Argent Towers, it really is possible for someone that disagrees with you to be by it honestly and not as a product of culture. Really!
I suppose it’s only fair to point out that if a non-American can’t see eye to eye with you on this, it pretty much makes it impossible to use non-American examples translated across to America. Yet those against are apparently all the same - you suggest the gun advocacy groups in Australia all meet the same prejudiced view as all gun owners do. I find it odd that we anti-gun types as a whole are generally prejudiced fools with no control over our thoughts on the subject.
I disagree with you, but I generally put your views down to you being you, rather than you being a product of an American shooting culture.
Perhaps someone would like to tell me how I’m being “smug”???
Bugger it, I give up. Every smegging time we have a firearm debate on these boards I get flamed for not being in the “Fuck yeah, everyone should have a machine-gun!” crowd.
Look, if I lived in the US I’d almost certainly feel different, supporting the 2nd Amendment and so forth. But I don’t, so it’s moot, and I’m going to have play the cultural difference card and state that it’s not my intention to come across as “smug” or anything like that. It’s just the way things are here, and if there were any other Australian gun owners on the boards I’m sure they’d agree with me. But there aren’t any that I’m aware of- in fact, now I think about it, are there serious shooters from any country besides the US on the boards?
I’m not flaming you. I like you. You’re a good guy. You’re a product of your culture, in some ways. In other ways, you’re not. Everyone is like that. I don’t think there’s anyone who’s not a product of their surroundings in some way.
I am who I am because I’m a product of American shooting culture, among many other things. I’m sure that if I were raised in the UK or Australia I would have a very different view.
What makes you so worried for “American shooting culture”? Is it the Commie Liberals Who Want To Take Your Guns? Or is it that many Americans are simply finding different hobbies?
More Americans are buying guns right at the moment because there’s a lot of paranoia about Obama being elected, even if this is somewhat unfounded. I’m not sure that it is, based on his voting record and certainly on Biden’s, but whether or not that is the case, I can tell you from my own experience on gun boards and among gun owners that people seem to be getting “assault weapons” in a mad rush right now before the election. Prices have been going up considerably. Now, if Obama does win the election, in the months before he is actually sworn in, the prices will really skyrocket as dealers will capitalize on this phenomenon and charge much more for the “last chance” to get the evil rifles.
As for “commie liberals who want to take my guns,” I didn’t say that, so don’t imply that I did. Using that kind of language makes you look stupid, so I don’t use it. There is a movement in this country against guns, and it is a problem, but - like most issues in life - it is nowhere near as simple as that. There’s also the fact that people are getting more suburbanized and hunting is becoming less popular, and there are fewer “citizen-soldiers” and more people who have no experience with firearms at all. (In another thread I mentioned how my grandfathers and all of my great uncles were city boys from Brooklyn, but once they got back from WWII and Korea, the Army/Marines had given them an interest in shooting that they never would have gotten otherwise, outside of street gangs, anyway.) Nowadays the military is all-volunteer and comprises a small segment of society, and overlaps to a great degree with the people who are ALREADY hunters and target shooters, from rural areas. Guns in general are just becoming less familiar to the average American and so yet, they are seeking other hobbies.
As Martini Enfield said, if shooting culture dies out for the most part, there will be more possibility of gun bans - but these will screw over the small number of people who are STILL interested in shooting, because there will always be a few, and this isn’t right. So I think it’s better to preserve the activity as part of this country’s heritage. I know that sentences like that are very out of style these days (thank God I’m not a college freshman anymore and I no longer have to worry about faking a bunch of anti-American bullshit jive to score some Poli-Sci-major pussy.) But hey - I say what I feel, you know?
In my case, it’s simple. I don’t trust any politician who doesn’t trust me with a gun.
The Democrats have the reputation as the anti-gun party here in the US and the Republicans like to spin themselves as the protectors of the 2nd Ammendment.
A more accurate description is that the Democrats are the actively anti-gun party and the Republicans are the passively anti-gun party. The Democrats pass the laws and sign the executive orders. The Republicans do nothing of substance about any of it but tell the voters “oh well, we tried!”
At one point, the Republicans had a majority in the legislature and held the Oval Office. Were any gun control laws overturned? No. Did Bush cancel any of the anti-gun executive orders put in place by his predecessors? No. He, in fact, stated he’d sign a renewal of the AWB if it reached his desk.
Of the two parties, the Republicans are actually the more disgusting to me. They’ve benefitted for far too long from being perceived as “the only game in town” for pro-gun rights voters.
A politician who won’t trust me with a gun cannot be trusted with power.
It’s true, and it’s why I wish there was a real third party system or at least some Republicans who were actually “old fashioned” conservatives and not the political prostitutes that we have today. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as Governor (Republican) hasn’t done anything to make California’s gun laws any less draconian. Gulliani (Republican) didn’t do anything to help New Yorkers who were law abiding citizens and wanted to defend themselves get a CC permit - it still remained nearly impossible to do so.
