just adding related content rather than responding directly to your post.

Those police were able to oppress citizens because they had weapons. If we didn't give guns to aggressive control-freaks, we wouldn't need to give guns to ordinary citizens.

That is true. Unfortunately, we do give guns to aggressive control freaks.

[rigney]

Our country is a group of individuals acting in concert. If someone passes a crazy law, there will be people who refuse to follow or enforce it.

The government can only forcibly take away our rights with threats of death and warfare. That's why we should keep the weapons in the hands of sane, non-violent people who don't have superiority complexes.

 

Edited after Zapatos made his post.

Your quote is entirely correct. Could I have seen anything in your analysis to disagree with, I would have done so. And yes! Laws are to be enforced. but when they are made to disrupt the masses, they should and must be repealed. Things may not always be to our liking, but as a nation of law and order we should always strive to make it better for those less fortunate than ourselves, but not cave in to mass hysteria..

[Moontanman]

Evidently not everyone in England is thrilled with not being able to own a gun.

 

 

[MonDie]

Just a thought. Perhaps policing should be more like jury duty. Define a group of people that can serve as cops, then assign them "cop duty" every once in a while. Only the well-trained, highly qualified cops would be full-time.

The Zimbardo prison experiment provided evidence that people begin behaving differently when they're given power over others. If policing was more like jury duty, perhaps people wouldn't grow into the authoritative role. Also, the stress wouldn't build up for an extended period of time. This would also make conspiracy very difficult because "police officers" would no longer be a tight-nit social group.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[rigney]

Glad you presented this latest link Moon. Since there is no way any of us can justify our innermost feelings or thoughts with words alone, perhaps we should all listen to others who face or have gone through such a dilemma. People aught to view this link for what it's worth, nothing more or less. And yes, it is biased conservatively. But any rational and sane person can see the fallacy of doing nothing when you or your family are at risk. Thanks for sharing.

Edited January 1, 2013 by rigney

[Iggy]

Just a thought. Perhaps policing should be more like jury duty. Define a group of people that can serve as cops, then assign them "cop duty" every once in a while. Only the well-trained, highly qualified cops would be full-time.

 

Well armed and highly regulated? Yeah...

 

I was sure you were trolling or setting up a punch line or something, but... ah, whatever... no point in being cruel when nobody is even listening to themselves.

Somebody just unironically introduced the idea of a militia in a thread on gun control. These things happen in reasonable debate...

 

 

A related concept is the jury, which can be regarded as a specialized form of militia convened to render a verdict in a court proceeding (known as a petit jury or trial jury) or to investigate a public matter and render a presentment or indictment

 

Wikipedia -- militia

 

Edited January 2, 2013 by Iggy

[MonDie]

Well armed and highly regulated? Yeah...

 

You're the one who wanted to just let a bunch of ordinary people keep guns in their homes.

 

In my proposal, the powerful weapons will be in the hands of a small, monitored group of people. The only difference is that this group will now be fluid to prevent alienation and corruption.

We will still have restrictions regarding sanity and history of violence.

We will still give out just as much training (or more), but the training will be spread out over more individuals. Should we ever have to, we could call upon the inactive individuals for help. We could lock up their specialized weaponry in nearby buildings.

 

Anyway, this idea would have to accompany a widespread reduction in the number of guns among the population. If police were the only ones with deadly weapons, there would be less violent acts except those committed by the police themselves. So, at that point, we would need to prevent the police from becoming violent. What better way to do this than to make them aware that their authoritative role is only temporary?

Edited January 2, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[rigney]

Did no one see Moontanman's post #366 about the gun ban and control in England?

Edited January 2, 2013 by rigney

[StringJunky]

Did no one see Moontanman's post #366 about the gun ban and control in England?

 

Released Dec 25th 2012:

 

Most Britons support fox hunting ban, survey finds

 

Poll before Boxing Day meets shows 76% are against moves to make fox hunting legal, rising to 81% for deer hunting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/25/britons-fox-hunting-ban-survey

 

David Cameron, our Prime Minister would dearly love to repeal the hunting laws (being a hunting-type toff himself) but he does not have the backing of the very large majority of the UK public. The hunting ban is most definitely not an expression of government oppression.

