Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

United States Gun Control Megathread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 985
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas return to class after spring break next week, they'll be required to carry clear backpacks. The move is meant to ramp up security measures after last mon

We may (very soon) get Constitutional carry in Kentucky. Keeping my fingers crossed.   ETA- IT PASSED.  Kentucky has Constitutional carry.   60 "yes" , while 37 found freedom "scar

Pictured, the Union being awesome:

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Seems like a damned good argument.....For using a bigger calibre! 

 

The dude looks like Swiss-Cheese by the end of it but he still managed to drag his own sorry ass to hospital.

 

Or shooting vital zones with sufficient penetration. Probably easier said than done during a struggle, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is priceless:

 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/graphic-video-liquor-store-owner-recounts-robbery-that-led-to/article_75e39bed-0d83-56b6-97f4-f6d747137b4e.html

 

Seems like a damned good argument.....For using a bigger calibre! 

 

The dude looks like Swiss-Cheese by the end of it but he still managed to drag his own sorry ass to hospital.

 

One of those evil "assault weapons" would have been nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not sure there would have been much of a struggle if she'd used a .45 in the first place.....Still, it is funny watching him get slowly shot to pieces, thoroughly entertaining.

 

.45 would not have helped much. Frankly, all pistol rounds have lackluster terminal ballistics. What would have helped is an SBR in a rifle caliber with a nice, big magazine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a liquor/convenience store not a barracks. It's a lot harder to conceal a rifle - short barrel or otherwise - than a pair of handguns when you're in a public area. Particularly since the robber had the jump on the two women, and went behind the counter to rummage around. 

 

The main issue is both women seemed hesitant and were still trying to argue and negotiate with the perp in the middle of a gunfight when you should be either fighting or fleeing. 

 

It turned out alright in the end.

 

Edit: And once again, it's a gunfight involving people perceived as easy marks (in this case women).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Donward said:

It's a liquor/convenience store not a barracks. It's a lot harder to conceal a rifle - short barrel or otherwise - than a pair of handguns when you're in a public area. Particularly since the robber had the jump on the two women, and went behind the counter to rummage around. 

 

I wasn't making a recommendation, I was saying the only real way to step up in lethality is to go to a rifle or SBR. Pistols are of course appropriate in this case, but they come with terminal limitations that can't really be circumvented, regardless of caliber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I understand the reasoning:

 

-It makes you feel safer

-The state cannot always be there to protect you in an instant and that's true, no matter where you are in the world.

 

But, as for France I think that people would actually feel less safe knowing that anyone around them in the street could be carrying a lethal tool on them, and for all we know completely lacking the required qualifications to be entrusted with such a heavy responsibility.

Of course one can get attacked when nobody is around to help, but in the overwhelming majority of case at the very worst you'll be menaced with a knife robbed declare the theft to the police and be done with it, you'll be unharmed.

The guy will be arrested afterwards since the police will generally do it's utmost to catch him since he became a violent criminal.

 

It is our belief that bringing a weapon to that kind of situation will only raise the level of violence and increase the (human) damage.

Yeah there might be more material damage, but in the end it's only objects you'll replace them.

 

Also yes sometimes criminals do manage to get their hands on prohibited guns, but once again in the overwhelming majority of cases they'll use them on other criminals.

 

In general the root principle for us is that the State has the monopoly on violence, used by anybody else it's illegitimate unless it was in legitimate defense and you only used it proportionably to the threat (and that's to justice to decide if it was).

And if the representative (a policeman for example) of the state abuse their power an investigation will be conducted by justice and the IGPN (internal affairs) and both the State and the incriminated agent will be punished if found guilty.

 

We entrust violence to the state because we feel that's it better to entrust it to trained people who will be capable to keep a cool head and avoid escalating the violence to an unnecessary high level.

Also we are fine relinquishing violence to State because we have faith in our justice and that if the State or it's representatives abuse their privileges they will be brought to justice in the end.

 

In general there isn't as much checks and balance actually written into the constitution compared to the US.

Most of our trust rest on the fact that so far our officials, judges, policeman and politician have respected and hopefully will respect our republican principles.

 

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

 

Too add a bit of lyrical touch in the end^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meplat said:

I find it difficult to trust any government, that does not trust me to own a firearm of my choice, unfettered.

Well nowadays I would say that it's rather our choice to entrust violence to the State because we have faith in the Republic and it's institutions.

But that's my view on it, I think it is shared by most of us but I have no data I can think of at hand.

