General / Off-Topic Gun Nut America

[Cydramech]

But why would you need a machine gun?

What would you use it for? And I don't mean burst or fully automatic assault rifles - GPMG's.

Why can't I buy a ZSU-23-4 and park it next to my Nissan, and point the turret at the mail van just in case he/she goes on a junk-mail delivery rampage?

Once again, my favorite Heinlein quote: I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

I will own whatever I damn well please. I need no laws, and I will break whatever rules you place before me to stop me. If you want to stop me (and you won't; as I said, the law-abiding citizen will only roll over and die), you're certainly welcome to by the physical rules of the universe. But at the end of the day, it is the obligation of those that seek to restrict the actions and properties of others to give reason for their cases.

One more thing.

Anarchy is not "evil" just amoral. Not the same thing but just as bad. IF not worst. You never know what they going to do. No wonder they don't trust anybody after all we all see the world trough our own eyes and view as our own reflections. Why i don't trust in any body? Because the butt holes, like them... Not the same thing, not at all. be "good" and decent is not required by their imaginary utopia, what's is above good and bad.
The only problem? It cannot exist. because, our current world civilization, and technological achievements, our level of knowledge, ects, ects are only maintainable with a big social economical, and political infrastructure.

Without it its crumbles to dust. Yet again? Take a look into Syria, or Afghanistan. This is what happened there.
And to put it nicely, i don't think the anonymous boys can exist if someone pulls out the plug of their computer, or just simply disconnect them from the internet... So much about this!

And why we need the concepts like good and bad and decency? Simple! without it the society cannot exist.

Robert Higgs –

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

 

[Asp Explorer]

(and you won't; as I said, the law-abiding citizen will only roll over and die.

Ahh - but I'm not a US citizen. It's like the ultimate get-out-of-Dodge card

 

[Cydramech]

Ahh - but I'm not a US citizen. It's like the ultimate get-out-of-Dodge card

It doesn't matter where you live. So long as you're a law-abiding citizen, you have forfeited your own will to the grave deity of government. It is your obligation to die wherein the law commands it.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It doesn't matter where you live. So long as you're a law-abiding citizen, you have forfeited your own will to the grave deity of government. It is your obligation to die wherein the law commands it.

But we all live or die under laws - or the breaking of them. Wether it's criminal law, civil law, martial law, no law at all - the laws of thermodynamics will eventually get you

 

[Cydramech]

But we all live or die under laws - or the breaking of them. Wether it's criminal law, civil law, martial law, no law at all - the laws of thermodynamics will eventually get you

No, most people do not live by any law except what they find convenient for themselves. The "law-abiding citizen" is a post-modern, Marxist invention. From the very beginning of our existence, humans have been fascinated with eating the forbidden fruit and we have always done exactly that. Only in the last century (more like the last half-century) has anyone actually promoted this fantastical belief made up of fairy dust that humans are necessarily good, little creatures who give a damn about what some king's edict says.

 

[Asp Explorer]

The "law-abiding citizen" is a post-modern, Marxist invention.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Cydramech]

Would you care to elaborate?

Marxism and the state it attempts to create depend exclusively on creating a system in which bad people will be weeded out from influencing. The post-modern society being advocated for is one in which only those with a preselected personality, also the same virtues as in the Marxist view, will control the show. Control is always being advocated for by those that believe they can somehow weed out evil, not knowing that all humans are prone to eating the forbidden fruit.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I take it you really like this Marx guy

Did he have machine guns too?

 

[beelbeebub]

Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square
Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub
Police: Suspect Shot Dead During Attempted Robbery In Brooklyn Park
Concealed Carrying Hero Battled Mass Shooter In Houston: Media Silent



Private citizens tend to have better training than most cops.



Murder & Homicide Rates Before & After Gun Bans
Comparing Murder Rates Across Countries
The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier
Choose Your Own Crime Stats - AdmisTheNoise
Gun Crimes Plummet Even as Gun Sales Rise
CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
U.S. gun violence: The story in charts and graphs
The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Additionally:

Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
The Klans' Favorite Law
Gun Clubs at School: Not so long ago, they were common — and safe.
Violence, Guns, & Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis
Old White Guys and the Chuck Norris Rule

To address your examples of "good guy with a gun".

Every year more than 700 (2005-10 average is 760) Americans are unintentionally killed with a fire arm. That's 2 a day then some.

For comparison total firearm deaths in the UK around 50 a year, that's including murder, police shootings and accidental deaths. Accidental deaths are extremely rare even accounting for population.

Now, a mass shooting events kill about 1 person a day on average (obviously clumped together to be mass shootings).

So if we assumed that "good guys" with guns were able to stop every single mass shooting and save those 365 or so lives a year, the number of accidental deaths would outweigh the saved lives by 2:1. And that's before we even look at suicide and homicide.

I'm not arguing that guns are bad, merely that mass gun ownership is bad.

I was brought up shooting, first an air rifle then a small shotgun before a double barrel. We used the air gun for training and fun "plinking", the shotguns for keeping the squirrels and pigeons and even the odd fox at bay from our veggies and chickens. I am interested in the mechanics of obscure firearms (the Madsen LMG being my favourite). Shooting is a fun pastime and in some areas a useful tool. In some ways our gun laws in the UK are over stringent, a work colleague of mine was a near Olympic standard pistol shooter, until it was rendered effectively impossible to practice in the UK.

however there is a world of difference between a bit of plinking with an air rifle or keeping the bunny population down with a shotgun or 22 and carrying a 9mm pistol around the high street or keeping a self loading rifle (the term assault weapon is meaningless) in my car or home for "self defence" or in case the government decides to get me.