 

This might put another angle on our general attitude in the UK towards guns for you which includes our police force:.

 

A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

 

If our police don't want to be routinely armed, it makes sense that the UK public, shouldn't be...and long may that live. If we are armed then the our police will have to be and I really don't want that. I don't want to lose that freedom from being potentially shot or feel that fear from our police force...we have the fast response teams as and when necessary....that's how it should be for a free and civil society. It's not perfect but our respective countries statistics for per capita gun crimes speak for themselves which is actually the most sane..

Edited January 3, 2013 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

 

StringJunky -- Never having been to the UK and therefore not knowing what it is like outside the cities, can you tell me how much of your country is small town or rural? I'm wondering if this is one of the differences between attitudes in the US vs. the UK.

 

In the US there is an awful lot of the country where being self sufficient, including for your security, is necessary. There is some degree of isolation for a lot of people outside the metropolitan areas.

[StringJunky]

StringJunky -- Never having been to the UK and therefore not knowing what it is like outside the cities, can you tell me how much of your country is small town or rural? I'm wondering if this is one of the differences between attitudes in the US vs. the UK.

 

In the US there is an awful lot of the country where being self sufficient, including for your security, is necessary. There is some degree of isolation for a lot of people outside the metropolitan areas.

 

www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13642-rural-digest-2012.pdf

This extract from the BBC link I gave earlier gives some historical context for the way we are I thought interesting:

Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries.This owes much to the historical foundations of British criminal justice, says Peter Waddington, professor of social policy at the University of Wolverhampton.

 

"A great deal of what we take as normal about policing was set out in the early 19th Century," he says."When Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police there was a very strong fear of the military - the masses feared the new force would be oppressive."A force that did not routinely carry firearms - and wore blue rather than red, which was associated with the infantry - was part of this effort to distinguish the early "Peelers" from the Army Waddington says.

 

Over time, this notion of guns being inimical to community policing - and, indeed, to the popular conception of the Dixon of Dock Green-style bobby[1] - was reinforced.While some in London were issued with revolvers prior to 1936, from that date only trained officers at the rank of sergeant or above were issued with guns, and even then only if they could demonstrate a good reason for requiring one.

 

Today only a small proportion of officers are authorised to use firearms. Latest Home Office figures show there were just 6,653 officers authorised to use firearms in England and Wales - about 5% of the total number.

 

[1] Dixon of Dock Green was a TV series that ran from 1955 to 1976 about a fictional East London police force.

Edited January 3, 2013 by StringJunky

[menageriemanor]

I have to be very diplomatic on this subject.

 

Australia has very repressive gun laws. You can't own handguns unless officially in competition and a member of a competition gun club. No sawn off shot guns - nothing that can be easily hidden. Some competition permits only allow you to keep your handgun locked up at your shooting range. Cannot be taken from the range, except travelling to comps. The range of guns you CAN own, for any reason, is extremely limited and no one can have machine guns/assault rifles legally.

 

I suspect if you argued about why you should have such a weapon, you'd be red flagged and/or even forced to see a psychiatrist. You have to give a SOUND reason for owning a gun. In the city, it would be competition. I'm not sure there is another reason for a city dweller. In the country, as a farmer, to kill foxes, rabbits, shoot stock with broken legs or to hunt, etc.

 

I know an elderly man, quiet and completely law abiding, in a small rural village, who has owned his rifle of some kind, for over 50 years, and was allowed to continue his ownership, to shoot rabbits. He was offended to know that because he is a registered owner of a rifle/shotgun? he is redflagged, if the police are called to his home. So I imagine that is so with anyone that has a gun.

 

Our last mass shooting using, I believe, an officially owned gun, was the nutter Martin Bryant, a quiet and relatively featureless background, whose strangeness was not picked up, as he was functioning, and protected by those closest to him. That was over a decade ago, I think. Maybe 15 plus years, too old to remember. Due to his slaughter, there was a huge buy back and no questions asked of all guns, Australia wide, which took a HUGE number of illegal guns out of the cupboards/from under the floor boards, etc. IF you have a rifle/whatever, if it is not kept in an officially approved security gunsafe, you'd get big fines, and I imagine, a repeat, and you'd lose it..

