Guns are bad, mmmmkay?

#51 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@farrell2k said:

@lostrib said:

@farrell2k said:

@lostrib said:

Um, that's a completely different country and culture. I mean, the US can't even keep illegal immigrants and illicit drugs from crossing the boarder, I doubt we'll be able to keep guns out.

Yes, because the Japanese are a magical breed of humans that can do things no one else can. You are just making stupid excuses.

No, but it's a significantly different culture and country.

Also, in the US you would have to amend the constitution, which isn't exactly easy.

Which I take it means to you that they are somehow special and no one else could emulate their position on guns? It used to be culturally acceptable to own slaves. We somehow managed to change our culture to get past that. Sorry, but the "it's a different culture" is a stupid excuse straight from the NRA playbook. Weak sauce.

Actually you're the only one who keeps saying that

You are presupposing that attitudes cannot change about something, and that is clearly not correct.

@Flubbbs said:

@farrell2k said:

Of course it has. The Brady bill was passed at the end of 93, and gun ownership has decline by 13% from 47% in the 70s to 34% today. It exactly prove my point.

lol its not 34%.. they did a gallup poll just a couple years ago that had it estimated at 47%. i wouldnt be suprised if it was higher than that, i know if somebody called me and asked me questions about my guns i would say i didnt own any

You do realize that we are all connected to the Internet and can check the horse shit that comes out of your mouth, right?

http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/four-decade-decline-in-gun-ownership/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@airshocker said:
@farrell2k said:

@lostrib said:

@farrell2k said:

@lostrib said:

Yes, I'm sure banning guns will keep violent criminals from getting them

It worked for the Japanese. They banned private ownership and made penalties for carrying a gun so harsh that even the Yakuza are afraid to be caught with one. Less than 35 crime with a gun yearly in Japan with a population of 120,000,000 people. Gun regulation works, and when taken seriously works well. You are perpetuating that ignorant, paranoid gun nut argument that somehow it's impossible to keep guns away from criminals, when we know for a fact that it is very possible.

Um, that's a completely different country and culture. I mean, the US can't even keep illegal immigrants and illicit drugs from crossing the boarder, I doubt we'll be able to keep guns out.

Yes, because the Japanese are a magical breed of humans that can do things no one else can. You are just making stupid excuses.

Every culture is different. The Japanese have a much higher respect for authority than Americans do, for instance. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Presuppositional apologetics are weak and easily defeated because they presuppose that attitudes about something cannot change, when we know that things clearly can.

See: Slavery, Women's suffrage, the civil right movement, the gay rights movement, and the legalization of pot.

This has nothing to do with gun control. Can you stay on topic please and keep the trolling to a minimal?

You're upset because you are wrong. It's understandable. Just learn from the experience.

A gun has never killed anybody. Bullets do. You're trying to ban the wrong animal.

#52 Edited by plageus900 (996 posts) -

Holy Quote-Chains, Batman.

#53 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -
#54 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

A gun has never killed anybody. Bullets do. You're trying to ban the wrong animal.

I am going to entertain your stupid reply just one time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-gun-parking-lot-killing-7-year-old-son-article-1.1216076

Just saying, you might want to know what the actual killer here before you go on your parade. Without bullets, guns are just awkward hammers. Should we start banning hammers as well? or should we ban bullets and stop all the madness?

#55 Edited by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

A gun has never killed anybody. Bullets do. You're trying to ban the wrong animal.

I am going to entertain your stupid reply just one time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-gun-parking-lot-killing-7-year-old-son-article-1.1216076

Just saying, you might want to know what the actual killer here before you go on your parade. Without bullets, guns are just awkward hammers. Should we start banning hammers as well? or should we ban bullets and stop all the madness?

Banning bullets is a great start! This entire thread has always been about PEOPLE having access to guns.

#56 Posted by Flubbbs (2974 posts) -
#57 Posted by plageus900 (996 posts) -
#58 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

A gun has never killed anybody. Bullets do. You're trying to ban the wrong animal.

