Tobacco kills mostly those who smoke the shit, where guns kill and maim many innocent people, me included.

(March 1, 2015 at 11:20 pm)IATIA Wrote: The three big killers are automobiles, tobacco and guns.

Sorry but no. Excessive alcohol use kills more people annually than automobiles and guns combined. Obesity kills more Americans than all three (alcohol, automobiles and guns) together and trails tobacco use only slightly as the second leading preventable killer.

(March 1, 2015 at 10:00 pm)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 1, 2015 at 9:30 pm)Losty Wrote: But how is it even relevant? One isn't a problem at all and the other one gets people killed every day.

The bottom line is that this isn't something which can be fixed with legislation. There has to be a culture change first - a big one. It's not a change likely to come about through any kind of pressure, either. The gun manufacturers love Obama because as soon as he was elected, gun sales skyrocketted - just out of the irrational fear that he was going to ban guns.

I know it's not what you want to hear but I don't think there is anything to be done about this until Americans lose their love affair with guns. They'll likely lose their love affair with Christianity first.

I kind of agree with you. It's one of the reasons I decided to move to Germany.

(March 1, 2015 at 10:48 pm)404NotFound Wrote: After the fight, the apparent loser went to his car and brandished an AR15 (it's an assault rifle)

No- it isn't..but I say ban them anyway. Nuts love the shit out of them, because theyre nuts (like the nut in your story). Wouldn't do much for crime or safety though (have to hit handguns for that).

-For Losty

Quote:The second amendment is a right to be armed in militia for the purpose of overthrowing the government should it become corrupt. Seems a bit obsolete dontcha think?

Corruption or rebellion?

(March 2, 2015 at 12:30 am)Rhythm Wrote: -For Losty

Quote:The second amendment is a right to be armed in militia for the purpose of overthrowing the government should it become corrupt. Seems a bit obsolete dontcha think?

Corruption or rebellion?

Neither. I was thinking more along the lines of how a militia overthrowing the US government is a laughable idea.

---

I imagine there was a time when it was possible but that time is gone.

You think so? How much success have we had against "insurgents" on their own turf of late? As a bonus, in the US...conventional forces would get to deal with all sorts of specialized little groups (it;s not like our foreign conflicts, dominated by single terrain types). The US has the potential to be an absolute clinic in how to bleed a conventional force dry.

-it would be worse, from one angle, objectively - conventional forces would sympathize with insurgents more easily than they might overseas......gotta keep that in mind.
*also...there are alot of guns here.

You've got to be kidding. You think a lot of militias could take on the military? You know what I think? I think once the chaos begins the looters would break out across the nation and people would go a little nuts with panic. Either the military would bomb the shit out of a few large groups and everyone else would simmer down or the fighting would go on until the innocent pedestrian deaths out weighed the survivors.

(March 2, 2015 at 1:30 am)Losty Wrote: You've got to be kidding. You think a lot of militias could take on the military?

Sure. Worked in Afghanistan, worked in Iraq, worked in Vietnam.......

Quote: You know what I think? I think once the chaos begins the looters would break out across the nation and people would go a little nuts with panic.

-good for an insurgency

Quote:Either the military would bomb the shit out of a few large groups

-also good for an insurgency

Quote: and everyone else would simmer down

Would you simmer down if the US started bombing the shit out of US civilians?

Quote:or the fighting would go on until the innocent pedestrian deaths out weighed the survivors.

-drawn out conflicts favor insurgents.

(mind you, I don't think that any of this is a good reason to keep guns in our hands - merely pointing out that our military is ill-equipped/poorly structured for that sort of conflict, and that a provision for ownership of weapons is useful so long as the weapons owned by the public are useful, and of course you only need to successfully employ whatever weapon you have once and then you have -their- weapons...give me a deer rifle (or just a bad batch of beer...soldiers like to drink) and I can [potentially] bring home some mortars, maybe an AT, and a few grenades along /w assorted small arms, nvgs, canteens, CLS packs....not a bad haul.....and it doesn't take much imagination to come up with clever ways to use all those explosives top greater effect than your enemy ever would have.)

I wouldn't say I don't like either side of the debate about gun control, I think both sides make some good points making it a really interesting debate.

I used to firmly believe in very strict gun control like we have in England, because I live in England and we have relatively few gun deaths.

Sometimes I watch videos on youtube, with titles like "Criminals get justice". And I noticed there is some weight to the fact that sometimes guns are put to good use for self defense.
I like the idea that if we were allowed more guns in England I could probably be much better equipped to deal with a gang of people if they decided to attack me, on the other hand more guns in the country means I'd probably get shot by them first, unless you believe that they wouldn't shoot me first because they'd be afraid if they didn't get me first time I'd shoot them back.

I also like the idea that if there was a tyrannical political power in place, at least some form of armed resistance could be formed, on the other hand every political power that's ever existed has been viewed as tyrannical in one way or another by one person or group of people.

America does seem to have quite a few columbine style shootings aswell, if the guns were available in England when I was a teenager I can say with some confidence that I would have been susceptible to wanting to go in a shoot a hell of a lot of my old classmates.
I was just that kind of weird geeky anti social angry teenager with an obsession with death, serial killers and all that sort of stuff.

Anyway I don't really see an a clear answer to the debate about gun control, but I think that makes it more interesting to talk about.

@Rhythm Maybe we have a different definition of win. If almost everyone is dead at the end...I count that as a loss on both sides.