Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 310 (669186)
07-27-2012 8:21 PM


(Continued from other thread.)
Do they? Here's a pistol (a Luger) with what you specified before was a "semi-pistol grip":
No, that's not what I called a "semi-pistol grip". It has a pistol grip. It also appears to have a collapsible stock.
But the bill doesn't consider pistols to be "unacceptably assault-weapon-ish." That's the point - despite banning rifles with pistol grips, pistols with pistol grips are perfectly OK provided that they lack other identified "dangerous" features. But if a pistol grip is dangerous on a rifle, I fail to see by what basis a pistol grip is any less dangerous on a pistol.
You're missing the point. A pistol grip probably does make a pistol more dangerous than a pistol which didn't have one. But since all pistols have a pistol grip, the law doesn't explicitly have to say that that's one strike against them, whereas since not all rifles do, it does.
---
For the rest of your post, see DevilsAdvocate's answer, he seems to know more about it than I do.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
(1)
Message 131 of 310 (669188)
07-27-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
07-27-2012 5:16 PM


And I'm amazed that Europeans so willingly allowed their respective governments to disarm them.
Gosh, those arms sure would have come in handy during Germany's rampant occupation of Europe.
As I've pointed out before (back, I think, in the days when you were still NemesisJuggernaut) invoking Hitler makes the opposite of the point you'd actually like to make.
Europeans had lots of privately-owned guns. Germans had lots of privately-owned guns. Then one of the top worst tyrannies ever arose in Germany and took over most of Europe, and the tyrant said: "hand over your guns", and what happened? They handed over their guns. Or at best hid them somewhere. What they didn't do was form a citizens' militia, fight a victorious pitched battle against the SS, and then march on Berlin.
Now, if this story had instead ended: "... and what happened? The gun-owners shot Hitler and everyone lived happily ever after", then you would have a point. But the fact is that the privately-owned guns were rubbish as a bulwark against tyranny. What actually overthrew Hitler were publicly-funded armies, one of them downright Communist, armed with what I believe are known in military parlance as Big Fucking Tanks. If we'd sat around waiting for the people with hunting rifles to do the job, then this post would be written in German.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2012 5:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 07-27-2012 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 135 of 310 (669207)
07-28-2012 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jon
07-27-2012 9:33 PM


That may have not happened in early 20th century Germany, but it certainly happened in the British Colonies of 1776.
That's as may be. My point was simply that Hitler, in particular, constitutes a counterexample to rather than an example of any claims about a connection between guns and liberty.
An armed citizenry doesn't always rise up against an oppressive tyranny. But that's not the point. The point is that an unarmed citizenry never can.
General Gandhi, leader of the famed Indian Revolutionary Army that defeated the British redcoats at the Battle of Delhi. Or something like that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 07-27-2012 9:33 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Jon, posted 07-29-2012 6:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2012 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 149 of 310 (669276)
07-28-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 12:19 PM


Guns For Freedom, Hurrah
There is no way for the people of China to overthrow their government now because they are unarmed. I realize that the police and the military are more armed than the populace could ever be, but at least it is possible to start guerilla war with the state if the populace is armed. Being armed would make it possible to kill the shipment inspectors at the borders and the maritime shipping docks and get military style weapons in from other sympathetic countries. Without an armed populace, this is not possible.
Don't arguments about overthrowing the government cut both ways? I mean, if it is possible for a bunch of private citizens with guns to overthrow a tyranny and replace it with a democratic republic, then wouldn't it also be possible for an armed citizenry to overthrow a democratic republic and replace it with a tyranny? There is, after all, nothing particularly bullet-proof about democrats.
So, yes, it might be a good idea if the Chinese had more guns, but what about the USA? If our citizens have enough weaponry to overthrow the government (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument let's say they do) then since we are currently a democratic republic, what they would be doing would be overthrowing democracy in favor of tyranny. Since we currently have liberty, guns can not currently be used to give us liberty, but to take it away; if it is possible to use them to overthrow the government, they are not a bulwark of liberty but rather a threat to it.
To conceive of guns defending our liberties, we have to be thinking two revolutions ahead. Once someone has taken our liberty away, then maybe we could use guns to put it back. But right now, since we have liberty, they can only be used to take it away.
On this basis, whether or not guns are good would depend on the state of the particular nation in question. In China, perhaps they could be a force for liberty; in the USA, they imperil it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 12:19 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 162 of 310 (669304)
07-28-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 9:23 PM


Re: Breivik used legally obtained firearms
It came to power by guerilla warfare and that was made possible because the citizenry was allowed to have weapons. It is not always possible to become armed should the need arise. That is next to impossible in a strongly armed police state like the former soviet union.
Yes, but note the word "former" in there.
Any suspicion of revolt would have millions executed on the spot. A great portion of the people of China DID want to overthrow their government early on when they found out how repressive it was. As time wore on and as the state systematically brainwashed its people , sometimes by force in reeducation camps, the desire to overthrow the state became less and less but many people there would love to have something other than totalitarian communism as a form of government.
On a point of fact, China is about as communist as my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 9:23 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 163 of 310 (669305)
07-28-2012 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 9:48 PM


