Wal-Mart gun purchase program, soon to be copied at Weapons World Options

[IQ Zero]

Hoarding weapons to become a terrorist if the (democratically decided) policies of the country don't suit you? Sounds pretty responsible ...

Are you an American? You do realize that the independence war was fought by militia using weapons that they owned to kick out King George III and his army right? Now imagine the same timeline, and George asks the colonies to disarm, and they obeyed like sheep. Would there even BE a United States of America?

Didn't save the country with the largest per person rate of firearms from a US or Soviet attack (Afghanistan).

Gotta love your history teacher Hermit. Afghanistan, during the time of the Soviet incursion, had a lot of gun weilding citizens, true, but what kind of guns? Mostly old .303 Lee-Enfields first fielded by the British Army BEFORE WWII, bolt action rifle vs. fully automatic assault rifles? In open battle? Forget it.

On the other hand, once the US gave the Taliban more modern weaponry (at the time), they were able to engage in a guerilla warfare that was devastating to the Soviets.

During the US attack, I believe they used even more sophisticated weapons, though they USA did take a fair amount of casualties.

How do you determine someone is going to shoot you or your family? If he fires his gun, it's too late, and if he doesn't do you the favor of either trying to shoot you and yours with a rifle or beingt much of a talker before ... how do you determine that, if you don't plan to act on suspicion and hunches? HAndguns can be concealed quite well, after all.

Well, if he is on MY property, I'd classify him as an intruder and shoot at his legs. If he has a visible weapon and is on my property, shoot to kill.

[nezumi]

No. I look at countries where gun control has always been very strict (like Japan) and compare them to countries where owning a gun is considered a civil right (like the US) and see that the US has five times as many muders as Japan.

And that's where your logic goes wrong. Keep in mind that guns do not commit acts of violence. So the first factor we must look at is the people. If we took a bunch of Japanese and a bunch of Americans and put them both in identical circumstances (like in prison). As you'll note, the rate of violence in American prisons is much, much higher than that in Japanese prisons. Alternatively, you make comparisons over time. Compare a city or country to pre and post gun control laws. After enacting gun control laws in the UK, gun violence spiked. Even while gun violence is gradually dropping, violent crime is still very high, much higher than pre-gun control. However, comparing pre-gun control London to pre-gun control NYC (as in, both countries have similar restrictions on guns, therefore guns can't be the cause), NYC had five times London's crime rate (that gap is closing now that London has restricted firearms). Or compare DC where basically all guns were made illegal and the city has since suffered 7 years straight of the worst crime it's ever experienced.

The first rule of statistics is, when comparing apples to oranges, you must standardize the data. Standardize based on some acceptable standard, then you'll have a strong case.

[IQ Zero]

The responsible part would be about who you shoot, too, if you ask me ... however, you live in Manila, right? If so, you live in a very different surroundings than a western state, so I can understand your point of view somewhat.

I'm living in the Philippines, but not Manila, the laws there restrict gun ownership too much, which may be a reason that crime is on the upswing there, maybe not.

It doesn't really matter though, wherever in the world I go, I would like the ability to protect myself and my own.

[Larme]

Yet another Dumpshock forum where two sides refuse to concede anything about anything, and go back and forth ad infinitum. And it's not even about Shadowrun! If you guys want to get anywhere, you're going to have to stop pretending like gawd is on your side and concede the other side's reasonable points, which will enable a consensus, or at least settle the dispute with both sides saying "I see your point, but I disagree." Because if that's not what we're working for, then it's just troll bait.

[Moon-Hawk]

Yet another Dumpshock forum where two sides refuse to concede anything about anything, and go back and forth ad infinitum. And it's not even about Shadowrun! If you guys want to get anywhere, you're going to have to stop pretending like gawd is on your side and concede the other side's reasonable points, which will enable a consensus, or at least settle the dispute with both sides saying "I see your point, but I disagree." Because if that's not what we're working for, then it's just troll bait.

But...but....duty calls (don't forget to hover your mouse over the pic to get the tooltip, it's half of the joke)

edit: You're right, of course. I'm done here.

[CanRay]

Troll bait.

Troll bait? Where?

I need some for a huge Trog that owes me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) !

[KarmaInferno]

Works only in the movies, dude. IRL, Donny would have been shot dead, because the punk would point the gun at him and shoot when he lunges to grab his gun.

Actually...

You'd be surprised at how many folks will hesitate to actually pull the trigger, especially if they are expecting the person they're threatening to back down easily. Most folks who rob others don't actually WANT to use the weapon, they just want the loot.

Additionally, it takes about a quarter second to react to something for most folks, even if they are expecting it. So the mugger in this case was just an idiot for placing his weapon within easy reach of his victim.