I am going to entertain your stupid reply just one time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-gun-parking-lot-killing-7-year-old-son-article-1.1216076

Just saying, you might want to know what the actual killer here before you go on your parade. Without bullets, guns are just awkward hammers. Should we start banning hammers as well? or should we ban bullets and stop all the madness?

Banning bullets is a great start! This entire thread has always been about PEOPLE having access to guns.

You'll never be able to stop people from getting guns.

#59 Posted by Aljosa23 (24755 posts) -

lol gun threads are always so boring. Ideologues vs Ideologues, such sadmess very neckbeard wow

#60 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

lol gun threads are always so boring. Ideologues vs Ideologues, such sadmess very neckbeard wow

Ban beards.

#61 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

A gun has never killed anybody. Bullets do. You're trying to ban the wrong animal.

I am going to entertain your stupid reply just one time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-gun-parking-lot-killing-7-year-old-son-article-1.1216076

Just saying, you might want to know what the actual killer here before you go on your parade. Without bullets, guns are just awkward hammers. Should we start banning hammers as well? or should we ban bullets and stop all the madness?

Banning bullets is a great start! This entire thread has always been about PEOPLE having access to guns.

You'll never be able to stop people from getting guns.

It's impossible to stop all of anything, but it can be drastically reduced. We can't stop everyone from running red lights either. Should we not try?

#62 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

A gun has never killed anybody. Bullets do. You're trying to ban the wrong animal.

I am going to entertain your stupid reply just one time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-gun-parking-lot-killing-7-year-old-son-article-1.1216076

Just saying, you might want to know what the actual killer here before you go on your parade. Without bullets, guns are just awkward hammers. Should we start banning hammers as well? or should we ban bullets and stop all the madness?

Banning bullets is a great start! This entire thread has always been about PEOPLE having access to guns.

You'll never be able to stop people from getting guns.

It's impossible to stop all of anything, but it can be drastically reduced. We can't stop everyone from running red lights either. Should we not try?

Wow, what an insane comparison. The anus has 8 more muscles and is 4 degrees warmer than the vagina, we should at least try with gun control.

#63 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

Wow, what an insane comparison. The anus has 8 more muscles and is 4 degrees warmer than the vagina, we should at least try with gun control.

I don't know what you're going on about with anuses and vaginas, but we should definitely try much more gun control. I am glad we agree.

#64 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

Wow, what an insane comparison. The anus has 8 more muscles and is 4 degrees warmer than the vagina, we should at least try with gun control.

I don't know what you're going on about with anuses and vaginas, but we should definitely try much more gun control. I am glad we agree.

We already have enough gun control, agreed. We need to deal with the real problem relating to gun violence, mental illness.

#65 Posted by plageus900 (996 posts) -
#66 Edited by Riverwolf007 (23532 posts) -

lol, people have horrible risk assessment skills.

every year twice as many people die in slip and fall accidents than die in gun incidents but when was the last time anyone gave a fuck about slip and fall safety?

want to live a safer life?

quit worrying about shit that the news makes a buck on reporting and worry about lighting your stairs better, put sticky things in your tub and quit eating that shitty diet you are stuffing your fat unhealthy face with all the time.

i swear you guys would worry about gmos in your airline dinner while the plane goes down.

#67 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

@purplelabel said:

A gun has never killed anybody. Bullets do. You're trying to ban the wrong animal.

I am going to entertain your stupid reply just one time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-gun-parking-lot-killing-7-year-old-son-article-1.1216076

Just saying, you might want to know what the actual killer here before you go on your parade. Without bullets, guns are just awkward hammers. Should we start banning hammers as well? or should we ban bullets and stop all the madness?

Banning bullets is a great start! This entire thread has always been about PEOPLE having access to guns.

You'll never be able to stop people from getting guns.

It's impossible to stop all of anything, but it can be drastically reduced. We can't stop everyone from running red lights either. Should we not try?

We certainly should take steps to reduce violations of both gun laws and traffic laws, but banning guns and/or cars is kind of an extreme method.

#68 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1395 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@lostrib said:

Um, that's a completely different country and culture. I mean, the US can't even keep illegal immigrants and illicit drugs from crossing the boarder, I doubt we'll be able to keep guns out.

