[Jusentantaka]

MTS, on 29 March 2010 - 05:27 AM, said:

Oh, why do some Americans believe they have the right to have/join/congregate in their own private armed civilian militias? Is it a combination of freedom of assembly and right to bear arms? Because to me, it seems more that people want them to exist merely because they can rather than any real utility. Why are they needed? What are you fighting? Are Homeland Security and the FBI on their own private crusade against freedom that needs to be defended against?

We already did this dance: http://forum.malazan...showtopic=18010

Quote

Guns make people nervous

Which people? The people who have been using firearms since they were ten or fifteen? Or the people who have never even held one?

[Lisheo]

Jusentantaka, on 29 March 2010 - 03:18 PM, said:

MTS, on 29 March 2010 - 05:27 AM, said:

Oh, why do some Americans believe they have the right to have/join/congregate in their own private armed civilian militias? Is it a combination of freedom of assembly and right to bear arms? Because to me, it seems more that people want them to exist merely because they can rather than any real utility. Why are they needed? What are you fighting? Are Homeland Security and the FBI on their own private crusade against freedom that needs to be defended against?

We already did this dance: http://forum.malazan...showtopic=18010

Quote

Guns make people nervous

Which people? The people who have been using firearms since they were ten or fifteen? Or the people who have never even held one?

The people, actually, make me nervous. Because you can never tell if that guy who's been training with guns for years is going to snap and kill people. Human sanity is actually a pretty fragile thing. If someone is going to snap, I'd rather it be someone with no gun training whatsoever. They're the ones less likely to bring a semi-auto, or a high-powered rifle with plenty of ammo to the party, as they never had access in the first place.
Call me a peace-loving hippy liberal if you must, but one of the reasons we don't allow people unsupervised access to, say, nerve gas is because there would either be an accident or they might go batshit crazy and kill people. I think there have been enough accidents and batshit crazy (Seriously, you can't really ignore school shootings, accidental discharge of firearms, murders, etc) with firearms to require a little more restriction on them.
The idea that you might need firearms to protect you from any tyrannical government is pretty flawed, in any case. The government and military in the US have weapons that could kill every militia in the country in a matter of minutes, if it was so required, and I think a really tyrannical government, faced with the prospect of a violent coup, they probably wouldn't hesitate to do so.
So, really, the only reasons I've seen left to have firearms is to protect yourself from someone meaning you harm (and once they get inside your "comfort zone" with a firearm, you'd be better off with a baseball bat really), or to have them for the sake of having them, which is a bit like the US and Soviet Russia stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to annihilate everyone on the planet even when the concept of MAD had been long achieved.

[Jusentantaka]

Lischie:

If someone's gonna snap and kill people there's plenty of other ways. I could probably run down a good twenty or thirty people with my car before having to stop... just find a nice sidewalk and vroom. And if its premeditated, well, there's plenty of ways to make things that go boom with only a bit of knowledge and a little effort.

But I'm certainly all for more restriction on firearms. Eliminate the illegal trafficking, actually enforce the extant laws on waiting periods and background checks, and make people nationwide take real safety courses before being able to get a gun, and banning all of the 'specialty' ammunition out there are a nice start.

As to a crime deterrent, they might well work pretty well as one if its obvious you have a firearm. I don't think a mugger is going to go "I was gonna hold you up, but I saw that gun so I figured I shouldn't" so no one can say either way there. Though I'd suspect it'll take some pretty fucked up moron to try and steal my car/watch/wallet while I'm there with a .45 plain as day on my hip.

[Morgoth]

in all our gun debates, plenty of statistics have been brought forth to show that gun ownership does not make one less at the risk of crime, rather quite the opposite. In general those who've been advocating gun rights here (shin for one) have focused on the right itself rather than the effects, or so it has seemed to me at any rate.


In regards to Nic's anger at the FBI

Quote

WASHINGTON — Nine members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges in connection with an alleged plot to murder law enforcement officers in hopes of setting off an antigovernment uprising.