Your side of the argument sounds like a justification for punishing and restricting people in advance of any crime having been convicted.
If I shoot somebody, punish me. What justification do you have for punishing or restricting Argent Towers and JXJohns? They did nothing. Penalizing them is morally depraved. “If we punish the innocent enough, evil will disappear?”
The idea is that if you eliminate the instrument through which the crime is committed, you cut down on the crime rate. That would work great if America didn’t already have an insane amount of guns already in the country, as well as a thriving black market and an absurdly porous border with a third-world country through which thousands of people are already able to pass, so I’m fairly certain that smugglers and underground dealers would be more than happy to offer their services to the criminal community. Which leaves the law abiding citizens…fucked, fucked and fucked.
Why yes, it IS kind of insane, isn’t it? Funny about that. Where, o where did the demand for this insane quantity of guns ever come from? Who among us is defending this continuing insanity? It is deeply, deeply puzzling. Perhaps more guns would help to solve this problem.
Yes, that would explain why citizens and legislators have totally given up on addressing the illegal immigration problem.
By the way, how is it that this insanely porous border hasn’t led to a noticeable increase in rocket-propelled-grenade crimes? I don’t recall reading about too many of those. They’re pretty popular armaments in the third world countries these days, I hear. Plus being able to take out a police helicopter seems pretty badass. Why must our terrorist enemies resort to hijacking planes, instead of simply using all these RPGs lying around to blow airliners out of the sky on a weekly basis?
As has been said 50 million times, this isn’t the UK. I hate to sound like a Republican, but if you like their ways so much better than our own, why don’t you move there?
…and you didn’t address how punishing people for the crimes committed by others is morally defensible.
I don’t think you can shoot down an airliner with an RPG. You’d need a heat-seeking SAM (surface-to-air missile.) Anyway the terrorists probably could have just blown up a plane if they wanted to, but crashing two planes after hijacking them (with box cutters - should they ban those too?) made much more of an impact.
An RPG isn’t a practical weapon for gangsters. They’re looking to rob places, jack cars and whack enemies, and do it quickly and without making a scene. They’re not out to start a war with the police, shooting down helicopters or blowing up buildings and creating gigantic explosions.
True. Criminals aren’t much into using explosives to settle their differences in this country. Despite what you see in movies, they don’t put bombs in each other’s cars very much at all.
Also, I’m curious why any of our domestic criminals would want to shoot down an airliner. Where’s the profit in it? They are overwhelmingly motivated by money, not political agendas or sheer desire to kill people. Argent Towers is correct that an RPG is unsuited for anti-aircraft use in any case.
I’m more and more certain that the anti-gun lobby in this country learned everything they “know” about criminal misuse of guns from watching movies like Scarface and Heat.
Droll.
You still haven’t answered how it is morally defensible to punish Argent Towers for what I do.
I imagine it is difficult to come up with an answer that makes sense.
I think the issue for antis is that guns scare them. They don’t like feeling afraid, so they want the government to do something to make them feel better.
Alas, our founding documents (and therefore our system of government) aren’t set up to guarantee that you won’t feel a certain way.
Which are way too big to fit through the Mexican border?
This seems unlikely, assuming that RPGs and SAMs are uncontrollable by law enforcement. Why shouldn’t the terrorist take out an airliner a week? I think it’d make a lot more of an impact than a one-in-a-million gamble of hijacking two planes.
Ah, so this argument relies on the fundamental common sense and self-control of criminals. “Should I blow up that school with a rocket? No, too gauche. That might start a war with the police. I’d be better off going from classroom to classroom killing victims one by one.”
I wouldn’t call it insane.
There certainly are cultural differences. I own 2 shotguns, 2 handguns, and 4 rifles. I got my first rifle when I was 10 or 11 years old.
Seven of these guns where handed down to me. One was a purchased gift from my brother.
I own eight guns, yet I have never purchased one.
How to put it…… I like the simple complexity of them.
The Colt 1911 has been around for 100 years with few changes. It is still the pistol of choice for some people. 100 years. With all the changes we have seen in that time.
Look at the action of the model ’94. One of my faves. For a 30-30, it kicks like a mule, but I like shooting it.
History comes in all shapes and sizes. From inheriting your Dad’s old .22, to appreciating the design and work that went into a pistol when machine shops where steam powered.
Mass murderers and serial murderers are rare and you know that. The overwhelming motive for the US criminal element is, in the end, money. There is no profit to be had from blowing up a school. The whole idea of gangsters using RPGs is something lifted from the pages of a movie script.
Gangsters are like any other business people. They want to maximize profit and minimize cost. Their profits come from many sources: drugs, prostitution, gambling, theft, etc. They, unlike legitimate business people, do sometimes deal with rivals through murder. Even then, the target is the rival, not some random school full of children.
We can discuss this further when two things happen:
You answer my question about punishing the innocent.
You use hypotheticals that don’t sound like something from a script Schwarzenegger rejected in the mid-80’s.
