Assault weapon bans

[Rassah]

5. Finland: 45.3 guns per 100, 2.2 violent deaths per 100

Holy shit! Is that a typo? 

[J603]

5. Finland: 45.3 guns per 100, 2.2 violent deaths per 100

Holy shit! Is that a typo? 

Nope, Finland's a warzone right now!

I'll quietly edit my post

[Spendulus]

....
Just a very recent example: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/teenagers-allegedly-murder-college-baseball-player-boredom-article-1.1431445

Three US teens just murdered a guy making jogging because they were "bored". We hear news like that every few weeks coming from the USA (leaving alone school shooting et al), in the rest of civilized world that shit simply doesn't happen as often. Then, I will make you one question:

- would the guy making jogging have been any safer carrying a gun? He was shot in the back and he didn't even see the shooters.....That a 15 years old kid easily accesses a firearm and plasy with it like that, uploading videos and pictures on internet of it, is just a synonym of a rotten society. Like Somalia, Zimbabwe, the USA and so on.

What you need to understand is that here in the US we don't have a uniform society about which simple generalizations can be made, but perhaps fifty different cultural milieu with different characteristics, including attitudes about guns.  I shift between several daily.  

But this doesn't transfer well to media depictions of the USA.  This means in a literal sense that multiple things can be true at the same time, of those subcultures.  Did the teens that shot the guy live in a rotten society (eg their subculture) HELL YES THEY DID!

[Spendulus]

5. Finland: 45.3 guns per 100, 2.2 violent deaths per 100

Holy shit! Is that a typo? 

Well, what did the Soviets learn about Finland in WWII?

Don't fuck with Finland...

[greenbtc]

What's interesting to me is that regardless of people on planes having or not having weapons, 9/11 could probably never happen again.  The element of surprise would not be there.

There was no element of surprise, we just have idiots in the "Intelligence Agencies" that do not talk to one another, and at least one branch knew months before it happened that there was a plan to make it happen.

[Spendulus]

What's interesting to me is that regardless of people on planes having or not having weapons, 9/11 could probably never happen again.  The element of surprise would not be there.

There was no element of surprise, we just have idiots in the "Intelligence Agencies" that do not talk to one another, and at least one branch knew months before it happened that there was a plan to make it happen.

Yes, and one of them was a friend of mine....he they were desperately trying night and day to find out where/when/how 'flying airplanes into buildings' might occur.

So there certainly was an element of surprise.  That's what the entire attack methodology was predicated upon. 

Knowing part of something isn't enough.  Sometimes knowing all of something isn't enough, because for it to be actionable it needs to be verified as factual, which means multiple sources.

Arguing that bigger and better bureaucracies would have prevented 9/11 is an error of a different sort.  Please let's not go there, it's too early in the day for me to start drinking....

[greenbtc]

What's interesting to me is that regardless of people on planes having or not having weapons, 9/11 could probably never happen again.  The element of surprise would not be there.

There was no element of surprise, we just have idiots in the "Intelligence Agencies" that do not talk to one another, and at least one branch knew months before it happened that there was a plan to make it happen.

Yes, and one of them was a friend of mine....he they were desperately trying night and day to find out where/when/how 'flying airplanes into buildings' might occur.

So there certainly was an element of surprise.  That's what the entire attack methodology was predicated upon. 

Knowing part of something isn't enough.  Sometimes knowing all of something isn't enough, because for it to be actionable it needs to be verified as factual, which means multiple sources.

Arguing that bigger and better bureaucracies would have prevented 9/11 is an error of a different sort.  Please let's not go there, it's too early in the day for me to start drinking....

I wasn't asking for bigger agencies--your friend was sectioned off in one of these agencies, not getting the story from another agency...my point is that the agencies don't work. The information to prevent 9/11 was certainly in our hands months in advance, it was just not taken "seriously" for whatever reason (conspiracy theorists can jump in here).