Yes, because the Japanese are a magical breed of humans that can do things no one else can. You are just making stupid excuses.

It's a completely different culture. Try visiting there, and see what we are talking about.

Perhaps it helps that Japan is an island nation, which can easily limit the travel of illegal goods.

#69 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

Why is it that Americans are the only people in the modern world who just can't seem to understand that guns are dangerous and make you less safe? It seems like Americans are always the last to learn anything!

Powerful gun lobbyists combined with sharp economic decline and decades of corporate propaganda. There's your problem.

#70 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

Why is it that Americans are the only people in the modern world who just can't seem to understand that guns are dangerous and make you less safe? It seems like Americans are always the last to learn anything!

Powerful gun lobbyists combined with sharp economic decline and decades of corporate propaganda. There's your problem.

Yup. No wonder so many gun manufacturer CEOs are on the board of the NRA.

#71 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

If we ban guns, people will make bombs, ban bombs, they'll use swords, ban swords, we'll use knives, ban knives we'll end up throwing rocks. how would you like to live in a country where rocks are illegal?

#72 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58095 posts) -

If we ban guns, people will make bombs, ban bombs, they'll use swords, ban swords, we'll use knives, ban knives we'll end up throwing rocks. how would you like to live in a country where rocks are illegal?

Countries have banned guns... and things are, to say the least, just as safe as America. If you have the choice, why not aim high instead of saying **** it, people will find another way...

#73 Edited by Master_Live (14195 posts) -

218, 60 and a signature. That is what you need.

#74 Edited by ad1x2 (5511 posts) -

@Master_Live: To ban guns you would have to repeal the Second Amendment, Congress and the President alone can't do it.

#75 Posted by Master_Live (14195 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@Master_Live: To ban guns you would have to repeal the Second Amendment, Congress and the President alone can't do it.

I meant for gun control bills. Repealing the 2nd amendment is a liberal pipe dream.

#76 Posted by ad1x2 (5511 posts) -

Something people need to realize about the US is that we share a order with a developing country with drug wars going on that is nearly 2,000 miles long. Millions of men, women, and children have illegally crossed that border without being inspected. It isn't like the U.K. or Japan, which are island countries. What works over there may not work here.

#77 Posted by ad1x2 (5511 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@Master_Live: To ban guns you would have to repeal the Second Amendment, Congress and the President alone can't do it.

I meant for gun control bills. Repealing the 2nd amendment is a liberal pipe dream.

Even with a gun control bill it is pretty limited what you can do without violating the Second Amendment. It's pretty much comes down to the bills making it harder to buy a gun while not affecting people who steal them from legal gun owners or sneak them into the country over the Mexican border.

Back in the mid-90s Congress passed the Launtenberg Amendment banning people convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or child from possessing a firearm. To this day people question the constitutionality of that law but considering that the vast majority of the people affected are men who were accused of beating their wives not too many people want to risk opposing it with the possibility of them looking like they support beating women.

#78 Edited by lamprey263 (23195 posts) -

Nukes aren't dangerous, people are. Give everyone a nuke and the ability to use it. Whatever happens it certainly isn't because people have nukes.

See? You see what I did just there?

#79 Posted by comp_atkins (31275 posts) -

it's not the gun, it's what is it in our culture that turns people in violent fucktards?

#80 Posted by leif3141 (117 posts) -

This whole argument is dumb. There are pros and cons to having a society where gun ownership is allowed.

To the anti-gun, explain to me how an elderly man/woman is supposed to protect herself/home from someone of significantly greater stature and aggression? Tasers? Pepper spray? Those are somewhat viable options, but the gun is definitely the trump in this situation.

To pro-gun, please lay off the armed citizen against the gov't argument. That ship sailed pretty much after WW2 here.

See what I just did?

#81 Edited by airshocker (29042 posts) -

@leif3141 said:

This whole argument is dumb. There are pros and cons to having a society where gun ownership is allowed.

To the anti-gun, explain to me how an elderly man/woman is supposed to protect herself/home from someone of significantly greater stature and aggression? Tasers? Pepper spray? Those are somewhat viable options, but the gun is definitely the trump in this situation.

