what are you shooting? (handgun thread)

[Qapla']

So just making sure I get this right, are you implying that the general US public today needs guns because the US army slaughtered natives that resisted outsiders invading their land, or because there was a war between the invaders and the British, another invader?

Need? Rights aren't based on need. If they were, they wouldn't exist; anyone can point out that humanity has survived most of its existence without what we know of as freedom of speech, the right to a trial, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Those who govern in a democracy, are the people. If democracy fails I get the point, yet how often do established democracies fail?

Democratically elected governments have turned tyrannous and/or democidal before.

 

[daveb]

Those who govern in a democracy, are the people. If democracy fails I get the point, yet how often do established democracies fail?

Ask the "people" in Venezuela.

Note that defending against Govt tyranny is not why I own firearms. But.

 

[AFKitchenknivesguy]

Guns don't cause mass shootings.
Each shot required a human to pull the trigger.

Some non-gun mass-casualty events over the past few decades:

• oil and gasoline used to commit arson and blow up cars
• nails and propane tanks used to make IEDs
• nitrogen fertilizer used to make fuel-air explosives
• cars/SUVs used to run people over
• jets hijacked with box cutters were used to ram buildings

Humans perpetrate violence.

And if guns were gone, expect A LOT more of this. If fact, what dangerous and sharp thing is in about every household? Slippery slope that affects us ALL.

 

[MarcelNL]

let's keep it at a cultural difference, I was looking for some sort of explanation in an attempt to understand the lack of what I think is a visible concern about mass shootings, or any idea about what to do about them. I'm well aware of the right to arms in the US, and that's fine with me. It's just that to me the reasons for that right might well have changed over the 200 something years the US as we know it does exist, but on the other hand that may well prove to be too short a period to make the felt need go away in the mindset.
If my questioning came across as being moralistically superior I apologize, it was/is a serious attempt to understand, some of the responses were let's say vastly culturally different.

 

[bkultra]

"To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens."

-Adolf Hitler

If he's for it, put me down as against

 

[daveb]

Eva was kind of hot.....

 

[sansho]

I found this article an interesting read;
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html...

interesting opinion piece. got a few chuckles reading it

in addition to what @Barmoley said...

Usually, the motivation for purchasing the AR-15 is simple: People want one because they want one.

seriously... am i crazy for not seeing anything wrong with that?

Most times, the person who buys an AR-15 comes into the store already knowing that they intend to purchase one.

i've never personally heard of anyone impulse buying a gun. by this i mean that no one i personally know has ever gone into a store knowing they wanted a gun and then just bought whatever was available. maybe a small compromise if the specific style or something was unavailable, but never just a random gun.
i have always known exactly what i wanted well in advance of buying it. what's this guy talking about? lol

 

[AFKitchenknivesguy]

let's keep it at a cultural difference, I was looking for some sort of explanation in an attempt to understand the lack of what I think is a visible concern about mass shootings, or any idea about what to do about them. I'm well aware of the right to arms in the US, and that's fine with me. It's just that to me the reasons for that right might well have changed over the 200 something years the US as we know it does exist, but on the other hand that may well prove to be too short a period to make the felt need go away in the mindset.
If my questioning came across as being moralistically superior I apologize, it was/is a serious attempt to understand, some of the responses were let's say vastly culturally different.

The thing about time...it's irrelevant. People will always be people. As such, watch your back.

 

[Greasylake]

Also, the part in the article where the author said the guys in the North Hollywood shootout had semi-auto rifles is just plain wrong. The guys illegally purchased semi auto rifles (illegally purchased because they were already felons) and then ultra-illegally converted them into full auto rifles. Just wanted to clear that up to show how out gunned the cops were with their shotguns and pistols at long range.

Also, .223 ammo is like .40 a round, not over a dollar.

 

[Luftmensch]

"To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens."

I'm always wary of "quoting" dictators.

This quote is controversial. It cannot be directly attributed to Hitler. It seems he did say similar things... albeit far less terse and bumper-sticker worthy. It also looks like was talking in the context of being an occupying force. So it might not be directly relevant anyway. Any army that is occupying a territory (for the right or the wrong reasons) will want to disarm the locals. It is a not particularly insightful tactic.

 

[labor of love]

Any army that is occupying a territory (for the right or the wrong reasons) will want to disarm the locals. It is a not particularly insightful tactic.

Lol, that’s a pretty good argument for gun ownership ngl

 

[Luftmensch]

Lol, that’s a pretty good argument for gun ownership ngl

Having aggressive neighbours is certainly a good reason to have a well resourced military. I won't argue against that... and the world seems to be lacing up its boots right now...

