6 ms·

Folks who feel a need to carry guns always have to let everybody on the internet know they pack heat. There isn't anything wrong with concealed carry, but damn

by cheeze 7y ago

Folks who feel a need to carry guns always have to let everybody on the internet know they pack heat. There isn't anything wrong with concealed carry, but damn if it isn't annoying to hear all of them talk about it.

p1necone 7y ago
> There isn't anything wrong with concealed carry As someone not from the US (New Zealand) the whole idea of regular people carrying concealed handguns around in public seems fucking insane to me.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  As someone who has read a history book or three, the idea of giving the government, military, and police a monopoly on weaponry (or radio receivers, for that matter) sounds even more insane. I guess it's a matter of perspective. Nominally off-topic for the thread as well, although I'd argue that both "gun control" and "SDR control" are two points on the same continuum. (Don't worry about the downvotes -- you'll get the karma back in a few hours, as soon as the Europeans start waking up.)
  - ddeck 7y ago
    >the idea of giving the government, military, and police a monopoly on weaponry (or radio receivers, for that matter) sounds even more insane. I've heard this line of reasoning often when discussing this topic and never really understood. I'm curious - the government/military have tanks, aircraft, nuclear weapons etc. There is a massive imbalance of power regardless of whether citizens have guns. In what scenarios with respect to the government/military/police do you see being armed as providing an advantage? I can see the advantage from the police side in terms of more easily justifying shooting people ("he had a gun / I thought he had a gun"), but not from the citizens' side. I'm not advocating either side, I'm just curious to understand the genesis of this argument.
    - Radle 7y ago
      It's the argument that lead to the second amendment of the US constitution, this argument is obviously completely irrelevant in the 21-century. But facts have long gone from american politics.
      - wanderer2323 7y ago
        "obviously" is the weasel word. How about you try to prove your point instead of stating your position as if it is accepted as true.
      - thjan 7y ago
        I have a few questions for you that should make you think: How big is the US Army? How many of those soldiers would simply go home in such a scenario vs those staying loyal to the government for whatever reason? How many firearms in the US are in private hands? Tanks, planes etc are for force on force warfare, not asymmetric scenarios like a "government turned evil, we need to rise up"
    - ars 7y ago
      > I'm curious - the government/military have tanks, aircraft, nuclear weapons etc. There is a massive imbalance of power regardless of whether citizens have guns. Well look at lessons from history - which of those weapons end up actually being used against rebelling citizens of a country? From my limited knowledge it's hand weapons plus armored vehicles, and rarely, very rarely, tanks. Against that an armed populace can stand. Plus don't forget the populace would be a guerrilla force, while the government would be visible. A typical scenario: The government wants to arrest someone. What weapons would they use? Not heavy ones! If the citizens have no weapons the government doesn't need any weapons at all, but if the citizens have someone as simple as hand guns suddenly things are not so simple for the government. In short: The government doesn't want to wipe out its own citizens (nuclear weapons? seriously?) they want to selectively remove undesirables. And against that, personal weapons are quite effective.
      - barry-cotter 7y ago
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Apparently the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the right to access information is also foreign to New Zealanders. If you took a moment to understand the situation, you would understand why sometimes it is better for everyone to be a potential threat, rather than just the select few who also censor your speech. I find it ludicrous that there is a position of "chief censor" in your government, whose title alone is not treated as the punchline to a bad joke.
- def_true_false 7y ago
  As opposed to open carry?
microcolonel 7y ago
> Folks who feel a need to carry guns always have to let everybody on the internet know they pack heat. That sweeping generalization is utterly incorrect. Though, if we're talking about the weirdos who would carry a Glock chambered in .45 in the 21st century, I'm inclined to agree.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
Is there any chance you hear from the people who make sure to let you know, don't hear from the people who don't care whether you know, and concluded that 100% of people carrying guns need you to hear about how they have them?

by cheeze 7y ago

p1necone 7y ago

> There isn't anything wrong with concealed carry As someone not from the US (New Zealand) the whole idea of regular people carrying concealed handguns around in public seems fucking insane to me.

CamperBob2 7y ago
As someone who has read a history book or three, the idea of giving the government, military, and police a monopoly on weaponry (or radio receivers, for that matter) sounds even more insane. I guess it's a matter of perspective. Nominally off-topic for the thread as well, although I'd argue that both "gun control" and "SDR control" are two points on the same continuum. (Don't worry about the downvotes -- you'll get the karma back in a few hours, as soon as the Europeans start waking up.)
- ddeck 7y ago
  >the idea of giving the government, military, and police a monopoly on weaponry (or radio receivers, for that matter) sounds even more insane. I've heard this line of reasoning often when discussing this topic and never really understood. I'm curious - the government/military have tanks, aircraft, nuclear weapons etc. There is a massive imbalance of power regardless of whether citizens have guns. In what scenarios with respect to the government/military/police do you see being armed as providing an advantage? I can see the advantage from the police side in terms of more easily justifying shooting people ("he had a gun / I thought he had a gun"), but not from the citizens' side. I'm not advocating either side, I'm just curious to understand the genesis of this argument.
  - Radle 7y ago
    It's the argument that lead to the second amendment of the US constitution, this argument is obviously completely irrelevant in the 21-century. But facts have long gone from american politics.
    - wanderer2323 7y ago
      "obviously" is the weasel word. How about you try to prove your point instead of stating your position as if it is accepted as true.
    - thjan 7y ago
      I have a few questions for you that should make you think: How big is the US Army? How many of those soldiers would simply go home in such a scenario vs those staying loyal to the government for whatever reason? How many firearms in the US are in private hands? Tanks, planes etc are for force on force warfare, not asymmetric scenarios like a "government turned evil, we need to rise up"
  - ars 7y ago
    > I'm curious - the government/military have tanks, aircraft, nuclear weapons etc. There is a massive imbalance of power regardless of whether citizens have guns. Well look at lessons from history - which of those weapons end up actually being used against rebelling citizens of a country? From my limited knowledge it's hand weapons plus armored vehicles, and rarely, very rarely, tanks. Against that an armed populace can stand. Plus don't forget the populace would be a guerrilla force, while the government would be visible. A typical scenario: The government wants to arrest someone. What weapons would they use? Not heavy ones! If the citizens have no weapons the government doesn't need any weapons at all, but if the citizens have someone as simple as hand guns suddenly things are not so simple for the government. In short: The government doesn't want to wipe out its own citizens (nuclear weapons? seriously?) they want to selectively remove undesirables. And against that, personal weapons are quite effective.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
microcolonel 7y ago
Apparently the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the right to access information is also foreign to New Zealanders. If you took a moment to understand the situation, you would understand why sometimes it is better for everyone to be a potential threat, rather than just the select few who also censor your speech. I find it ludicrous that there is a position of "chief censor" in your government, whose title alone is not treated as the punchline to a bad joke.
def_true_false 7y ago
As opposed to open carry?

microcolonel 7y ago

> Folks who feel a need to carry guns always have to let everybody on the internet know they pack heat. That sweeping generalization is utterly incorrect. Though, if we're talking about the weirdos who would carry a Glock chambered in .45 in the 21st century, I'm inclined to agree.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

Is there any chance you hear from the people who make sure to let you know, don't hear from the people who don't care whether you know, and concluded that 100% of people carrying guns need you to hear about how they have them?