To pro-gun, please lay off the armed citizen against the gov't argument. That ship sailed pretty much after WW2 here.

See what I just did?

Have you not been watching what has been going on in the Middle East? Guerilla warfare is extremely potent against such a large foe. Don't be so quick to underestimate the capabilities of millions of US military veterans that still live in the CONUS and would be willing to fight if it came right down to it. Also, don't discount the fact that many current US servicemembers wouldn't fight their own countrymen and women.

#82 Posted by Brain_Duster (390 posts) -

I don't know, man...I think you're just a pussy who's afraid to live in the real world.

#83 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

We do not regulate guns nearly as much as cars. We live in a country where in 33 of 50 states you can buy a gun at a garage sale, no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required.

And in all 50 states in the US you can buy a car at a garage sale with no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required.

"So your "freedom" to own a gun trumps someone's freedom to live."

Uh, no on is saying that.

#84 Posted by leif3141 (117 posts) -


Have you not been watching what has been going on in the Middle East? Guerilla warfare is extremely potent against such a large foe. Don't be so quick to underestimate the capabilities of millions of US military veterans that still live in the CONUS and would be willing to fight if it came right down to it. Also, don't discount the fact that many current US servicemembers wouldn't fight their own countrymen and women.

I would agree with this, but there are several reasons why I don't think it applies to America.

First, the Islamic states with rebellions generally didn't have the scale of military and police presence we do in this country, at least in regards to the equipment available to them.

Guerrilla warfare generally works because it isn't known who, or where your enemies are and are unable to route them in a conventional sense. In the information age here in America, I don't know how even a small army could remain relatively hidden.

Lastly, we've have it too good in America for too long. The Islamic state's general well being of its citizens hasn't been the greatest for an extended period of time. As such, they are used to hardships and there is a lot of deep seated anger amongst the population. I guess you could make a case this seems to be happening in America currently, but I think we are a ways away before the hardship really forces us to this level.

I think your last sentence is hopefully a reason the civilians and enforcement officers/soldiers wouldn't come to blows, but its not hard to imagine if our government became truly corrupt, that they wouldn't use the media machine to disgrace rebellious individuals so that the masses believe that they are the enemy, not the government. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but the media is already good at dividing us as is, and to be honest, it isn't really "corrupt", just looking for ratings.

#85 Edited by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k said:

We do not regulate guns nearly as much as cars. We live in a country where in 33 of 50 states you can buy a gun at a garage sale, no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required.

And in all 50 states in the US you can buy a car at a garage sale with no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required.

"So your "freedom" to own a gun trumps someone's freedom to live."

Uh, no on is saying that.

Trying to equate a gun to a car is what is known as the fallacy of false equivalence. It's idiotic. You should at least learn the basics of proper argument if you are actually going to try to argue a point.

Oh, and by the way, you cannot drive the car without a license, registration, or insurance, but you can fire a gun as many times as you want without any of those.

#86 Edited by bforrester420 (1368 posts) -

No inanimate object is good or bad. I would argue that most gun owners are better off not having a gun in their homes. Even with training, most people do not react well in an actual stressful situation and their gun either gets them shot or gets the wrong person shot.

I like Chris Rock's take...gun violence would drop dramatically if bullets cost $5,000 each. You would really have to want to kill someone before you pulled that trigger.

#87 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k said:

We do not regulate guns nearly as much as cars. We live in a country where in 33 of 50 states you can buy a gun at a garage sale, no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required.

And in all 50 states in the US you can buy a car at a garage sale with no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required.

"So your "freedom" to own a gun trumps someone's freedom to live."

Uh, no on is saying that.

Trying to equate a gun to a car is what is known as the fallacy of false equivalence. It's idiotic. You should at least learn the basics of proper argument if you are actually going to try to argue a point.

What point, exactly, do you think I'm arguing?

#88 Edited by bforrester420 (1368 posts) -

@airshocker said:

So are cars, yet we allow people the privilege of driving with a proper license. Just because something is capable of being used violently doesn't mean it should be banned.

You haven't made any points, actually. You've conceded the fact that the majority of gun crime isn't committed by legal gun owners. Now you're just flailing.