I'm not commenting for or against the argument encapsulated by the quote... I'm just saying... it seems likely the quote can't be directly attribute it to Hitler. Besides which, I think invoking dictators and atrocities in these sorts of discussion can be offensive to those who actually suffered.

 

[bkultra]

A more direct quote...

Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police."


I wouldn't use snopes as a "fact checker" especially when it comes to politics.

Dictators and atrocities are reason alone to bear arms. Ignoring the past can be more damaging than addressing it.

 

[Luftmensch]

I wouldn't use snopes as a "fact checker" especially when it comes to politics.

Fair enough... I suspected this would be the response. On the other hand... that's not helpful. Feel free to find a couple of independent, original sources:

To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.

... if you like? You also replied with the exact same quote Snopes contained. I maintain that the longer verifiable quote it is hardly a good bumper sticker

More importantly...history requires context. Do Americans want arms so that they can conquer Russia and eastern Europe (Canada or Mexico perhaps)?? Because Hitler was not talking about disarming the Germans. He was talking about subjugating neighbours.


I came here to try and understand the belief system around the second amendment. It is very alien to non-Americans. I am not trying to convince an American either which way... I'll am trying to pay this thread that respect. It is for Americans and their legal system to sort out. That said it is reasonable for me to reply to statements made in relation to my country.


I know you repeated the quote in a well meaning way. I am also certain you are against fascism... Even if I was convinced the quote is true... I dont think it is relevant and its context maybe offensive. There are better arguments to be made ...

 

[AFKitchenknivesguy]

As I've written many times now, there are things that cannot be understood or explained, especially when culture and your only source of information is the "news".

 

[bkultra]

If you want to understand the second amendment then understand this.

The Bill of Rights is not granting these rights upon the American masses. These are natural "God given" rights to all. The point of the 2nd wasn't to grant power, but to limit the governments ability to infringe upon these natural rights.

 

[9mmbhp]

A more direct quote...

Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police."

The full quote is:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

It is clear from the bolded text that the context is about disarming citizens in Nazi occupied territory but Germany had already established domestic gun control in 1938, starting with registration in 1931:

“In 1931, Weimar (Republic government) authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover… In reaction to such threats, the (Weimer) government authorized the registration of all firearms … for ‘public safety.’ The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.... in 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the (gun registration) records (of the former Weimer government) to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. …” (“How the Nazis Used Gun Control,” by Stephen P. Halbrook, National Review, Dec. 2, 2013.)

Adolf Hitler, 1935 (1938?): "This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Note that the law didn't apply equally to all citizens but targeted specific demographics (see: Nazi Gun Laws) and favored others.

Dictators and atrocities are reason alone to bear arms. Ignoring the past can be more damaging than addressing it.

• Heinrich Himmler: “Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as having guns doesn’t serve the State.
  
  
• Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
• Josef Stalin: “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
  The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
  
  
• Mao Tze Tung: “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
  
  China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

China currently has around 1 million Turkish Uyghurs in "re-education camps" and denies any accusations of genocide.​

• Idi Amin: “I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me.”

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.​

• Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century’s most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.

 

[9mmbhp]

I came here to try and understand the belief system around the second amendment. It is very alien to non-Americans. I am not trying to convince an American either which way... I'll am trying to pay this thread that respect. It is for Americans and their legal system to sort out.

Here's a bumper-sticker soundbite that might help

Euripides: "I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

The United States was founded on the principles of personal responsibility, self-reliance and a distaste for distant, capricious governance.

The Second Amendment also provides for self-defense.

The rights we have and the freedoms we enjoy have a cost.

Presumption of innocence says everyone has those rights and freedoms until found guilty of breaking a law (Fourteenth Amendment).
Laws are enforced post-facto, their consequences are intended as preventative deterrents.
Society is based on the assumption everyone will comply with the established laws.
Reality is that a small percentage do not.
Reliably identifying them a priori is impossible.

Infringing the rights of the many due to the actions of a few (i.e., taking away guns) is not the answer.

Facts of life: the world is a dangerous place, psychopaths/sociopaths/stupid/irrational people exist.

When unprovoked violence is directed at me I need to be prepared to respond.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to risk their lives to protect mine.
(DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services and Castle Rock v. Gonzales)

 

[Luftmensch]

I am just trying to communicate:

I think invoking dictators and atrocities in these sorts of discussion can be offensive to those who actually suffered.

There are better arguments to be made ...

If inclusive conversations matter, it might be worth considering?. But fair enough... if this is another cultural misalignment... then so be it. Thanks for the patience

 

[9mmbhp]

Deleted.

 

[Luftmensch]

Do you have an opinion on people protesting at funerals?

 

[AFKitchenknivesguy]

Do you have an opinion on people protesting at funerals?

What about people protesting outside a bar in Australia for saying, "G'day mate"?

Since we are making up things to get upset about now.