[Spendulus]

.....

I wasn't asking for bigger agencies--your friend was sectioned off in one of these agencies, not getting the story from another agency...my point is that the agencies don't work. The information to prevent 9/11 was certainly in our hands months in advance, it was just not taken "seriously" for whatever reason (conspiracy theorists can jump in here).

Given that I know a guy who was seriously, day and night trying to figure the riddle out a week before 9/11 I simply have to call "TOTAL BULLSHIT" on your armchair general, after the fact hindsight is perfect criticism.

You might want to look back at exactly what I said.

The EXACT information to prevent 9/11 was certainly not in our hands.

You earlier stated 'there was no element of surprise'.  Like I said, there was nothing BUT SURPRISE.  Arguing that someone, somewhere knew one part and maybe another knew another part does not make this untrue.

The key phrase is 'actionable intelligence.'

This is no different than WWII Axis..."we know the Allies are going to attack...but WHERE?  WHEN?"

Normandy.

[TheButterZone]

And what if you suddenly go bonkers? Stress, infidelity of your wife, even in the heat of argument. Maybe you want to scare someone off, and it goes too far. Itchy fingers? Carrying it with you day in and day out, it grows on you, and you will want to blow some steam eventually. Having that power. Power which eventually corrupts. I for sure would not want to be around that day.

Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

Apparently you are incapable of having an argument where you don't project your own attributes onto others. I've already told you to not to do that.

[mdude77]

Just a very recent example: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/teenagers-allegedly-murder-college-baseball-player-boredom-article-1.1431445

Three US teens just murdered a guy making jogging because they were "bored". We hear news like that every few weeks coming from the USA (leaving alone school shooting et al), in the rest of civilized world that shit simply doesn't happen as often. Then, I will make you one question:

- would the guy making jogging have been any safer carrying a gun? He was shot in the back and he didn't even see the shooters.

Again, the cause isn't the gun.  The cause is moral degeneration.  If those folks didn't have a gun, would they have done something else malicious with some other dangerous weapon?  Probably.

M

[mdude77]

What's interesting to me is that regardless of people on planes having or not having weapons, 9/11 could probably never happen again.  The element of surprise would not be there.

There was no element of surprise, we just have idiots in the "Intelligence Agencies" that do not talk to one another, and at least one branch knew months before it happened that there was a plan to make it happen.

Yes, and one of them was a friend of mine....he they were desperately trying night and day to find out where/when/how 'flying airplanes into buildings' might occur.

So there certainly was an element of surprise.  That's what the entire attack methodology was predicated upon.  

Knowing part of something isn't enough.  Sometimes knowing all of something isn't enough, because for it to be actionable it needs to be verified as factual, which means multiple sources.

Arguing that bigger and better bureaucracies would have prevented 9/11 is an error of a different sort.  Please let's not go there, it's too early in the day for me to start drinking....

Wait, you folks serious belief the government sanctioned lie that 9/11 was caused by a bunch of terrorists who couldn't fly planes?  And the indestructible black boxes didn't survive, yet one of their passports did?  And jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, yet somehow it did?  And WTC7 (I think that's the one, it's been a while) came down without a plane with the incredibly hot burning fuel hitting it?  And never before have sky scrapers fallen down from burning?  And if you compare the buildings' collapse with building that are controlled imploded, you don't see any difference?  And what about the eye witnesses who said there were explosions at the bottom of the buildings?

Seriously?  I know the alternative is one helluva scary thought, but that doesn't mean you should accept the official story.

M

[Spendulus]

.....
Wait, you folks serious belief the government sanctioned lie that 9/11 was caused by a bunch of terrorists who couldn't fly planes?  And the indestructible black boxes didn't survive, yet one of their passports did?  And jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, yet somehow it did?  And WTC7 (I think that's the one, it's been a while) came down without a plane with the incredibly hot burning fuel hitting it?  And never before have sky scrapers fallen down from burning?  And if you compare the buildings' collapse with building that are controlled imploded, you don't see any difference?  And what about the eye witnesses who said there were explosions at the bottom of the buildings?