Actually, you've made one point: You've given more evidence as to the fact that cops aren't always able to protect everybody.

This analogy is terrible...it must be an NRA message point because I see a lot of gun rights advocates comparing guns to cars. A gun's sole practical purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death. A car's sole practical purpose is as a means of transportation. That's a false equivalence argument if I've ever heard one.

#89 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@airshocker said:

So are cars, yet we allow people the privilege of driving with a proper license. Just because something is capable of being used violently doesn't mean it should be banned.

You haven't made any points, actually. You've conceded the fact that the majority of gun crime isn't committed by legal gun owners. Now you're just flailing.

Actually, you've made one point: You've given more evidence as to the fact that cops aren't always able to protect everybody.

This analogy is terrible...it must be an NRA message point because I see a lot of gun rights advocates comparing guns to cars. A gun's sole purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death. A car's sole purpose is as a means of transportation.

"A gun's sole purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death."

Not all of them, let's try not to generalize.

"A car's sole purpose is as a means of transportation."

Yet cars still kill more people every year in this country than guns. Just sayin'...

#90 Posted by airshocker (29042 posts) -

@leif3141 said:

@airshocker said:

Have you not been watching what has been going on in the Middle East? Guerilla warfare is extremely potent against such a large foe. Don't be so quick to underestimate the capabilities of millions of US military veterans that still live in the CONUS and would be willing to fight if it came right down to it. Also, don't discount the fact that many current US servicemembers wouldn't fight their own countrymen and women.

I would agree with this, but there are several reasons why I don't think it applies to America.

First, the Islamic states with rebellions generally didn't have the scale of military and police presence we do in this country, at least in regards to the equipment available to them.

Guerrilla warfare generally works because it isn't known who, or where your enemies are and are unable to route them in a conventional sense. In the information age here in America, I don't know how even a small army could remain relatively hidden.

Lastly, we've have it too good in America for too long. The Islamic state's general well being of its citizens hasn't been the greatest for an extended period of time. As such, they are used to hardships and there is a lot of deep seated anger amongst the population. I guess you could make a case this seems to be happening in America currently, but I think we are a ways away before the hardship really forces us to this level.

I think your last sentence is hopefully a reason the civilians and enforcement officers/soldiers wouldn't come to blows, but its not hard to imagine if our government became truly corrupt, that they wouldn't use the media machine to disgrace rebellious individuals so that the masses believe that they are the enemy, not the government. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but the media is already good at dividing us as is, and to be honest, it isn't really "corrupt", just looking for ratings.

1) That is a double-edged sword. While we have a large military/police presence, we also have a very patriotic military/police culture. How many of those will side with a government they believe is in the wrong? Obviously the answer can't be known until something actually happens, but I would be willing to bet a lot of them would support an insurgency. At least covertly.

2) We have extremely large cities. Easy to get lost in. An insurgency doesn't operate like an army. Yes, it will have a standard command structure, but it would operate in unorthodox ways. Instead of companies and platoons the forces would be organized into smaller components: Individual agents, fire teams and squads would have to be the norm. It would also have to be compartmentalized, just like the armed forces are today. When terrorists capture a sergeant, they don't really learn that much.

3) Your third point is kind of irrelevant. We're not talking about what it would take for an insurrection to happen. We're talking about how a guerilla force could succeed.

#91 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

@thegerg said:

What point, exactly, do you think I'm arguing?

I don't really care. After you demonstrate that you cannot argue without using logical fallacies, anything you say is by definition, just nonsense.

#92 Posted by airshocker (29042 posts) -

@airshocker said:

So are cars, yet we allow people the privilege of driving with a proper license. Just because something is capable of being used violently doesn't mean it should be banned.

You haven't made any points, actually. You've conceded the fact that the majority of gun crime isn't committed by legal gun owners. Now you're just flailing.

Actually, you've made one point: You've given more evidence as to the fact that cops aren't always able to protect everybody.

This analogy is terrible...it must be an NRA message point because I see a lot of gun rights advocates comparing guns to cars. A gun's sole purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death. A car's sole purpose is as a means of transportation.

No, that's not its sole purpose.