 

And it's not like we can't have a firearm at all, in fact 32% of the population apparently own one, but it's mostly hunting weapons with smoothbore barrel and a very low shot capacity (2-3 at most)

Hunting is actually a popular sport and hunters actually are officially entrusted with pest control and controlling the population of various species.

 

But I'll come back on it later

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

Well nowadays I would say that it's rather our choice to entrust violence to the State because we have faith in the Republic and it's institutions.

Which I don't.. And my ancestors bailed out of France, then Canada, because they did not..So call it hereditary.

 

Having faith in government is like having faith in a tissue paper umbrella on a  rainy day. 

It's going to fail, and you're going to get pissed on, but it'll still be your fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

But, as for France I think that people would actually feel less safe knowing that anyone around them in the street could be carrying a lethal tool on them, and for all we know completely lacking the required qualifications to be entrusted with such a heavy responsibility.

 

Well of course; we hear this sentiment from virtually every other country in the world where weapons carrying is common. And it's bizarre to many (possibly most) Americans. Carrying weapons does not make you a killer, nor does having none make you harmless. It's a major cultural difference, but I will admit I like my culture better. It's more self-sufficient, has a greater emphasis on personal responsibility, and is better able to respond to violence to stop it. It recognizes that no matter how civilized and curated you try to make your society, the world has bad people in it.

 

38 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Of course one can get attacked when nobody is around to help, but in the overwhelming majority of case at the very worst you'll be menaced with a knife robbed declare the theft to the police and be done with it, you'll be unharmed.

 

This is turning a blind eye to reality. France isn't safe, England isn't safe, nowhere is safe. Many Americans are prepared to protect themselves. Cultures differ, but it does make some of us want to ask: Why aren't you?
 

42 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

The guy will be arrested afterwards since the police will generally do it's utmost to catch him since he became a violent criminal.

 

Unless he's got dark skin, seems like.

 

43 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

It is our belief that bringing a weapon to that kind of situation will only raise the level of violence and increase the (human) damage.

Yeah there might be more material damage, but in the end it's only objects you'll replace them.

 

That's your belief, but in the US we carry guns and it's absolutely not our experience. Crime rates plummet in areas where people can carry concealed, and it's rare for the gun to actually get fired.

 

IMO, experience trumps belief here.

 

44 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Also yes sometimes criminals do manage to get their hands on prohibited guns, but once again in the overwhelming majority of cases they'll use them on other criminals.

 

No, sorry, that doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. "Don't worry, they'll only use their stolen guns (which you can't have) against other criminals!" Fuck that. First, who's a criminal, and who's not? Is someone who got caught with marijuana once a "criminal" and ergo we don't care if they get victimized? Second, the idea that criminals only or even mostly victimize other criminals is such horseshit. Third, let's accept for rhetorical purposes that "criminals" are a group and that most of the time "criminals" only victimize within that group (which, when I say it that way, sounds an awful lot like "fuck the projects, they can rot in hell"). Then it doesn't matter what the proportion of in-group victimizations is, because we care only about the number of out-group victimizations. Which is non-zero. So how do "non-criminals" protect themselves?

 

Your statement just has no logical merit whatsoever.

 

50 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

In general the root principle for us is that the State has the monopoly on violence, used by anybody else it's illegitimate unless it was in legitimate defense and you only used it proportionably to the threat (and that's to justice to decide if it was).

 

Yeah, well the US was founded on exactly the opposite idea. The populace keeps the State in check by being armed and ready to do violence to it if it tries to color outside the lines. And frankly, our system works better. It's kept Japan at home, kept Europe at peace, stopped the enslavement and exploitation of people worldwide, and it even stayed out of war with the USSR. The US does a lot, and therefore has a long list of failings, mistakes, and outright evil under its belt, but the world would be a whole lot worse if we disappeared tomorrow.

 

53 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

We entrust violence to the state because we feel that's it better to entrust it to trained people who will be capable to keep a cool head and avoid escalating the violence to an unnecessary high level.

Also we are fine relinquishing violence to State because we have faith in our justice and that if the State or it's representatives abuse their privileges they will be brought to justice in the end.

 

That sounds more like an article of faith than the basis for a system.

 

55 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

In general there isn't as much checks and balance actually written into the constitution compared to the US.

Most of our trust rest on the fact that so far our officials, judges, policeman and politician have respected and hopefully will respect our republican principles.

 

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

 

Too add a bit of lyrical touch in the end^^

 

Your memory seems a bit short, then...

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Meplat said:

Which I don't.. And my ancestors bailed out of France, then Canada, because they did not..So call it hereditary.