 

[Luftmensch]

What about people protesting outside a bar in Australia for saying, "G'day mate"?

I am sure it would be met with good humour.

I am just saying, good arguments can be made without coopting events that are painful for those who were directly impacted? You may have good reasons why 'war is bad'... you may have free speech on your side... but protesting at a soldier's funeral is in poor taste. This isn't so controversial? It is common and decent.


Anyway fellas... this has been distraction enough from the original intent of the thread - people with a common interest sharing their passion. Thank you for being patient. I'll let you get back to it!

 

[AFKitchenknivesguy]

I am sure it would be met with good humour.

I am just saying, good arguments can be made without coopting events that are painful for those who were directly impacted? You may have good reasons why 'war is bad'... you may have free speech on your side... but protesting at a soldier's funeral is in poor taste. This isn't so controversial? It is common and decent.


Anyway fellas... this has been distraction enough from the original intent of the thread - people with a common interest sharing their passion. Thank you for being patient. I'll let you get back to it!

So, you say it would be met with good humor, yet you speak for every single Australian? Even those with mental health issues?

This is the point I keep trying to pound home, yet I am ignored.

The vast majority will "do the right thing", yet there will always be a small part of the population that does not/cannot. Should laws be instituted for the shortcoming of the very few, or the majority? For the subject of guns in America, there are manners of difficulty in LEGALLY getting a firearm. Guess what? NOTHING is perfect. And the fact that guns are already invented, they will not go away...ever. with 3D printing, a new era of guns are emerging. Adapt, or get out of the way.

Edit: I just wanted to add that questions are good, and welcome. It's only when answers have been given, ignored, and repeated questions of the same sort or made, that people become frustrated and cease communication. I like to think of myself as intelligent, yet there are things that no matter how explained to me, I will not understand. Guns are that, for you.

 

[Qapla']

Do you have an opinion on people protesting at funerals?

I am just saying, good arguments can be made without coopting events that are painful for those who were directly impacted? You may have good reasons why 'war is bad'... you may have free speech on your side... but protesting at a soldier's funeral is in poor taste. This isn't so controversial? It is common and decent.

A society that seeks to remain free does not recognize a "mourner's veto" on fundamental liberty.

Someone pointing and laughing at another's funeral, or cursing them for whatever cause they stood for in life, or whatever else may or may not be at most somewhat of an åsshøle (or to phrase it more politely as you did, as tasteless and not very decent), but not a priori a criminal. Please refer to the First Amendment.

What about people protesting outside a bar in Australia for saying, "G'day mate"?

Since we are making up things to get upset about now.

I don't know about "G'day mate" in Australia, but "Kia ora mate" in New Zealand will get you laughed at, as Coca-Cola found out the hard way (kia ora = g'day; mate = death/decay/disaster; so to NZ'ers it came across like saying "Drink Coca-Cola! Greetings death!").

 

[AFKitchenknivesguy]

My ignorance is exposed. I couldn't think of a relevant insult in the Australian culture, so I referred to crocodile dundee.

 

[Qapla']

My ignorance is exposed. I couldn't think of a relevant insult in the Australian culture, so I referred to crocodile dundee.

Wasn't calling anyone ignorant; just pointing out a bit of trivia.

 

[AFKitchenknivesguy]

Wasn't calling anyone ignorant; just pointing out a bit of trivia.

No doubt, calling myself out.

 

[Luftmensch]

A society that seeks to remain free does not recognize a "mourner's veto" on fundamental liberty.

Someone pointing and laughing at another's funeral, or cursing them for whatever cause they stood for in life, or whatever else may or may not be at most somewhat of an åsshøle (or to phrase it more politely as you did, as tasteless and not very decent), but not a priori a criminal. Please refer to the First Amendment.

That is my exact point. There is a profound difference between legal and decent. There is also a profound difference between 'correct' and decent. Being legal doesn't make you decent. Being 'correct' doesn't make you decent... and when it comes to moral/social issues, being 'correct' can be ambiguous anyway.

People who are more concerned about being 'right' than an åsshøle probably aren't going to be very good or interesting company.

I respect @bkultra for saying his piece and letting sleeping dogs lie.

I don't know about "G'day mate" in Australia, but "Kia ora mate" in New Zealand will get you laughed at, as Coca-Cola found out the hard way (kia ora = g'day; mate = death/decay/disaster; so to NZ'ers it came across like saying "Drink Coca-Cola! Greetings death!").

Thanks for the humour!! Good trivia... I didn't know about it! There are a few enertaining corporate f!ck ups. The Mitsubishi Pajero immediately jumped to mind. Of course... it had to be sold in Spain and South America as the Montero... (Pajero meaning wanker)

 

[PFS]

Just a few…..