Really? Some people...

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by IronsightSniper

sure you can kill a few deputies but the idea is that without AP it's gonna be hard for you to kill SWAT members. really though, if the argument for guns is to safeguard people from the government, then you're going to need far more than 80 million people with 240 million small arms because the u.s. military can bulldoze through that if given the time to. you can get into the nuances of supplying the military for that, which is almost entirely a civilian venture, but generally speaking if you pit the u.s. military against joe rebel, joe rebel's dead.

I counter with the revolution in Syria. Assad has armored vehicles, jets, helicopter gunships, and chemical weapons all the thing that should make quashing an armed revolution easy; and the rebels are doing quite a number on him.

Are the rebels being killed in droves? Absolutely. They are showing, however, that a determined civilian insurrection can put up a serious challenge to even a fully equipped military that has no qualms about butchering bystanders.

[Immerael]

Originally Posted by IronsightSniper

guns aren't there to safeguard against tyranny anymore because the forces of tyranny is stronger than that.

Very well I shall begin proposing legislation for every family to have a tank and surface to air missiles. The only true path to freedom.

Seriously though I'm on the other side of the argument but that is a very good point. The Founders couldn't imagine a day in age where a person on a laptop could wipe out a city if he happened to be the President with a push of a button. But does that mean we just throw out the second amendment because it is no longer capable of serving its intended purpose? If we say yes to this go ahead and throw the tenth out to, it's been a useless amendment since the Civil War anyway.

I'd be in favor of background checks on the grounds of mental stability but I'm afraid once you start legislating restrictions on a right it won't stop, incrementally until it's gone. (I would say the same is happening right now with the first amendment freedom of religion is freedom of 'worship' now and free speech is only what doesn't breed 'hate'. Who defines hate? Could speech that damages the governments power be hateful? Who knows.)

EDIT: Didn't see your comment Tom and wanted to get to it.

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

I counter with the revolution in Syria. Assad has armored vehicles, jets, helicopter gunships, and chemical weapons all the thing that should make quashing an armed revolution easy; and the rebels are doing quite a number on him.

Are the rebels being killed in droves? Absolutely. They are showing, however, that a determined civilian insurrection can put up a serious challenge to even a fully equipped military that has no qualms about butchering bystanders.

I would like to think about the same thing would happen in America if we needed it but unless there was a split within the military and we gained some actual Army, Air Force, Navy etc support on all sides it would be a massacre on the peoples side. The people there are fighting a military that simply can't compare to American military might. There might be more of the people to balance it out but we also have more military to compensate.

[tom the pit leader]

The key in Syria, as with most success revolutions, started because the government shot first. I'll freely say if Joe Rebel starts the fight, Joe Rebel loses.

But we live in a society where every home and business is teeming with the materials to make potent IED's, not counting the millions of firearms. The idea that a military in a developed country could just walk over even a medium scale revolution that came to fight is not true. Given that most people in the West like their freedoms more than the government, it's not even a sure thing that the military would even win.

Would I like to find out just how a revolution like the one we're discussing would play out? Absolutely not. However, the fewer things you allow the citizenry to own and the more power you give to the government, you further the scales shift in the government's favor. If you think that the we're only the grace of god away from having the government become an authoritarian state that could put down any armed revolt, the correct response in my eyes is not to give the citizens LESS of a chance.


Also, still waiting on a reply to my first post. If the government can chip away at one of the rights enshrined in the constitution, why do you think the freedoms you actually care about aren't soon to be on the chopping block?

[Generalissimo Kirk]

Guess how many school shootings there have been in the UK since guns were banned. I personally can't see any good argument for civilians being allowed to own guns, but I come from a country where gun ownership is not part of our culture so nobody has to convince me to give something up.

[Staccs]

Originally Posted by Generalissimo Kirk

Guess how many school shootings there have been in the UK since guns were banned. I personally can't see any good argument for civilians being allowed to own guns, but I come from a country where gun ownership is not part of our culture so nobody has to convince me to give something up.

That argument is old. You can't compare countries.

[Generalissimo Kirk]

Just because it's an old argument, doesn't make it a bad one. If kids can't get a hold of guns, they can't shoot their classmates.

----------

I already acknowledged the fact that there is a different culture and that being asked to give up something is very different to never having it in the first place. It seems like a simple solution from the persepective of someone who has never been inclined to own a gun, butnI'm sure it's a very different argument for people who already have them/ have the right to own one. I have just never heard a good argument for owning one.

----------

I realise that this is a much more emotional issue for people in America than it is in other parts of the world, so I won't continue to take part in the discussion (it's not my country, so it's not really my business). You can just consider my input so far as the view of an outsider.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by Generalissimo Kirk

Just because it's an old argument, doesn't make it a bad one. If kids can't get a hold of guns, they can't shoot their classmates.

----------

I already acknowledged the fact that there is a different culture and that being asked to give up something is very different to never having it in the first place. It seems like a simple solution from the persepective of someone who has never been inclined to own a gun, butnI'm sure it's a very different argument for people who already have them/ have the right to own one. I have just never heard a good argument for owning one.

Just a few days ago, a shopkeeper in Chicago was attacked by a thug with a gun. The shopkeeper fought back with the most powerful weapon he could legal have to protect his shop: a baseball bat.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQRRwZLaP1o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQRRwZLaP1o[/ame]

I've never heard a good argument for why law abiding citizens should be kept from having the same weapons that will be used against them in an attack.

[MeltedLazerz]

There have been plenty of studies showing little to no correlation between guns per capita and violent crime rate. Basically this means that whether or not we ban guns or not, there is likely to have little effect on the violent crime rate. However there is also the issue of the government infringing on constitutional rights and how that sets a precedent, etc etc etc. Instead what should be done is greater regulations and background checks on people who want to buy guns (I don't know much about buying guns in the States but from what I've heard almost anyone can get a gun pretty easily) to make sure that we don't have potentially unstable people buying guns.

Also there is no reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.

[Staccs]

Originally Posted by MeltedLazerz

There have been plenty of studies showing little to no correlation between guns per capita and violent crime rate. Basically this means that whether or not we ban guns or not, there is likely to have little effect on the violent crime rate. However there is also the issue of the government infringing on constitutional rights and how that sets a precedent, etc etc etc. Instead what should be done is greater regulations and background checks on people who want to buy guns (I don't know much about buying guns in the States but from what I've heard almost anyone can get a gun pretty easily) to make sure that we don't have potentially unstable people buying guns.

Also there is no reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.

Not only automatic weapons but also military weapons.

[killer04]

Military weapons can be fun to shoot though!!! I want a AR-15 in 7.62 to go hog hunting with. As I said earlier, owning of any automatic weapon made after 1984 is illegal and you are required to have a background check done by the BATF and pay a tax. I am really curious to actually see a statistic on violent crimes committed with a legal automatic weapon. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, to the point owning a handgun was basically illegal, yet they still had a very high number of violent crimes.