Poll: Does the United States have a problem with guns?
Yes. Guns are signficant source of social ill in the US
No. Guns are not a contributing factor to the social problems of the US
Both. Guns are an issue in the US but are both a part of the problem and part of the solution
Unsure.
[Show Results]
 
Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
(21-08-2013 01:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2013 01:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How do you figure?

The likelihood of a jam increases with magazine size, the delays decrease inversely to magazine size, so that may balance.

The delay between shots on a magazine change is very small, so the likelihood of that presenting an opportunity is small. There are probably other issues that are more important than this one.

There is a human factor of having to take out and manually insert something into a gun under pressure that should be factored in too.

There are indeed more important issues, but that doesn't mean this one should be overlooked as a result.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
(21-08-2013 01:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-08-2013 01:46 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  What happens when the govt declares martial law and suspends elections?

What are you talking about? How is that a realistic threat? Do you really believe that both the political machine in the US and the military, would just stand by and let that happen?

It is not unlikely in the event of war, civil unrest, or natural disaster. Politicians have pushed for martial law several times in the history of the U.S.

The military is not monolithic and loyalties would likely fracture in the event.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 01:55 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2013 02:08 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
(21-08-2013 01:29 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  You have a few hundred thousand members of the armed forces against 80 million armed Americans. There's no doubt that government forces will kill a large mess of civilians in the conflict but they simply can't outlast we the people. Ba a simpleminded and myopic fool and disregard this at your own peril. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass to greet Big Brother.

Such an absurd scenario is farcical.

If somehow a situation deteriorated to the point where a controlling interesting of the United States government:
Seized power
Abolished democracy
Instituted martial law
Prevented any international response whatsoever, and survived the ensuing economic collapse
Compelled - somehow - all government employees to side with the government, with no defections or hesitation in military or law enforcement (which, I note, constitute not several hundred thousand but several million persons)
Likewise caused - somehow - all armed civilians to resist violently to their dying breaths
and more besides...

Do you really think that in such a fantasyland the Man would stop short of using disproportionate retribution? That civilian small arms will make any difference whatsoever?

Big brother's toys aren't rifles. They're planes, tanks, and chemical weapons.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
(21-08-2013 01:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2013 01:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What are you talking about? How is that a realistic threat? Do you really believe that both the political machine in the US and the military, would just stand by and let that happen?

It is not unlikely in the event of war, civil unrest, or natural disaster. Politicians have pushed for martial law several times in the history of the U.S.

The military is not monolithic and loyalties would likely fracture in the event.

Individual politicians have and how many times has it ever been inacted?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
(21-08-2013 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-08-2013 01:29 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  You have a few hundred thousand members of the armed forces against 80 million armed Americans. There's no doubt that government forces will kill a large mess of civilians in the conflict but they simply can't outlast we the people. Ba a simpleminded and myopic fool and disregard this at your own peril. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass to greet Big Brother.

Such an absurd scenario is farcical.

If somehow a situation deteriorated to the point where a controlling interesting of the United States government:
Seized power
Abolished democracy
Instituted martial law
Prevented any international response whatsoever, and survived the ensuing economic collapse
Compelled - somehow - all government employees to side with the government, with no defections or hesitation in military or law enforcement (which, I note, constitute not several hundred thousand but several million persons)
Likewise caused - somehow - all armed civilians to resist violently to their dying breaths
and more besides...

Do you really think that in such a fantasyland the Man would stop short of using disproportionate retribution? That civilian small arms will make any difference whatsoever?

Big brother's toys are rifles. They're planes, tanks, and chemical weapons.

Ah, yes. But you make the mistake of not recognizing that it may never come to pass, or end much more quickly if the Man knows the people he is trying to oppress can shoot back.

It works

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
(21-08-2013 01:59 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(21-08-2013 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Such an absurd scenario is farcical.

If somehow a situation deteriorated to the point where a controlling interesting of the United States government:
Seized power
Abolished democracy
Instituted martial law
Prevented any international response whatsoever, and survived the ensuing economic collapse
Compelled - somehow - all government employees to side with the government, with no defections or hesitation in military or law enforcement (which, I note, constitute not several hundred thousand but several million persons)
Likewise caused - somehow - all armed civilians to resist violently to their dying breaths
and more besides...

Do you really think that in such a fantasyland the Man would stop short of using disproportionate retribution? That civilian small arms will make any difference whatsoever?

Big brother's toys are rifles. They're planes, tanks, and chemical weapons.

Ah, yes. But you make the mistake of not recognizing that it may never come to pass, or end much more quickly if the Man knows the people he is trying to oppress can shoot back.

It works

And you think that if this were to happen, that countries with a vested interest in the US would not supply arms for a resistance?

How likely is it, that this will ever occur?

Name one developed, first world country, that is a major world power (top 10), that has had this happen.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
Is this it? Is this really the best reason people can come up with for not changing gun laws in the US? Because the government might* enact martial law at some point in the future for some reason and then your guns would be good for killing the cops and soldiers that don't defect?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
And that argument still implies that what is being proposed is disarmament.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013...wn-weapons

Don't need guns to protect people either.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Debate the merits of guns in America (poll added)
(21-08-2013 01:59 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Ah, yes. But you make the mistake of not recognizing that it may never come to pass, or end much more quickly if the Man knows the people he is trying to oppress can shoot back.

You know what?

Sure!

It probably does make a difference - even in some perverted doomsday scenario when the government and military become an oppressive hivemind set to 'exterminate', that evil hivemind is going to take into account how much work that extermination will entail. So sure.

Is that a meaningful difference? No.

Is it relevant? Again, no. Within the context of the present debate - in America or any other country - it's a mangy strawman. Unless someone was arguing "no guns ever"; which, as far as I can tell, no one here has come close to.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: