Has any government in history ever claimed it was illegitimate? By definition rebelling against a government is illegal by that government’s laws.
I don’t see an actual rebellion over gun control; the path of least resistance would be to scofflaw, keeping illegal guns secretly. But I can easily see armed civil disobedience, where in fact people start shooting police rather than surrender their guns. Already police in some jurisdictions have expressed concerns over the risk of enforcing a disarmament.
I don’t think any government has ever claimed to be illegitimate ( is that even possible by definition? ). But some people have started to claim that certain governments have lost their legitimacy by becoming tyrannies. Therefore they see their uprising to represent the real legitimate side. Existing laws however always disagree, even if the uprising would be justified. No matter what the rebels say, at the time they are criminals in the eyes of the law.
I agree on all points. That’s probably better said than My own comment.
Whatever Freakenstein.[spoiler]I just pointed out how wrong you are about using an air gun to defend yourself. I don’t give a damn if it’s a recreational gun or not. Oh, and by the way, recreational guns are often defensive guns, and defensive guns are often recreational guns. You simply can’t draw a line like that. So your recreational gun argument falls flat as well.
The full quote that you keep avoiding – “I’m all in favor of down grading recreational guns to air guns. And I think that a well aimed lead pellet will stop a burglar effectively enough.” Then you went on about shooting the burglar in the hand, and asking me where I would aim an air gun to stop a burglar. All silly nonsense on your part that just shows how little you know about firearms.
And that’s the whole point. People such as yourself ARE going to be helping to form new laws. Yet you really don’t understand some of the basic facts about the subject. Surely you can understand why that makes people uncomfortable.
[/spoiler]
More wrong than using chili powder to self defense? Should self defense with air guns or other non-fire-arm means be banned? Why it would be wrong in itself? And if it isn’t, I’ve already said many times, that I have never said that anybody should get air guns for self defense. If you have one at hand when needed, use it by all means as any other thing that’s within a reach. If you don’t have one, then there’s no sense in getting one for self defense.
Then you shouldn’t reply more than once to a person who was talking about RECREATIONAL guns all the time and made it perfectly clear many times replying directly to you. you might as well confess that you didn’t know what RECREATIONAL meant.
Bolding Mine. Not always, so there’s some room there. And I’d rather say it’s ‘sometimes’ with long guns. But with short guns, you are right and I have never claimed otherwise. In that case it is ‘often’, I’m sure it’s even ‘usually’. ( btw at this late this seems a pretty desperate afterthought from you. )
We apparently disagree on what is effectively enough. For Me it is when the burglar stops burgling ( if that’s a word ), by fleeing, surrendering or by getting hurt up to some degree. To you it seems to mean killing or badly wounding. Also We may have used word ‘stop’ differently. The way I have used it, is the same as above. If You have meant it as ‘stopping a burglar that is charging at you’, then it is true that a lead pellet won’t stop him at least immediately ( unless it hits to the head, maybe not even then ).
Also I’ve already said many times that I might misremember those 30+ years old details. And that this possible misremembering don’t change My point on RECREATIONAL guns. But I checked out details of that BSA Meteor I once had and it seems that a good one can penetrate a four centimeter phone book from ten meters. That WILL penetrate a jacket and skin easily. Get one of those in your knee and you may never run again.
Bolding Mine. Not FIRE arms, air guns, remember, the RECREATIONAL ones ;).
And once again you left the important part away. you know, the part in the end where I make clear that I’m not banning any guns. I just have a problem with RECREATIONAL guns that are lethal. And idiots with any weapons, may they be AR15’s or penknives.
So those are My two points that I’ve said all the time and You haven’t made a dent on My opinions.
RECREATIONAL gun tend to be too lethal
idiots shouldn’t have guns.
Replying to any other points is just trolling.
But what the heck, you probably won’t even read this, just like you apparently didn’t read My previous reply. So I won’t feed you anymore.[/spoiler]
I see an effort to enforce stringent gun control through heavy-handed actions like confiscation as one of the few things that could potentially trigger serious civil unrest / an actual civil war / revolution in our country today. I also think such draconian gun control is unlikely to happen, but let’s pretend for a minute.
Imagine that next week three more elementary schools get shot up by Tea Party whackos with AR15s. Obama decides that “we can’t wait” for Congress to act, and he has a press conference announcing that AR15-pattern rifles are now considered WMD’s and that all citizens are to turn them in by next Tuesday or else they’ll be arrested and held in Guantanamo Bay as domestic terrorists. He also issues an executive order for the ATF to collect all bound books from all FFLs across the country, digitize them, and scour them for any purchaser of an AR15-pattern rifle, and then, in conjunction with DHS task forces, go to the buyer’s house, collect the WMD, and arrest the owner.
I think you’d see schisms within the ATF and DHS (and the police and military if they were called upon), with some individual agents and offices refusing to follow orders. Some states would renounce the whole affair and threaten to arrest any federal agents within their borders that tried to enforce such orders. Some small % of the ~80 million gun owners would start shooting at police and blowing up federal buildings.
Given how poorly the southern CA LEOs handled one gunman that they positively ID’ed, I don’t think the ATF / police would cope well with 800,000 anonymous ones.
This is a horrible argument. You are basically saying that we have 800,000 unstable gun owners on the edge of becoming cop killing serial killers if anyone tries to take away their guns. Thats not really been my experience with gun owners. They are passionate about preserving their rights against a tyranny of the stupid but they’re not ready to kill cops.
I think gun owners are generally very responsible and level-headed folks; CFP holders and the type of serious collectors that typically own “assault rifles” usually even moreso. I don’t think they’re “unstable” or “on the verge” of any such thing. I also don’t think we’re anywhere near trying to take away their guns (and thank goodness for that). But IF we got to that point, I think you’re delusional if you think that 100% of gun owners are just going to shrug and say “ok” if you try take away their guns. In fact, I think you would be in for a brutally rude awakening. There is a small % of them that seem perfectly willing to fight, kill, and die to preserve their right to keep and bear arms. Who would they be fighting and killing? Well … whoever the government sends to enforce the ban, and probably whichever government agents and elected officials supported the ban. It’s just an updated version of 1775. I don’t understand why you think that’s so “horrible.”
This is, statistically, almost inconceivable. If it did happen, it would cause more stringent gun control to be passed than what is now likely.
The only way this could happen is if the President suffered an organic brain injury causing radical personality change, in which case he (or she, since Barack Obama is not more likely to do this than any other president) would be removed from office under provisions of the 25th amendment, section 4.
I can’t find how many of these were in residential pools, as opposed to rivers, lakes, oceans, bath tubs, municipal pools and swim clubs. But what if most are in home pools, doubtful as that is?
This compares to 19,000 gun suicide deaths a year in the US.
[Perhaps the real tragedy behind suicide deaths—about 30,000 a year, one for every 45 attempts—is that so many could be prevented. . . .
“Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”
I’m not proud to have written a post that replies to something the poster attributed to a family member. But statements minimizing gun danger shouldn’t be ignored.
Here is a list of cites saying you are wrong and my wife is right:
Don’t fight it man, the wife is always right. It took me 15 years to stop fighting it, don’t make the same mistake I made. :eek::D:smack:
I think everyone but Feinstaien realizes how stupid an AWB was in the first place and there is no chance that this is going to happena nd Obama is stupid for continuing to pursue this (his chance to trade the AWB for something more meaningful like licensing and registration was a month ago, there is almost no value in trading it now when pursuing it has almost become a liability).
However there IS some chance that a magazine cap will pass. The stupidity of a magazine cap is not as clear as the stupidity of the AWB is, but I think they are equally stupid. I don’t think it will have much of an impact there are probably hundreds of millions of magazines with more than 10 round capacity floating around out there and it is fairly easy to extend magzines capacity using a 3d printer. You can make the whole magazine but the plastic doesn’t stand up to the pressure and heat of the receiveer very well but if you just print the magazine extender and attach it to metal magazine, it works like a charm.