Seriously?  I know the alternative is one helluva scary thought, but that doesn't mean you should accept the official story.

M

I can match that and maybe better it.

An illegal alien, a Communist, and a Muslim walked into the bar.

The bartender said:

"What'll you have, Mr. President?"

[PrintMule]

And what if you suddenly go bonkers? Stress, infidelity of your wife, even in the heat of argument. Maybe you want to scare someone off, and it goes too far. Itchy fingers? Carrying it with you day in and day out, it grows on you, and you will want to blow some steam eventually. Having that power. Power which eventually corrupts. I for sure would not want to be around that day.

Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

Apparently you are incapable of having an argument where you don't project your own attributes onto others. I've already told you to not to do that.

How can I project a feeling which I do not possess? Those are merely insinuations of yours.
I do not own a gun and never did. I have some experience, and some negative experience also. As a kid I made a shot in heavily populated area, which could cost someone's life.  Also had a loaded and cocked gun pointed at me, which is not a nice feeling. Hell, even empty gun, or a prop gun gives that feeling.
I have a bow, crafted by myself, which may seem similar to having a gun, but I do not show it off to anyone, and would never give it to anyone, even to hold. I shoot very rarely, as there's no suitable areas around, and cause arrows are a pain to make. I love my bow, but from mere woodcrafting perspective, to be able to make something good, by my own hands. If I had a gun, I would probably be as "withdrawn and calm about it" as you are trying to seem here.

Have you EVER had the NEED to take your gun out, or use it? I guess no.

Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?

[mdude77]

Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?

If the options are shoot, or surrender, I'd certainly shoot.  No good will come to either of us by surrendering.

M

[Spendulus]

And what if you suddenly go bonkers? Stress, infidelity of your wife, even in the heat of argument. Maybe you want to scare someone off, and it goes too far. Itchy fingers? Carrying it with you day in and day out, it grows on you, and you will want to blow some steam eventually. Having that power. Power which eventually corrupts. I for sure would not want to be around that day.

Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

Apparently you are incapable of having an argument where you don't project your own attributes onto others. I've already told you to not to do that.

How can I project a feeling which I do not possess? Those are merely insinuations of yours.
I do not own a gun and never did. I have some experience, and some negative experience also. As a kid I made a shot in heavily populated area, which could cost someone's life.  Also had a loaded and cocked gun pointed at me, which is not a nice feeling. Hell, even empty gun, or a prop gun gives that feeling.
I have a bow, crafted by myself, which may seem similar to having a gun, but I do not show it off to anyone, and would never give it to anyone, even to hold. I shoot very rarely, as there's no suitable areas around, and cause arrows are a pain to make. I love my bow, but from mere woodcrafting perspective, to be able to make something good, by my own hands. If I had a gun, I would probably be as "withdrawn and calm about it" as you are trying to seem here.

Have you EVER had the NEED to take your gun out, or use it? I guess no.

Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?

Gonna answer you two ways.

A.  Bring a gun to a knife fight?  Hell yes!

B.  No one who has actually had to pull them triggers has much interest in talking about it.  Particularly with people that knows it all.

[FirstAscent]

Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?

If the options are shoot, or surrender, I'd certainly shoot.  No good will come to either of us by surrendering.

A pointless question to ask, and a pointless question to answer, given that the chance of one finding themselves in said situation, and the chances of someone actually knowing what they would do in said situation are limited.

The truth of the matter is, the burden one carries with themselves when carrying a gun all the time subtracts from one's freedom. True freedom is not thinking about carrying a gun, because one isn't carrying a gun, nor feels the need to, and doesn't fear being without a gun.

[Rassah]

Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?

If the options are shoot, or surrender, I'd certainly shoot.  No good will come to either of us by surrendering.

