11 ms·

In the same way other countries who've banned firearms have carried it out? It's not like there's no precedent for this if you look outside of America.

by _frog 9y ago

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
America isn't other countries. Guns are as ingrained in rural America's culture as lifted trucks and beer. There would literally be armed revolts if the government tried taking peoples' guns away en masse.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  What's interesting is that rural America was in favor of increased gun control in the 1960s when blacks started to assert their right to own guns. Ultimately peoples' attitudes can be swayed and changed and it isn't really hard to do it. Witness our embracing of torture, taking shoes off to board an airplane, fear of sharia law, etc.
  - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
    Yes, and blacks were taking up arms because they were literally being bombed. The whites wanted to control their rights to have guns so they could continue controlling the black populations with violent force. So you highlight how gun control has been used as an oppressive tool in the past. What are we do to when only our corrupt government is allowed to have guns?
    - jjjensen90 9y ago
      Our "corrupt government" would crush us with jets, tanks, nukes, laser weapons, missiles, helicopters, drones, ships, chemical weapons, smallpox, and probably many more things regardless of whether we had AR-15s or not.
      - nbdev 9y ago
        You would have probably been against the American Revolutionary War then? Meh, let's let the British tax us. They're big and powerful. They're the Government. And what about something like Vietnam? Who won that one? And even if you're right, that the US government is just that big and bad. What if half the military defects and joins the revolt? People have the right to defend themselves, and must be trusted to do so. Otherwise you get something like England. Say the wrong thing and you go to jail. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government in check. Eventually, given enough time, it will need checking.
        Mononokay 9y ago
        The Brits weren't actually that far ahead of the civs in the ARWar, it was mostly a numbers issue, not a tech issue. Vietnam wasn't on US soil, home-base would be infinitely cheaper. > And even if you're right, that the US government is just that big and bad. What if half the military defects and joins the revolt? The higher up they are the more nonexistant that chance gets, and the higher up you are the more likely it is that you have a kill-switch to any devices that can be used against the nation. > People have the right to defend themselves, and must be trusted to do so. Otherwise you get something like England. Say the wrong thing and you go to jail. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government in check. Eventually, given enough time, it will need checking. Actually, you have the US. People have been arrested for bible burning, [1] promoting Communistic views, [2] Japanese Internment Camps, [3] and more. It's absolutely anti-democratic, but the 2A supporters never will speak against these practices. [0] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-soldiers-that-never-sleep http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-s... [1] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/bible-burning-incident-leads-to-charges-for-pennsylvania-woman.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/bible-burning-incident-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
        nbdev 9y ago
        I don't think it's fair or accurate to say folks wouldn't speak out against those things. Your argument is that people shouldn't have guns because we probably couldn't beat the government. I'll take my fighting chance. It's better to die free.
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      If you're going by second amendment rights, at this point it's more to the spirit of it for civillian fighter jets and tanks to be legalized than guns. To some extent, I actually imagine it'd be safer for the average citizen. * * * From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon, especially not a semi-automatic rifle, will reliably take care of a tank, fighter jet, drone or military robot. [0] [0] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-soldiers-that-never-sleep http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-s...
      - reitanqild 9y ago
        > From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon, especially not a semi-automatic rifle, will reliably take care of a tank, fighter jet, drone or military robot. [0] It gives you some leverage however if you need to get some ingredients for your IEDs. A few guns might make the difference between efficient large scale killings like Auschwitz and a case where a large number of civilians get away and hide until the international community can come and help.
      - DuskStar 9y ago
        Yep, people with rifles and improvised explosives are completely ineffective against a modern military force. That's why the US was in and out of Afghanistan in less than a year! Oh wait.
    - archagon 9y ago
      And what are we to do when half the population is armed and wants to install an authoritarian regime?
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  "Don't take guns away from people to protect the populace because if you try to do it nutters with guns will shoot people"? That sounds like justification for taking people's guns from them.
  - purple-again 9y ago
    Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??
      - purple-again 9y ago
        Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families. Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        Did you read the start of the thread that I was responding to. The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls. Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation. To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed people will shoot (at) those who oppose them. In this hypothetical case that would be police attempting to arrest them for unlawfully keeping controlled firearms. You appear to be saying if tighter gun controls were enacted your family members who are policemen would leave their jobs in order to shoot anyone attempting to confiscate their controlled weapons? Do you think that's a reasonable position? Kill your own countrymen now in order to protect your right to more efficiently kill others in some intangible imaginary future scenario?
- pjc50 9y ago
  It's never going to be en masse. Australia enacted sufficient gun control to drastically limit mass shootings by introducing licensing, purpose and registration requirements as well as banning semi-automatics. There was a buyback scheme which most people complied with. I do wonder if American resistance to sensible gun control will cause a flip straight over into hard restrictions, but it's difficult to see what the trigger event for that would be. Left-wing paramilitaries? (right-wing paramilitaries are seemingly tolerated!)
  - bnolsen 9y ago
    "sensible"? Since massive amoutns of guns have found their way to the public since the 1990s the crime rates across the US have been dropping dramatically. And even so the US isn't even close to the top of the list worldwide in per capita murder rate even though lots of people have weapons. If anything those numbers show that there is at the very least no correlation between numbers of guns and crime, and may well indicate more guns means less crime. Since the US constitution protects ownership with the "shall not be infringed" clause and the stats show there's little downsides why stomp on people's rights?
    - rpenm 9y ago
      Gun ownership rates have been falling, not rising. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