Re: armed overthrow not the only option
How non violent is filling truck tires with gasoline and putting them on government sympathizers and lighting them on fire- a procedure known as necklacing?
If it was that, rather than all the non-violent protest, that overthrew apartheid, then please bear in mind that we are talking about gun control; even if the government was to deprive you of your guns, you would still have trucks tires and the secret of fire.
Its funny watching a bunch of smelly, college graduates with worthless degrees who have never worked a day in their lives ...
... most of whom, back in the real world, had jobs. And I don't believe you've ever sniffed a statistically significant sample of them. However, if you want to be wrong about the Occupy Movement, I'm sure there are already threads on which you could do so.
I agree, but it is foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, which is baby and which is bathwater? Has anyone been keeping score? How often have guns been used to overthrow a tyranny, and how often a democracy? Does anyone know?
In the US, as I pointed out in a previous post, they could only presently be used to overthrow a democratic republic, since that is in fact what we have.
As you yourself say:
Again, the United States is not a brutal police force.
(I think you meant the last word to be "state".) So we couldn't use guns to overthrow such an institution, 'cos of it not existing. But if it is possible to overthrow the government using guns, then it would be possible to institute a brutal police state by such means.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 9:48 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 310 (669307)
07-28-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 9:30 PM


Re: overthrowing a tyranny
A willing weapons salesman will not get very far in a very strong and repressive police state. Millions will get executed in the process.
So it would be a good idea for repressive police states to allow their citizens to have easy access to guns, the better to overthrow them.
Will you tell them, or shall I?
Really, if we're going to daydream about rewriting the Chinese constitution, we could skip over the Second Amendment and go straight for Article I. Instead of fantasizing about them having enough guns to institute a representative democracy, we could just fantasize about them having a representative democracy: it's quicker, and no more futile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 9:30 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 167 of 310 (669309)
07-28-2012 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 10:16 PM


Re: armed overthrow not the only option
You cannot overthrow a brutal police state without guns. I agree that you can overthrow a democracy with guns and institute a police state. You can also prevent a democracy from turning into a police state with guns. A democracy that is morphing into a police state won't get very far at removing undesirables from their property and home when they get blown away by 45 calibers when they attempt to do so.
Unless the nascent police state has more and bigger guns ... and tanks ... and better supplies for a siege, 'cos of being outside the log cabin.
I have noticed that when people who think the government is already a tyranny try to stand it off (or people who are just plain crooks without any particular ideology try to do the same thing) the government usually wins. I can't think of a single case where the government has instead said: "Oh, you've got a 45 caliber gun? We're sorry, we didn't know. In that case, we're not going to try to enforce our laws." What actually happens is that in the end the government wins, but with more dead people at the end of it than if the guy had been armed with a wet towel and a potato-peeler.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 10:16 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 188 of 310 (669424)
07-29-2012 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Jon
07-29-2012 6:55 PM


What Hitler did is a perfect example of not only why people need to keep their guns, but why people need to learn why they have them.
So ... they would have shot Hitler, if only it had occurred to them?
"Hans?"
"Ja, Fritz?"
"You know zat Hitler chap?"
"Ja, siche."
"Vell, I vas thinking, wouldn't it be great if he vas dead rather than alive?"
"Ja, zat would be jolly nice. But how can von turn alive people into dead people?"
"Ja, zat's ze puzzle. If only zer was some sort of ... device ... for killink people. Vat a vonderful vorld zat vould be."
"A device for killink people! Absurd."
"Ja, but a man can dream."
"Ach, mein Gott, you and your dreams. You alvays vere ze impractical type. Now get your rifle and let's go duck-hunting."
"Vait, zat gives me an ide --- no, no, it's gone."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Jon, posted 07-29-2012 6:55 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 190 of 310 (669426)
07-29-2012 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
07-29-2012 10:31 PM


I know the popular history has Gandhi as this great peaceful leader ...
Well yes. If you know better, please tell me whom he shot.
... and this is somewhat off-topic, but describing the fight for Indian independence as "non-violent" as a result makes about as much sense as calling the American Revolution "non-violent" because all Thomas Paine did was write pamphlets.
However, what made the difference was in fact non-violent protest. If the Indians had had to win a military victory to dislodge the British, then the British would still be there, 'cos they didn't. This makes it different from the War of Independence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2012 10:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2012 7:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 238 of 310 (669559)
07-30-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by crashfrog
07-30-2012 7:53 AM


They killed hundreds with a campaign of explosives terrorism. How is that "non-violent"?
I said that what made the difference was non-violent protest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2012 7:53 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2012 8:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 251 of 310 (669608)
07-31-2012 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by crashfrog
07-31-2012 8:23 AM


And I'm sure that it was our strongly worded letter that ended hostilities with Japan in WWII.
I'm not, because, y'know, that was a different historical event in which something else happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2012 8:23 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2012 1:38 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 252 of 310 (669609)
07-31-2012 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by 1.61803
07-31-2012 10:39 AM


I personally would rather be armed when the shit hits the fan.
I personally would like everyone other than me not to be armed when the shit hits the fan. I would think that that would reduce the volume of the shit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by 1.61803, posted 07-31-2012 10:39 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by 1.61803, posted 07-31-2012 1:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 265 of 310 (669633)
07-31-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Jon
07-31-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Whatever would be necessary to defend against an armed government.
Should everyone be able to defend themselves against an armed government? The Mafia, for example, is it desirable that they should have enough weaponry to stand off Uncle Sam?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 8:01 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 10:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 294 of 310 (669737)
08-02-2012 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Jon
07-31-2012 10:20 PM


Re: Democracy 101
All people should be equally empowered.
That's the point of a democracy.
So, to return to my specific question, do you think the Mafia should be "empowered" to stand off the government if so they please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 10:20 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Jon, posted 08-02-2012 8:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024