This is why you stand at least five feet from the person you are threatening. You need that split second to react and then fire, and if you're closer you might not get it.


-karma

[hyzmarca]

Hoarding weapons to become a terrorist if the (democratically decided) policies of the country don't suit you? Sounds pretty responsible ...

The enumerated right of Englishmen to keep and bear arms dates back to the 17th Century when Catholic King James II attempted to consolidate power by disarming all of the Protestants and arming Catholics. This led directly to the Glorious Revolution and the right of Protestant Englishmen to keep and bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689.

In the Jim Crow South law were passed to restrict the ability of Negroes to own weapons and to leave them vulnerable to terrorism by Whites. This was calculated specifically to support a regime of racial inequality and keep the colored man down. Hell, 30 year ago if a drowned black man bound with heavy chains washed up on a river bank bank in the South law enforcement would wink, nod, and report it as a case of a nigger stealing more chains than he could swim with.

Similar disarmament of ethnic, political, or religious groups that are to be marginalized and oppressed has happened many times in many. Usually, it is part of systematic oppression. Sometimes, it is a prelude to genocide. Total disarmament of the populace by the government is just silly. An oppressive regime has much more to gain by instituting lopsided armament, where the groups that they support have guns and the ones that they want to marginalize don't. Such policies can easily be implemented through non-legislative bureaucratic procedure whenever firearms ownership is not an absolute right, simply by having the police systematically deny registration to members of the group to be oppressed while encouraging members of favored groups to obtain guns and making it easier for them to do so.

Didn't save the country with the largest per person rate of firearms from a US or Soviet attack (Afghanistan).

You shouldn't forget that the Afghanis kicks the Soviets' asses.

[CanRay]

You shouldn't forget that the Afghanis kicks the Soviets' asses.

And did pretty darn good with those SMLEs. Just had to chose their battles a bit more carefully until US Support came in to help them.

Then Rambo showed up, and the war was over.

Right?

[hermit]

You shouldn't forget that the Afghanis kicks the Soviets' asses.

Yes, because the US liberally supplied them with stingers (that now are used against their own soldiers). Not because of the AK47s everyone had stashed away somewhere.

Similar disarmament of ethnic, political, or religious groups that are to be marginalized and oppressed has happened many times in many. Usually, it is part of systematic oppression. Sometimes, it is a prelude to genocide. Total disarmament of the populace by the government is just silly. An oppressive regime has much more to gain by instituting lopsided armament, where the groups that they support have guns and the ones that they want to marginalize don't. Such policies can easily be implemented through non-legislative bureaucratic procedure whenever firearms ownership is not an absolute right, simply by having the police systematically deny registration to members of the group to be oppressed while encouraging members of favored groups to obtain guns and making it easier for them to do so.

Okay. So the point you're trying to make is that, to keep one group from massacring all others is to arm everybody to the teeth? Yes, that works so well in a lot of pristine places, like Somalia, like Kongo/Knshasa, like the Cote d'Ivoire, like Georgia, like Moldavia, like Iraq, like Algeria ...

Yeah. That always works. It also worked in keeping Germany from first falling for Hitler and then declaring war on 90% of the world. Or Iraq from becoming the mess it now is. Or in making the kurdish regions in Turkey a more peaceful place. Or in ending the civil war in Columbia ... or in preventing the genocides in Dharfour and Rwanda ...

Or in making Soviet-free Afghanistan a nice place to live. Right?

Then Rambo showed up, and the war was over.

Hell yeah. He brought them blue light, after all!

[KarmaInferno]

Okay. So the point you're trying to make is that, to keep one group from massacring all others is to arm everybody to the teeth? Yes, that works so well in a lot of pristine places, like Somalia, like Kongo/Knshasa, like the Cote d'Ivoire, like Georgia, like Moldavia, like Iraq, like Algeria ...

Yeah. That always works. It also worked in keeping Germany from first falling for Hitler and then declaring war on 90% of the world.

At the risk of invoking Godwin...

Check your history books. One of the first things that Hitler did after assuming (democratically elected, by the way) power was to disarm anyone who wasn't part of his party.


-karma

[hermit]

Check your history books. One of the first things that Hitler did after assuming (democratically elected, by the way) power was to disarm anyone who wasn't part of his party.

Actually, no, he first disarmed the communists (who had made the Frist Republic the mess it was). Hitler's rise to power was mainly on a ticket that everyone was fed up with all those mercenaries, insurgents and revolutionaries that general armament of the populace when the Reichswehr was disbanded brought. You might want to go check your own history books.

[danzig138]

you're just deliberately misunderstanding me to "prove" your point.