In the same way other countries who've banned firearms have carried it out? It's not like there's no precedent for this if you look outside of America.

by _frog 9y ago

In the same way other countries who've banned firearms have carried it out? It's not like there's no precedent for this if you look outside of America.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

America isn't other countries. Guns are as ingrained in rural America's culture as lifted trucks and beer. There would literally be armed revolts if the government tried taking peoples' guns away en masse.

yequalsx 9y ago
What's interesting is that rural America was in favor of increased gun control in the 1960s when blacks started to assert their right to own guns. Ultimately peoples' attitudes can be swayed and changed and it isn't really hard to do it. Witness our embracing of torture, taking shoes off to board an airplane, fear of sharia law, etc.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  Yes, and blacks were taking up arms because they were literally being bombed. The whites wanted to control their rights to have guns so they could continue controlling the black populations with violent force. So you highlight how gun control has been used as an oppressive tool in the past. What are we do to when only our corrupt government is allowed to have guns?
  - jjjensen90 9y ago
    Our "corrupt government" would crush us with jets, tanks, nukes, laser weapons, missiles, helicopters, drones, ships, chemical weapons, smallpox, and probably many more things regardless of whether we had AR-15s or not.
    - nbdev 9y ago
      You would have probably been against the American Revolutionary War then? Meh, let's let the British tax us. They're big and powerful. They're the Government. And what about something like Vietnam? Who won that one? And even if you're right, that the US government is just that big and bad. What if half the military defects and joins the revolt? People have the right to defend themselves, and must be trusted to do so. Otherwise you get something like England. Say the wrong thing and you go to jail. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government in check. Eventually, given enough time, it will need checking.
      - Mononokay 9y ago
        The Brits weren't actually that far ahead of the civs in the ARWar, it was mostly a numbers issue, not a tech issue. Vietnam wasn't on US soil, home-base would be infinitely cheaper. > And even if you're right, that the US government is just that big and bad. What if half the military defects and joins the revolt? The higher up they are the more nonexistant that chance gets, and the higher up you are the more likely it is that you have a kill-switch to any devices that can be used against the nation. > People have the right to defend themselves, and must be trusted to do so. Otherwise you get something like England. Say the wrong thing and you go to jail. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government in check. Eventually, given enough time, it will need checking. Actually, you have the US. People have been arrested for bible burning, [1] promoting Communistic views, [2] Japanese Internment Camps, [3] and more. It's absolutely anti-democratic, but the 2A supporters never will speak against these practices. [0] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-soldiers-that-never-sleep http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-s... [1] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/bible-burning-incident-leads-to-charges-for-pennsylvania-woman.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/bible-burning-incident-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
        nbdev 9y ago
        I don't think it's fair or accurate to say folks wouldn't speak out against those things. Your argument is that people shouldn't have guns because we probably couldn't beat the government. I'll take my fighting chance. It's better to die free.
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    If you're going by second amendment rights, at this point it's more to the spirit of it for civillian fighter jets and tanks to be legalized than guns. To some extent, I actually imagine it'd be safer for the average citizen. * * * From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon, especially not a semi-automatic rifle, will reliably take care of a tank, fighter jet, drone or military robot. [0] [0] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-soldiers-that-never-sleep http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-s...
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      > From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon, especially not a semi-automatic rifle, will reliably take care of a tank, fighter jet, drone or military robot. [0] It gives you some leverage however if you need to get some ingredients for your IEDs. A few guns might make the difference between efficient large scale killings like Auschwitz and a case where a large number of civilians get away and hide until the international community can come and help.
    - DuskStar 9y ago
      Yep, people with rifles and improvised explosives are completely ineffective against a modern military force. That's why the US was in and out of Afghanistan in less than a year! Oh wait.
  - archagon 9y ago
    And what are we to do when half the population is armed and wants to install an authoritarian regime?
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
"Don't take guns away from people to protect the populace because if you try to do it nutters with guns will shoot people"? That sounds like justification for taking people's guns from them.
- purple-again 9y ago
  Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??
    - purple-again 9y ago
      Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families. Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        Did you read the start of the thread that I was responding to. The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls. Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation. To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed people will shoot (at) those who oppose them. In this hypothetical case that would be police attempting to arrest them for unlawfully keeping controlled firearms. You appear to be saying if tighter gun controls were enacted your family members who are policemen would leave their jobs in order to shoot anyone attempting to confiscate their controlled weapons? Do you think that's a reasonable position? Kill your own countrymen now in order to protect your right to more efficiently kill others in some intangible imaginary future scenario?
pjc50 9y ago
It's never going to be en masse. Australia enacted sufficient gun control to drastically limit mass shootings by introducing licensing, purpose and registration requirements as well as banning semi-automatics. There was a buyback scheme which most people complied with. I do wonder if American resistance to sensible gun control will cause a flip straight over into hard restrictions, but it's difficult to see what the trigger event for that would be. Left-wing paramilitaries? (right-wing paramilitaries are seemingly tolerated!)
- bnolsen 9y ago
  "sensible"? Since massive amoutns of guns have found their way to the public since the 1990s the crime rates across the US have been dropping dramatically. And even so the US isn't even close to the top of the list worldwide in per capita murder rate even though lots of people have weapons. If anything those numbers show that there is at the very least no correlation between numbers of guns and crime, and may well indicate more guns means less crime. Since the US constitution protects ownership with the "shall not be infringed" clause and the stats show there's little downsides why stomp on people's rights?
  - rpenm 9y ago
    Gun ownership rates have been falling, not rising. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]