Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well? I suppose they all also wore shoes. That makes about as much sense as your shitty analogy, and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

Please refer to my previous post for some statistics behind gun violence.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please refer to my previous post for some statistics behind gun violence.

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.

That's because the types of places that start adopting concealed carry laws and gun restrictions are also the types of places that have high rates of homicide, assault, rape, and robbery.

And you are using statistics from a self-report survey, the National Self Defense Survey? You know how many biases are tainting that data? You may not be aware of this, but the field of Criminology has a relatively low level scientific integrity compared to other fields. You have to be very careful about your sources in this area.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's because the types of places that start adopting concealed carry laws and gun restrictions are also the types of places that have high rates of homicide, assault, rape, and robbery.

So.. your saying that places with high rates of homicide, assault, rape, and robbery that allow their law abiding citizens to conceal carry see a drastic reduction in said crimes? This is a good thing, no?

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you are using statistics from a self-report survey, the National Self Defense Survey? You know how many biases are tainting that data? You may not be aware of this, but the field of Criminology has a relatively low level scientific integrity compared to other fields. You have to be very careful about your sources in this area.

Previous statistic sources (posted again for your pleasure)

Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Source: Northwestern University School of Law
Source: University of Chicago Law School
Source: The American Journal of Psychiatry March
------------------------------
Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."

In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."

Source: The National Institute of Justice, in its survey Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well?

Yes those were men. That's not my point however. It's the ideology those men shared with gun control nuts. That is the correlating point. Nice straw man though!

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well? I suppose they all also wore shoes. That makes about as much sense as your shitty analogy, and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

I would call you out for straw manning it, but you even failed at that. You just sound like an idiot. Refute his point head on (Despots demanding relinquish guns prior to atrocities committed) not make a stupid analogy about wearing shoes.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would call you out for straw manning it, but you even failed at that. You just sound like an idiot. Refute his point head on (Despots demanding relinquish guns prior to atrocities committed) not make a stupid analogy about wearing shoes.

Aw shit I got called out for strawmanning a stupid analogy for quoting...... a strawmanned stupid analogy.

Are you seriously implying our current political culture has ANY relevance to those authoritarian regimes? The argument at hand is: "Constitutional Republic with a cultural heritage of respect for the common law tradition placing restrictions on gun ownership", it's not some link in a chain leading to to a police state you fucking survivalist moron.

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Aw shit I got called out for strawmanning a stupid analogy for quoting...... a strawmanned stupid analogy.

Are you seriously implying our current political culture has ANY relevance to those authoritarian regimes? The argument at hand is: "Constitutional Republic with a cultural heritage of respect for the common law tradition placing restrictions on gun ownership", it's not some link in a chain leading to to a police state you fucking survivalist moron.

You sound slightly mad. Are you mad?

[Turp]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Aw shit I got called out for strawmanning a stupid analogy for quoting...... a strawmanned stupid analogy.

Are you seriously implying our current political culture has ANY relevance to those authoritarian regimes? The argument at hand is: "Constitutional Republic with a cultural heritage of respect for the common law tradition placing restrictions on gun ownership", it's not some link in a chain leading to to a police state you fucking survivalist moron.

In your eyes what is a police state? we have military and police roaming the streets (end of posse commentatus and what Hitler one of those regimes did), Free speech zones where you can only protest in these certain zones , NDAA bill passed which is a bill that is like wiping your ass with the constitution and ending due process in court if they say so ( Hitler / China / North korea all just do this and not put it into law like we have done), Attorney general of the United States Eric Holder on TV saying we need to brain wash the public into gun control ( Again they also did this ), Bills like SOPA / CISPA to censor the internet ( Same shit in those regimes censoring the TV) , We have Fluoride in our water ( Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile ) and the list goes on and on, stay in denial all you want , but tyranny is abroad and denial just makes you part of the problem.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In your eyes what is a police state? we have military and police roaming the streets (end of posse commentatus and what Hitler one of those regimes did), Free speech zones where you can only protest in these certain zones , NDAA bill passed which is a bill that is like wiping your ass with the constitution and ending due process in court if they say so ( Hitler / China / North korea all just do this and not put it into law like we have done), Attorney general of the United States Eric Holder on TV saying we need to brain wash the public into gun control ( Again they also did this ), Bills like SOPA / CISPA to censor the internet ( Same shit in those regimes censoring the TV) , We have Fluoride in our water ( Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile ) and the list goes on and on, stay in denial all you want , but tyranny is abroad and denial just makes you part of the problem.

Quit trying to imply the United States is a police state. We are a constitutional republic, considerably more conservative even than other republics in Europe who don't suffer the "police state" baggage. We have an apparatus for enforcing the rule of law, a police force whose reach is severely limited. Do they occasionally abuse their power? Yes. Are they human? Yes. Should that completely de-legitimize the entire concept of policing? No.

What would it take for you to be happy with governmental authority? Would you like anarchy? Do you want things here to be like they are in Somalia, where there is no rule of law or legitimate centralized government? Why do you obsessively fear one end of the extreme, totalitarianism, but neglect the other, anarchy?

Why is it that even the most minor act of government, like water fluoridation, or the passing of laws meant more to protect the profits of media enterprises than facilitate propaganda, are steps toward Nazi-on-Earth, but deregulation and reductions in governmental authority aren't steps toward Somalian anarchy?

Try to see outside of black-and-white thinking and acknowledge that political thought exists on a spectrum, where we ideally tend toward the middle. It's so incredibly outlandish for you to associate our behaviors with descent into a fascist police state, for so many reasons, it just boggles my mind how you can possibly think this.

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In the spring of 1967, following close to a decade of relative calm, Israel found itself poised for war against four of its Arab neighbors.

According to all the military analysts and pundits, it was to be a lopsided match. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) consisted of 275,000 troops, compared to the 456,000 soldiers of the combined Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian armies. The united Arab forces also had a decided edge with regards to weaponry and military equipment: they boasted more than double the amount of tanks, and close to four times the amount of combat aircraft. The three-week period preceding the Six-Day War was one of dread, shock and fright for the residents of the Holy Land.

With close to two and a half million Jews living in the tiny country, it had the highest concentration of Jews since pre-Holocaust Eastern Europe. So pessimistic was the outlook that the nation’s cemeteries and national parks were marked to become gravesites for the many who would surely perish in the course of the war.

However, despite all the prognostications, by the time the war ended, the territory under Israeli control had tripled in size. Jews returned to sites where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years, sites from which waves of terror were launched against them for so many years. The casualties and losses were painful, but minimal in comparison to all projections. The Jewish nation was miraculously victorious in the face of unbelievable odds.

History books speak of the “Hundred Years’ War,” the “Thirty Years’ War,” and many other long-fought battles. Here, in a matter of six short days, a nation managed to utterly rout not one, but four powerful enemies!

Are you seriously comparing the potency of the Israeli military machine to jewish civilians living scattered among Europe? What the fuck is this retarded source? The arabs had a numerical advantage but their tanks were old and outdated. Their troops were poorly trained and undisciplined, often running at the first sign of combat. Israel had complete and total air superiority, which is essential in modern conflict. Again, the Arabs had more aircraft but of inferior design, and lacked the command and control apparatus to effectively coordinate an air campaign.

They were decisively defeated by a far superior Israeli military, heavily funded by Western nations and provided with top of the line, sophisticated equipment and modern command doctrine and signals intelligence.

I can't believe you are seriously trying to argue that civilian jews, even if armed, could have defended themselves from the Nazi regime, and that you'd cite a conflict involving one of the most well-trained, well-equipped militaries in the world to support that argument.