A pointless question to ask, and a pointless question to answer, given that the chance of one finding themselves in said situation, and the chances of someone actually knowing what they would do in said situation are limited.

The truth of the matter is, the burden one carries with themselves when carrying a gun all the time subtracts from one's freedom. True freedom is not thinking about carrying a gun, because one isn't carrying a gun, nor feels the need to, and doesn't fear being without a gun.

No, *true* freedom is feeling you don't need a gun, and not fearing from not carrying one. THAT is the only part of your statement that is actually "freedom," and would be the first thing that would be required to happen. Until that happens, carrying a gun is the only way to have freedom in a situation where you need to carry guns and feel unsafe without them. You are putting your freedoms in the wrong order, in other words.

I mean, you are basically saying, "If only those uppity slaves on southern plantations put down their weapons, accepted that they were safe, and stopped fearing for their lives, instead of trying to fight off their oppressors in a hostile environment, then they would be free. WTF dude.

[FirstAscent]

Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?

If the options are shoot, or surrender, I'd certainly shoot.  No good will come to either of us by surrendering.

A pointless question to ask, and a pointless question to answer, given that the chance of one finding themselves in said situation, and the chances of someone actually knowing what they would do in said situation are limited.

The truth of the matter is, the burden one carries with themselves when carrying a gun all the time subtracts from one's freedom. True freedom is not thinking about carrying a gun, because one isn't carrying a gun, nor feels the need to, and doesn't fear being without a gun.

No, *true* freedom is feeling you don't need a gun, and not fearing from not carrying one.

Then I am *truly* free. Why is it that you are not?

Until that happens, carrying a gun is the only way to have freedom in a situation where you need to carry guns and feel unsafe without them. You are putting your freedoms in the wrong order, in other words.

Huh? We've just agreed that I'm already free.

[Rassah]

No, *true* freedom is feeling you don't need a gun, and not fearing from not carrying one.

Then I am *truly* free. Why is it that you are not?

Because, as has been repeated over and over and over, the issue is the culture of various places (not their level of gun posession). You live in a place where guns are not needed. I live not to far from a place whre they are needed. Just because you are free enough not to need a gun, does not mean that others are as well.

Until that happens, carrying a gun is the only way to have freedom in a situation where you need to carry guns and feel unsafe without them. You are putting your freedoms in the wrong order, in other words.

Huh? We've just agreed that I'm already free.

You are free because you live in a place where you don't need a gun. Not because you don't have a gun. As I said, you got the order backwards. It is NOT

Bad Culture > Give up guns because they are "not needed" > Better Culture

as you claim. The "freedom" order is

Bad culture > Better culture > Give up guns because they are "not needed"

Does that make sense?

[FirstAscent]

No, *true* freedom is feeling you don't need a gun, and not fearing from not carrying one.

Then I am *truly* free. Why is it that you are not?

Because, as has been repeated over and over and over, the issue is the culture of various places (not their level of gun posession). You live in a place where guns are not needed. I live not to far from a place whre they are needed. Just because you are free enough not to need a gun, does not mean that others are as well.

By your own admission elsewhere, you don't own a gun, and yet you seem to be just fine. Maybe your fears are imagined? Or maybe you should move. And I recall a desire to go to Somalia on your part. Is that a better place that gives you freedom (no need to carry a gun).

Until that happens, carrying a gun is the only way to have freedom in a situation where you need to carry guns and feel unsafe without them. You are putting your freedoms in the wrong order, in other words.

Huh? We've just agreed that I'm already free.

You are free because you live in a place where you don't need a gun. Not because you don't have a gun. As I said, you got the order backwards. It is NOT

Bad Culture > Give up guns because they are "not needed" > Better Culture

as you claim. The "freedom" order is

Bad culture > Better culture > Give up guns because they are "not needed"

Does that make sense?

Sounds like the sound thing for you to do is find some better culture.