If you go back and read the thread, you'll note he's not just misunderstanding you. I mean, he actually, seriously used the "Won't somebody pleaseeee think of the children?!?" argument. His posts thus far read like he's interested in winning, not discussing.

It seems like that's what every gun control thread I read ends up coming down to though. More often than not, IME, it's the pro-control folks who want to win the discussion, but both sides are frequently guilty.

As for me, I wouldn't buy a gun at Wal-Mart. Hell, I don't trust the dvd player I bought there to work right all of the time so I am not going to buy a gun there.

[Wounded Ronin]

Works only in the movies, dude. IRL, Donny would have been shot dead, because the punk would point the gun at him and shoot when he lunges to grab his gun.

Oh, so hermit is now a tactical expert! He knows all about how a hypothetical altercation *would* have gone down. Violent confrontations aren't chaotic and unpredictable. No, violence goes down by the numbers in a sterile and predictable way. If only we listened to Hermit all along!

[Larme]

ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG.

As is frequently the case in a polarized debate, no side is holding all the cards, and no side can claim absolute victory.

Crime is based on economic factors. Countries where people have opportunity are countries with low crime, irrespective of whether they have guns. I know the pro-gun and anti-gun sides don't want to hear this, because it makes what they perceive as a simple argument (guns are good vs. guns are bad) into an actual, messy, complicated, real-world issue. How do you lower crime rates? You sure as fuck don't do it by pressing the "yes guns" or "no guns" buttons. It's a complicated issue with a complicated solution, and I am tried of people trying to tell us that it's simple, and that they have the right answer.

[Wounded Ronin]

can just walk into a supermarket and buy yourself a gun.

Infallible legal expertise! The paperwork I filled out last time and the background check I paid a $25 dollar fee for didn't exist. HERMIT HAS LIBERATED ME FROM THE MATRIX!

[KarmaInferno]

Actually, no, he first disarmed the communists (who had made the Frist Republic the mess it was). Hitler's rise to power was mainly on a ticket that everyone was fed up with all those mercenaries, insurgents and revolutionaries that general armament of the populace when the Reichswehr was disbanded brought. You might want to go check your own history books.

It may have started out that way, but it certainly didn't finish that way.

It wasn't very long before the only folks with any serious firepower was the Nazi party.

Which is only smart, if you want to take over a nation. Make sure anyone who can oppose you isn't armed.


-karma

[hermit]

Yes, of course, Ronin. It's usually whoever behaves the most immature and idiotic who is right.

You're a perfect example of the responsible, mature and thoughtful person that your side of the argument tries to show the majority of gun owners being. Then again, you actually seem to be the minority ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It wasn't very long before the only folks with any serious firepower was the Nazi party.

Nope, it was the Wehrmacht - the SA, the Nazi party's armed forces, actually were pretty much dismantled and it's leadership (who wanted to establish the SA as a party-affiliated army) murdered in 1938, as part of a deal between Hitler and the Wehrmacht higher-ups, to keep them from kicking Hitler off the throne.

The SS later was armed up too, but it was ultimatly put under the Wehrmacht High Command's authority.

[Method]

Speaking of guns vs baseball bats...

[hobgoblin]

i find it interesting that no admin have stepped in yet, and i dont recall when a post on this thread last talked about shadowrun...

compared to the interesting topic on german politics, this is like watching monkey flinging poo back and forth...

[hermit]

compared to the interesting topic on german politics, this is like watching monkey flinging poo back and forth...

Yeah, so let's end this.

Happy celebrating your internet victory, pro-guns folk! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Redjack]

This thread seems to have little to do with Shadowrun and instead has devolved into more of a political argument. If non-gaming relevant posts continue further actions will be taken.

[Fortune]

Is using a different font bad?

It can be for some people, especially those with less-than-perfect vision or those that use non-standard means of browsing Dumpshock.

Here's the thing though. There are thousands of members in the Dumpshock community, many of them quite active, and yet not one single person besides yourself feels the need to 'stand out' in such a dramatic and attention-grabbing manner. Most rely on the actual content of their posts to garner the attention they require, and those that feel the need to embellish this tend to use color rather than varying text size and font (other than for emphasis). I would have thought that the mere fact that more than one person here has politely asked you to try and fit in with the rest of the community would be enough incentive.

[Cthulhudreams]

<<just red mod post>>

[Wounded Ronin]

Yes, of course, Ronin. It's usually whoever behaves the most immature and idiotic who is right.

You're a perfect example of the responsible, mature and thoughtful person that your side of the argument tries to show the majority of gun owners being. Then again, you actually seem to be the minority ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No, you're mistaken. It's whomever behaves the most *sanctimonious* that is right. Isn't that right, Hermit?