 

There has been some shooting of usually one or two individuals, with illegal guns, but usually drug/bikie gang related. Most with imbalanced reality/insanity don't pass applications, have no idea of how to find the sort of people who traffic guns, and their attacks usually involve knives or a blunt instrument. In these cases, wounds are often survivable. If not survivable by an unlucky hit, the nutters are slowed in their ability to kill others and it involves close contact, which means, unless from behind, a chance to escape/overcome the attacker. It also means armed police are able to surround/overcome or shoot at a distance, with far less worry of themselves being hurt/killed.

 

In America, many of the mentally ill that can just buy a gun, DON'T have records that stop them buying guns over the counter. They are often young adults, protected and sheltered by loving care givers. They often don't have incidents recorded against them because those who love them are trying to hide the family's distress/worry/embarrassment.. They live hoping they WILL reach the individual, find the medical treatment to give them a normal(ish), child/brother/husband.

 

In Oz, those people would not have a sufficient reason to obtain approval, and in very small, rural communities, usually the local policeman has heard some of the gossip, about what may not be reported and dealt with, officially.

 

I would hazard that Australians feel far safer than Americans, in their own country, and the statistics speak for themselves, as far as multiple killings with lawfully owned guns AND the accidents, especially with children, are never heard of, anymore.

 

The overwhelming feeling I get from Americans, is fearfulness. They slaughter wildlife, endangered wolves, bears just pottering, they shoot each other and then we get the Big Man syndrome. I own a gun. I am a big man. I am an old woman, slow, fat, ricketty and kindly. This year, I had one of the top 10 venomous snakes in the world, I believe, in my kitchen. About 7 feet long. Fully mature, rippling on my kitchen floor. They can be aggressive, can chase. American attitude the world expects, blow it's head off/kill it.

 

My reaction, know it's deaf, but I yelled OUT OUT!! and clapped my hands, and followed it out, in case it saw my unmade bed, and hid in sheets/blankets. Saw it less than a week later, in my vegie patch and shrugged. Live and let live. I worry about my dogs, but they are taught to be gentle and respect any creature, from stick insect, to horse. They don't worry the snakes, mice, hens, sheep, cos they are all 'mum's friends. They don't understand it, but apparently, I have really weird pals. Don't touch it, mum will have a strop... So I have seen where a brown snake lives in my backyard. Either he has a summer holiday home, or there are now 2 brown snakes in my backyard. We all just want to get by. It appears we all go along with live and let live. Due to the size, I may well have had a King Brown in my kitchen.

 

This obsession of HALFish of America with guns, just makes me wonder at the clear feafulness of HALFish of Americans. At some point, this cowering fear of animals and their own citizens, has half? of them embracing guns and this tremulous fear has then been claimed as chest beating macho hero status. In fact, it is a miserable admission their society is dysfunctional and/or the men are living in fear. Then there are the women who want to echo that 'power' of these sad men. Cringe.

 

To large chunks of the educated world, (and I know it is only halfish of America's population), but the U S gun culture is distasteful to worryingly weird), and we are either too polite or too aware of the aggressive, even threatening replies any criticism often receives, from some of those who are irrationally obsessed wth guns, to give our real opinions.

 

The saddest thing I think I read, tho I only read about 3 pages, is someone wanting a gun because house invasions happen not that rarely, where he lives.. No expectation that will be rectified? That is sad and I would have thought, THAT demanded official action. That is a well educated, middle class? man's expectation of his neighbourhood, and I would imagine he's not living in the worst of areas. Instead of everyone getting guns, why not pay a little more tax per head, and get an effective police force. Not going to mention a minimum level guaranteed universal health care.

 

A NO GUN culture without that incredible NEED so many imply, to have weapons, would give all Americans a security they have never known, before, and probably can't envisage..

 

Oz does have illegal gun problems, but laughably small, compared with Americans, and usually used against crime rivals or for robberies only really dangerous if fuelled by druggies off their face and irrational. You just know there is almost no chance anyone owns a gun at home, let alone carried out and about. No one losing a temper/accidentally shooting, etc That low level fear gone forever.