+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.li)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.li/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.li/Forum-The-Lounge)
+---- Forum: Serious Discussion (https://sinister.li/Forum-Serious-Discussion)
+---- Thread: Home of the Free? (/Thread-Home-of-the-Free)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Home of the Free? - w00t - 03-18-2013
I'm not arguing for complete disarmament, I'm arguing that you don't need a hundred round magazine, or a automatic gun at all, really, to defend yourself. Even if an armed rebellion becomes nessecery, you still don't need large magazines and automatic guns.
The armed services train a soldier to pretty much never use automatic fire because it's horribly inaccurate, preferring to fire in bursts, or if you have a quick finger, semiauto. The military knows automatic fire on small arms is useless, so why would you want it? With a semiautomatic gun, I can crank out 3 rounds in less than two seconds. With a reasonable degree of aim, AKA at least two hit the target, the target won't be able to fight back anymore.
RE: Home of the Free? - Oni - 03-18-2013
(03-18-2013, 09:31 PM)w00t Wrote: I'm not arguing for complete disarmament, I'm arguing that you don't need a hundred round magazine, or a automatic gun at all, really, to defend yourself. Even if an armed rebellion becomes nessecery, you still don't need large magazines and automatic guns.
The armed services train a soldier to pretty much never use automatic fire because it's horribly inaccurate, preferring to fire in bursts, or if you have a quick finger, semiauto. The military knows automatic fire on small arms is useless, so why would you want it? With a semiautomatic gun, I can crank out 3 rounds in less than two seconds. With a reasonable degree of aim, AKA at least two hit the target, the target won't be able to fight back anymore.
So you are arguing that simply because something isn't necessary, we should ban it? Mass-murders are rarely committed with fully-automatics (much less with 100 round magazines). The amount of paperwork done to receive a fully-automatic rifle is ridiculous and they are by no means easy to obtain. The last couple of shootings were done with simple semi-automatic rifles and the killers brought multiple clips. Also, in our pretend scenario automatic-fire would generally be used in combat situations and tactics like suppressive/covering fire are much better with an automatic. Since we're mentioning the British, one of their most famous guns (the Sterling) was most efficient with automatic-fire due to its lack of recoil. Don't get me wrong, I believe citizens would stand a chance against the government with semi-automatic rifles but I don't see the point in prohibiting something simply because it isn't necessary. A mass-murderer could easily bring several 10 round magazines and switch them out in less than a second. Alcohol and cigarettes aren't necessary, but that doesn't mean we should ban them either.
RE: Home of the Free? - nineveh_redemption - 03-19-2013
w00t
The only reason the aforementioned countries are doing so well is, as I said, because of violent revolutions. I do not believe in conspiracies and the other things you mentioned; however, I do agree with you when you say that most people believe us Americans to be backward-minded concerning gun control. I'd certainly be happy to start a non-violent protest, as I plan to, but in my opinion, peaceful protest will not ever completely secure our rights.
RE: Home of the Free? - Achromat - 04-07-2013
(03-18-2013, 08:52 PM)Der Anarchist Wrote:(03-18-2013, 03:57 PM)w00t Wrote: Britan has some pretty tight gun laws, most policemen don't have guns. Didn't stop us from putting up one hell of a riot when we thought a kid had been wrongly abused.
And yes, an M1919 browning would likely down a plane. Wouldn't sink a ship, realistically. It has the same problem as privately owned warships and warplanes, though, being the prohibitively high price tag. At around 400 million for the newest fighter jets, and much more for warships, we'll always be outgunned by state-backed military.
As you say, a large amount of people fighting for a cause can be very powerful. That is why I am saying I would like our citizens to be armed. It is more efficient to use firearms and makes it harder for the government to abuse its power. The riots ended for a reason. Unfortunately, in this situation force and violence are the most effective means to preventing corruption. Not to be wishy-washy, but in the scenario you are giving me it is unlikely people would fight face-to-face with the military. Guerilla warfare tactics would likely be utilized. Also, it is possible for an m1919 to sink a ship, although it would be notably hard to do (unless it was carrying fuel or other vehicles).
While an elementary school full of dead children is horrifying, I find unarmed and defenseless citizens to be more horrifying. In the event a government becomes corrupt, it is much better for the citizens to be armed than not. Am I wrong?
Hmmm... I don't think more guns would solve anything, but I get your point, and I mostly agree. The ideal way for the government to solve this in my opinion, is to limit the weapon-producing corporations, not the people, and for the government to dissolve the military and police force, and then dissolve itself
but that would never happen.