In court filings unsealed Monday, the Justice Department accused the nine people of planning to kill an unidentified law enforcement officer, then plant improvised explosive devices of a type used by insurgents in Iraq to attack the funeral procession.

http://www.nytimes.c...militia.html?hp

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 29 March 2010 - 11:31 PM

[Jusentantaka]

Good God those are some ugly people.

[maro]

MTS, on 29 March 2010 - 09:50 AM, said:

maro, on 29 March 2010 - 05:38 AM, said:

MTS, on 29 March 2010 - 05:27 AM, said:

Oh, why do some Americans believe they have the right to have/join/congregate in their own private armed civilian militias? Is it a combination of freedom of assembly and right to bear arms?

I think it's not dissimilar to manic collectors.

Guns are interesting things in themselves. Add the collecting bug to it and 1+1 becomes 3.

That only explains gun proliferation, not the formation of militias.

I guess it's the same as Stamp collectors - they get pretty into it.


Christian Militias - that is seriously fucked up.

[HoosierDaddy]

Is it all that unsurprising? Read between the lines and you'll find a nice mix between zealotry and racism.

(They think Obama is the anti-christ, for those who don't want to read the article).

[Morgoth]

As do 1/4 of registered republicans

http://www.livescien...ist-100325.html

[HoosierDaddy]

If they are right then GWB exceeded beyond all expectations in actually bringing about the end of the world.

[Cold Iron]

Morgoth, on 29 March 2010 - 11:11 PM, said:

In regards to Nic's anger at the FBI

Quote

WASHINGTON — Nine members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges in connection with an alleged plot to murder law enforcement officers in hopes of setting off an antigovernment uprising.

In court filings unsealed Monday, the Justice Department accused the nine people of planning to kill an unidentified law enforcement officer, then plant improvised explosive devices of a type used by insurgents in Iraq to attack the funeral procession.

http://www.nytimes.c...militia.html?hp

I shouldn't find this funny but I do. This is why the unemployment rate is so important. It's not the lost tax revenue, it's the instability.

[Powder]

Sigh, and of course they were 'Christians'. And we wonder why there is so much cynicism regarding Christianity these days. It would seem that bad news sells much better than good news...


-Powder

[Nicodimas]

Obama is a very confusing president thus far..He wants to try the terrorists of 9/11 and close gitmo and then he goes and does this. Is he backtracking on these decisions, or going about it different way. Where is he going with this? The media lit him up for this and was wondering what the left thought about it. I have my thoughts on it.

[Cougar]

Jusentantaka, on 29 March 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

If someone's gonna snap and kill people there's plenty of other ways. I could probably run down a good twenty or thirty people with my car before having to stop... just find a nice sidewalk and vroom. And if its premeditated, well, there's plenty of ways to make things that go boom with only a bit of knowledge and a little effort.

Fuck it then. Legalise everything.

That is the single most illogical argument I have ever seen in one of these threads. Why not legalise personal nerve agent sprays or allow people to carry swords in the street too?

[Shinrei]

Cougar, on 30 March 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

Jusentantaka, on 29 March 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

If someone's gonna snap and kill people there's plenty of other ways. I could probably run down a good twenty or thirty people with my car before having to stop... just find a nice sidewalk and vroom. And if its premeditated, well, there's plenty of ways to make things that go boom with only a bit of knowledge and a little effort.

Fuck it then. Legalise everything.

That is the single most illogical argument I have ever seen in one of these threads. Why not legalise personal nerve agent sprays or allow people to carry swords in the street too?

It all depends what you are fine with people possessing. I don't possess a gun, nor do I want to, but I am fine with others who do. The majority of legal gun owners in the US are as responsible with their guns as they are with their cars. The illegal owners would figure out how to get the guns anyways (they do in Japan, where gun laws are very strict). We have a constitution that protects gun ownership, and a populace that still for the most part is supportive of it. And personally, I think this should continue to be the case.

And if there are nutters with guns, the FBI takes care of them like in this instance. Where's the problem?