 

Having faith in government is like having faith in a tissue paper umbrella on a  rainy day. 

It's going to fail, and you're going to get pissed on, but it'll still be your fault.

 

Well, personally I make a strong difference between a government and republican institutions.

If a government start proposing laws outside of the spirit of the constitution, said laws will be shut down by the constitutional council

 

If things goes really wrong, protecting the Republic would be the role of the army even against our own government, like de Gaulle did (in the sense that he assumed temporary power, and rejected the Vichy government ,but left it to restore democracy).

And I believe that French citizens trust their soldier to stand true to our values (2016 poll show that 87% of our Citizen have a "good image" of our army), the so called "Army-Nation" link is strong.

I understand that it can be seen as a risky bet considering the history of military coup around the world. But that's the way it is.

 

2 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

And you could add the restoration of monarchy and the two empires.

I know that there are contradictions, we just seem happy with it (or simply pretend to not see them depending on your point of view).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

 

Well, personally I make a strong difference between a government and republican institutions.

If a government start proposing laws outside of the spirit of the constitution, said laws will be shut down by the constitutional council

 

If things goes really wrong, protecting the Republic would be the role of the army even against our own government, like de Gaulle did (in the sense that he assumed temporary power, and rejected the Vichy government ,but left it to restore democracy).

And I believe that French citizens trust their soldier to stand true to our values (2016 poll show that 87% of our Citizen have a "good image" of our army), the so called "Army-Nation" link is strong.

I understand that it can be seen as a risky bet considering the history of military coup around the world. But that's the way it is.

 

You realize the only reason you guys have stability is because the US hovers over you, right?

Like OF COURSE if there were a major coup or whatever, US troops would be deployed to stabilize your country. Everybody knows it, so they don't try to pull those kinds of shenanigans.

Now, what's stabilizing the US?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

And you could add the restoration of monarchy and the two empires.

I know that there are contradictions, we just seem happy with it (or simply pretend to not see them depending on your point of view).

 

Well, yeah. Nobody's denying that life in the various European states is pretty good (migrant crisis aside). But why is it so? It's because the US keeps it that way. Now my question is, why do Europeans so easily forget that they warred constantly for hundreds of years until the eagle and bear stepped in and stopped them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You realize the only reason you guys have stability is because the US hovers over you, right?

Like OF COURSE if there were a major coup or whatever, US troops would be deployed to stabilize your country. Everybody knows it, so they don't try to pull those kinds of shenanigans.

Now, what's stabilizing the US?

 

Oh yes I do^^

And I'm perfectly aware that the sole reason we are at peace right now is thanks to the US protection (French army being by far the most capable army of the EU speak volume on how weak we are compared to our overall wealth)

And that's one of the major reason I'm a convinced European and that I would like to see more federalism and an unified defence.

 

Especially because I don't trust the US or China to remain stable and well inclined toward us in the long run, even more so with an energy and climate crisis coming toward us^^

To keep the world stable we need to play at the same level than both China and the US.

Economically and militarily.

 

And we won't manage to do that by doing our stuff as scattered small nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

 

Oh yes I do^^

And that's one of the major reason I'm a convinced European and that I would like to see more federalism and an unified defence.

 

Especially because I don't trust the US or China to remain stable and well inclined toward us in the long run, even more so with an energy and climate crisis coming toward us^^

To keep the world stable we need to play at the same level than both China and the US.

Economically and militarily.

 

And we won't manage to do that by doing our stuff as scattered small nations.

So...You don't trust my government to protect you, but you want me to trust it ?

 

No.. No , Thank you, I'll pass.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

Oh yes I do^^

And that's one of the major reason I'm a convinced European and that I would like to see more federalism and an unified defence.

 

Especially because I don't trust the US or China to remain stable and well inclined toward us in the long run, even more so with an energy and climate crisis coming toward us^^

To keep the world stable we need to play at the same level than both China and the US.

Economically and militarily.

 

And we won't manage to do that by doing our stuff as scattered small nations.

 

That may be true, but I can't help but feel like the EU is exactly the wrong way to make that happen. If it were up to me, I'd probably just formalize the relationship between the US, NATO, and our other client nations, and incorporate them as the 51st-90somethingth states in the Union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Meplat said:

So...You don't trust my government to protect you, but you want me to trust it ?

 

No.. No , Thank you, I'll pass.

 

 

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the US or the US government.

And I reckon that we share common value.

 

Simply that I'm not sure that our interest will remain aligned forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...