On the bright side, Andrew Cuomo is not going to present any sort of obstacle for hillary in a Democratic primary and this might get her to run again. I voted for Obama twice but the second time around, I couldn’t help thinking that maybe I should have voted for Clinton the first time around.
Males are over six times as likely than females to be killed by a firearm. One plausible reason for this – certainly not the only one – is that women are less likely to be armed. I have no reason to think this is different in “bad neighborhoods,” but hesitate to look for evidence due to lack of a definition of bad neighborhood.
Your cites cherry-pick the youngest ages, when children can’t swim and are extremely unlikely to shoot themselves.
Yeah, I suppose that provides a lot of comfort to unarmed women in bad neighborhoods.
It was the first four google hits as you can see by the google search that I linked.
And kids that don’t hang around pools are probably unlikely to die from drowning in a pool. Guns seem to be relatively safe compared to pool regardless of age. The fact that the deaths are concentrated among children under 12 doesn’t negate the fact that pools are more dangerous than guns.
I don’t think anyone was saying that guns are perfectly safe but considering the hysterical reactions of some towards guns, I have to wonder why they don’t have the same hysterical reaction about pools. I suspect the authors of freakonomics are correct when they point out that there is an irrational fear at work.
Irrational fears are bad, they are the source of bad decisions like passing the invading iraq, passing the patriot act, re-electing George Bush, letting rich people keep their tax breaks, letting corporations keep their tax breaks, letting large banks get away with a slap on the wrist when they break criminal laws, and trying to pass an AWB.
No, what negates it is the fact that maybe 600 US childen die in pools every year vs. 1,500 who die by gunshot.
By your standards, I think the opinions concerning gun control held by most people in Europe – heck, by most people on this planet – rate as hysterical reactions. If most people are to be rated hysterical or irrational, the terms then lose most meaning.
This is just me, but I would have been more concerned about our children visiting a home with an adult-depth pool, before they could swim, than a home with guns. This isn’t an endorsement of guns. Pools have nothing to do with guns. But if we have to compare them, pools become less dangerous as your children grow up, and guns far more dangerous. And thinking you can have a positive recreational experience with a pool is more defensible than thinking having a gun reduces your chances of being shot by one.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. The 600 children that die in a pool every year are almost entirely accidental (very few intentional drownings of children in pools), so a valid comparison would involve all the accidental gun deaths of children. A lot of those children being killed by guns are teenagers murdering other teenagers
YOUR link states that there were only 613 accidental gun deaths. Lets assume that every death from the accidental discharge of a firearm is a child (which not only assumes that no adult ever accidentally killed themselves, it also assumes that all those deaths are really accidents and not suicides), the number of deaths by pool and deaths by accidental discharge are comparable. There are bout 10 million swimming pools in the US (many of them are only open a few months out of the year), there are about 300+ million guns that are capable of firing a bullet 12 months out of the year.
Most Americans voted for George Bush, does stupid lose its meaning?
Thats a good point but still, there are 600 accidental deaths with 300 million guns in the country. I think that some people think that firearms can be part of a positive recreational experience. Some people enjoy hunting and target shooting.
So how were invading iraq, passing the patriot act and reelecting george bush good ideas?
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering” - Yoda
[QUOTE=PhillyGuy]
Switzerland has about half the number of guns per capita as the US, and about half the incidence of gun suicide.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, their suicide rate per 100,000 is nearly identical to the US…we are at 12 suicides per 100,000 and they are at 11 (we are ranked 34 in the world and they are ranked at 42 for suicides). So, yeah, in Switzerland they don’t use guns to suicide as much as we do in the US…they obviously use something else just about as effectively though, so it seems a rather silly point.