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 30 March 2010 - 11:46 AM

[Tapper]

Cougar, on 30 March 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

Jusentantaka, on 29 March 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:

If someone's gonna snap and kill people there's plenty of other ways. I could probably run down a good twenty or thirty people with my car before having to stop... just find a nice sidewalk and vroom. And if its premeditated, well, there's plenty of ways to make things that go boom with only a bit of knowledge and a little effort.

Fuck it then. Legalise everything.

That is the single most illogical argument I have ever seen in one of these threads. Why not legalise personal nerve agent sprays or allow people to carry swords in the street too?

Why not? It is consistently applied to the drugs debate here, for one.
Your statement is not leaving a whole lot of debating room.

But I do understand Jusen to a point - the other day, a cop kidnapped, abused and killed a 12 year old here in the Netherlands. The man had gone through screening, multiple interviews and all the other shit required by law to become a policeman. People can snap.

Is it a good defense or retord to the numbers Morgy presents? Maybe not, but the fact remains that if you want to do harm to someone, you do not need a gun, knife or sword. Bring a crowbar, a knife, or a car, like Jusen says. I think we aren't giving the pro-gun people enough credit for their statement that owning a gun =/= being a potential murderer.

There are more murders/accidents in nations with less gun restrictions, but there's always the chance that the murderer is not the murder weapons owner.

If there is to be legalized carrying of weaponry, make sure the people who do want to carry a piece are trained and regularly supervised. I think that is what Jusen is suggesting. I'd vastly prefer that to a free-for-all gun law. Of course, I personally still think a state-monopoly on violence is the way to go.

[Shinrei]

Tapper, on 30 March 2010 - 11:47 AM, said:

Of course, I personally still think a state-monopoly on violence is the way to go.

Works or worked well for Kim Jong Il, Myanmar, Soviet Russia and China.

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2010 - 11:52 AM, said:

Tapper, on 30 March 2010 - 11:47 AM, said:

Of course, I personally still think a state-monopoly on violence is the way to go.

Works or worked well for Kim Jong Il, Myanmar, Soviet Russia and China.

Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, England, France, Scandinavia, Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany.

your point?

edit: a state monopoly on violence is by itself not responsible for repression.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 30 March 2010 - 11:54 AM

[Shinrei]

Yes, but is every state responsible enough to hold a monopoly on violence?




The truth is, the State DOES hold the monopoly on violence. Militia are idiots if they believe otherwise. But again, I'm for the rights of law-abiding individuals to handle their own.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 30 March 2010 - 12:02 PM

[Cougar]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2010 - 11:52 AM, said:

Soviet Russia

Well, apart from the whole ceasing to exist malarkey

Of course it follows that owning a gun makes you a potential murderer, but everyone is a potential murderer as stated above.

I think the problem will always remain for me, not the responsible people, not the criminals who use illegal firearms, not even the militias (I'd imagine that preparing for the coming apocalypse entails some fairly stringent lessons in care of and respect for one's weapons). It's the people who would not have got guns if they weren't legal who go on to comit crimes. High school/mall shootings are the best example of this. As in Britian, gangs are always going to find a way to get guns and weapons to kill each other, that to my mind is not directly realted to legal gun ownership per se, but to put it simply, the average suburban kid who runs amok in the lunch hall does not have the ability to obtain terrific amounts of firepower in a state where gun ownership is banned. This type of thing simply does not happen in the UK anymore.

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

Yes, but is every state responsible enough to hold a monopoly on violence?

Is every citizen responsible enough to be allowed the means to violence by law?


Let's just say that North Korea, Myanmar, China and Soviet Russia came to be as a result of revolution and these are subsequently repressed by its governments once these governments became carricatures of what they intended to be (in the Soviet case, N-K was always intended as a puppet state).

In a serious democracy, government is held accountable every once in a while. Politicians represent their voters. If the voters want weapons, politicians will allow them, if they want restrictions, politicians will set restrictions into motion.
I'd say that in a democracy, a monopoly on violence is a sensible policy that will only make life and law enforcement easy and non-repressive.