#93 Edited by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@thegerg said:

What point, exactly, do you think I'm arguing?

I don't really care. After you demonstrate that you cannot argue without using logical fallacies, anything you say is by definition, just nonsense.

What logical fallacy did I use? You seem to be very confused. All I did was point out that buying a car at a garage sale is less regulated than buying a gun at a garage sale.

#94 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

@leif3141 said:

@airshocker said:

Have you not been watching what has been going on in the Middle East? Guerilla warfare is extremely potent against such a large foe. Don't be so quick to underestimate the capabilities of millions of US military veterans that still live in the CONUS and would be willing to fight if it came right down to it. Also, don't discount the fact that many current US servicemembers wouldn't fight their own countrymen and women.

I would agree with this, but there are several reasons why I don't think it applies to America.

First, the Islamic states with rebellions generally didn't have the scale of military and police presence we do in this country, at least in regards to the equipment available to them.

Guerrilla warfare generally works because it isn't known who, or where your enemies are and are unable to route them in a conventional sense. In the information age here in America, I don't know how even a small army could remain relatively hidden.

Lastly, we've have it too good in America for too long. The Islamic state's general well being of its citizens hasn't been the greatest for an extended period of time. As such, they are used to hardships and there is a lot of deep seated anger amongst the population. I guess you could make a case this seems to be happening in America currently, but I think we are a ways away before the hardship really forces us to this level.

I think your last sentence is hopefully a reason the civilians and enforcement officers/soldiers wouldn't come to blows, but its not hard to imagine if our government became truly corrupt, that they wouldn't use the media machine to disgrace rebellious individuals so that the masses believe that they are the enemy, not the government. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but the media is already good at dividing us as is, and to be honest, it isn't really "corrupt", just looking for ratings.

1) That is a double-edged sword. While we have a large military/police presence, we also have a very patriotic military/police culture. How many of those will side with a government they believe is in the wrong? Obviously the answer can't be known until something actually happens, but I would be willing to bet a lot of them would support an insurgency. At least covertly.

2) We have extremely large cities. Easy to get lost in. An insurgency doesn't operate like an army. Yes, it will have a standard command structure, but it would operate in unorthodox ways. Instead of companies and platoons the forces would be organized into smaller components: Individual agents, fire teams and squads would have to be the norm. It would also have to be compartmentalized, just like the armed forces are today. When terrorists capture a sergeant, they don't really learn that much.

3) Your third point is kind of irrelevant. We're not talking about what it would take for an insurrection to happen. We're talking about how a guerilla force could succeed.

Again with the false equivalencies. Do you ever learn?

Radon gas kills more people year than guns. Just sayin'...

#95 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k said:

@thegerg said:

What point, exactly, do you think I'm arguing?

I don't really care. After you demonstrate that you cannot argue without using logical fallacies, anything you say is by definition, just nonsense.

What logical fallacy did I use? You seem to be very confused. All I did was point out that buying a car at a garage sale is less regulated than buying a gun at a garage sale.

The fallacy of false equivalence.

#96 Edited by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k said:

@thegerg said:

What point, exactly, do you think I'm arguing?

I don't really care. After you demonstrate that you cannot argue without using logical fallacies, anything you say is by definition, just nonsense.

What logical fallacy did I use? You seem to be very confused. All I did was point out that buying a car at a garage sale is less regulated than buying a gun at a garage sale.

The fallacy of false equivalence.

How is pointing out that in all 50 states in the US you can buy a car at a garage sale with no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required a false equivalence?

It's quite clear at this point that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is.

#97 Edited by bforrester420 (1368 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@bforrester420 said:

@airshocker said:

So are cars, yet we allow people the privilege of driving with a proper license. Just because something is capable of being used violently doesn't mean it should be banned.

You haven't made any points, actually. You've conceded the fact that the majority of gun crime isn't committed by legal gun owners. Now you're just flailing.

Actually, you've made one point: You've given more evidence as to the fact that cops aren't always able to protect everybody.

This analogy is terrible...it must be an NRA message point because I see a lot of gun rights advocates comparing guns to cars. A gun's sole purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death. A car's sole purpose is as a means of transportation.

"A gun's sole purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death."

Not all of them, let's try not to generalize.

"A car's sole purpose is as a means of transportation."

Yet cars still kill more people every year in this country than guns. Just sayin'...

What other practical purposes do guns fulfill? Cars are used much more frequently than guns. The average American drives 30 miles per day. Heart disease kills more people per day than guns or cars. Is a ribeye steak somehow analogous to guns too?

#98 Posted by farrell2k (5809 posts) -

@thegerg said:

How is pointing out that in all 50 states in the US you can buy a car at a garage sale with no background check required, no registration required, no license required, no training required, and no insurance required a false equivalence?

Because guns and cars are fundamentally different. I am starting to get the felling that you're one of those U.S. "conservatives", whatever that means these days.

#99 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@bforrester420 said:

@airshocker said:

So are cars, yet we allow people the privilege of driving with a proper license. Just because something is capable of being used violently doesn't mean it should be banned.

You haven't made any points, actually. You've conceded the fact that the majority of gun crime isn't committed by legal gun owners. Now you're just flailing.

Actually, you've made one point: You've given more evidence as to the fact that cops aren't always able to protect everybody.

This analogy is terrible...it must be an NRA message point because I see a lot of gun rights advocates comparing guns to cars. A gun's sole purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death. A car's sole purpose is as a means of transportation.

"A gun's sole purpose is to cause great bodily harm or death."

Not all of them, let's try not to generalize.

"A car's sole purpose is as a means of transportation."

Yet cars still kill more people every year in this country than guns. Just sayin'...

What other practical purposes to guns fulfill?

Sport shooting.

#100 Posted by airshocker (29042 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@leif3141 said:

@airshocker said:

Have you not been watching what has been going on in the Middle East? Guerilla warfare is extremely potent against such a large foe. Don't be so quick to underestimate the capabilities of millions of US military veterans that still live in the CONUS and would be willing to fight if it came right down to it. Also, don't discount the fact that many current US servicemembers wouldn't fight their own countrymen and women.

I would agree with this, but there are several reasons why I don't think it applies to America.

First, the Islamic states with rebellions generally didn't have the scale of military and police presence we do in this country, at least in regards to the equipment available to them.

Guerrilla warfare generally works because it isn't known who, or where your enemies are and are unable to route them in a conventional sense. In the information age here in America, I don't know how even a small army could remain relatively hidden.

Lastly, we've have it too good in America for too long. The Islamic state's general well being of its citizens hasn't been the greatest for an extended period of time. As such, they are used to hardships and there is a lot of deep seated anger amongst the population. I guess you could make a case this seems to be happening in America currently, but I think we are a ways away before the hardship really forces us to this level.

I think your last sentence is hopefully a reason the civilians and enforcement officers/soldiers wouldn't come to blows, but its not hard to imagine if our government became truly corrupt, that they wouldn't use the media machine to disgrace rebellious individuals so that the masses believe that they are the enemy, not the government. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but the media is already good at dividing us as is, and to be honest, it isn't really "corrupt", just looking for ratings.

1) That is a double-edged sword. While we have a large military/police presence, we also have a very patriotic military/police culture. How many of those will side with a government they believe is in the wrong? Obviously the answer can't be known until something actually happens, but I would be willing to bet a lot of them would support an insurgency. At least covertly.

2) We have extremely large cities. Easy to get lost in. An insurgency doesn't operate like an army. Yes, it will have a standard command structure, but it would operate in unorthodox ways. Instead of companies and platoons the forces would be organized into smaller components: Individual agents, fire teams and squads would have to be the norm. It would also have to be compartmentalized, just like the armed forces are today. When terrorists capture a sergeant, they don't really learn that much.

3) Your third point is kind of irrelevant. We're not talking about what it would take for an insurrection to happen. We're talking about how a guerilla force could succeed.

Again with the false equivalencies. Do you ever learn?

Radon gas kills more people year than guns. Just sayin'...

Why are you commenting on a post that doesn't involve you?

What's even more funny is you don't seem to have even given a logical response. Just some regurgitation. Mind your own business, please.