The UK seems to have the balance a bit on the restrictive side, although the pay off is that fire arm crimes are super rare and mass shootings almost unheard of. In general people in the UK don't feel the need for "self defence" because there is little to defend against.

Oh and the link you posted showing rising murder rates after the mid 90's handgun ban, doesn't take into account the rise in population (the number of murders has been rising steadily as the population increased) nor does it take into account the huge spike in the early 00's being caused by the Dr Shipman case, where one man was responsible for 175 or so deaths (none using firearms) which show up in one year as that is when he was prosecuted. The number of murders has been falling since then and is now lower than the pre handgun ban figure despite a higher population (i.e. the rate is much lower).

 

[Cydramech]

I take it you really like this Marx guy

Did he have machine guns too?

I'm ignoring your post here.

I'm not arguing that guns are bad, merely that mass gun ownership is bad.

The links I posted were to address specific questions, that's it. I'm not arguing good vs. bad. What I will argue is that if you want to think it bad that I own a gun, then you best get the hell up and come take it from me, otherwise you don't have the right to tell me what is good or bad. Essentially, Molon Labe.

 

[GJ51]

To address your examples of "good guy with a gun".

Every year more than 700 (2005-10 average is 760) Americans are unintentionally killed with a fire arm. That's 2 a day then some.

For comparison total firearm deaths in the UK around 50 a year, that's including murder, police shootings and accidental deaths. Accidental deaths are extremely rare even accounting for population.

Not really given that the population of the US is roughly 7 times that of England, the difference is statistically insignificant as a percentage of population.

But, good try.

There are approximately 33,000 auto fatalities per year in the US.

Ban cars

 

[Asp Explorer]

What I will argue is that if you want to think it bad that I own a gun, then you best get the hell up and come take it from me, otherwise you don't have the right to tell me what is good or bad. Essentially, Molon Labe.

It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. All that matters is that the established law of the land can decide that you can't own firearms - for whatever reason - and then they will come and take them. They can do that because it's the law. And if you, or anyone else resists, is suspected of resisting, has an appearance of resisting, or if the law enforcement is having a bad day - well, it's a pretty safe bet to expect a sudden onset of fatal lead poisoning.

That should never happen - but of course it does.

There are ways of protesting and opposing this - but appearing to defy the law isn't one of them.

 

[Talarin]

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

I understand that point that you make, and the appeal of the extreme individualism that you claim. And you're welcome to it, provided that you don't come anywhere near me or my family.

But you utterly miss the point as to why Anarchists didn't commit the atrocities you point out. You also fail to note that Anarchists also didn't create the wonderful technology you use to share your views with us, create and maintain the infrastructure used to design and power your home or even design and manufacture the weapons you so passionately defend. You're not capable of it. You are, in effect, a parasite living off the proceeds of the society you sneer at.

If that's not true; I urge you to fulfill the promise of your creed. Put down the weapons you didn't make. Turn off the computer you didn't design. Disconnect the power to your home and live off the wood that you cut. I bet anarchy will suddenly look a lot less appealing.

The state is the natural byproduct of a desire to collaborate. It starts with neighbours needing to maintain infrastructure, share resources and act to the mutual benefit of each other - much as I imagine you might do with the people you know. It grows into community and from there into nationhood. Over time, it does become a compulsory membership - with people born into a form of servitude in a system they had no say over. But the returns of this, even for the poorest in our society (in the West, at least) improve the outlook of us all. It's not perfect; far from it. But I'd sooner my family grew up in a society that advanced socially, economically and technologically than one that embraced a complete lack of law, order or respect for other individuals.

Rant over.

 

[Cydramech]

It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. All that matters is that the established law of the land can decide that you can't own firearms - for whatever reason - and then they will come and take them. They can do that because it's the law. And if you, or anyone else resists, is suspected of resisting, has an appearance of resisting, or if the law enforcement is having a bad day - well, it's a pretty safe bet to expect a sudden onset of fatal lead poisoning.

That should never happen - but of course it does.

There are ways of protesting and opposing this - but appearing to defy the law isn't one of them.

Your "laws of the land" are nothing more than words on a piece of paper you take likened to any religious text. The only value in the law or following it is created by just its enforcers and believers, whose value entirely depends on their faith, whereas breaking the law actually has its own intrinsic value. I don't need your belief in a "higher standard" of protest (which in reality changes nothing), because my goal is to render your laws irrelevant.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Your "laws of the land" are nothing more than words on a piece of paper you take likened to any religious text. The only value in the law or following it is created by just its enforcers and believers, whose value entirely depends on their faith, whereas breaking the law actually has its own intrinsic value. I don't need your belief in a "higher standard" of protest (which in reality changes nothing), because my goal is to render your laws irrelevant.

And how do you plan to accomplish that?

 

[Cydramech]

I understand that point that you make, and the appeal of the extreme individualism that you claim. And you're welcome to it, provided that you don't come anywhere near me or my family.

But you utterly miss the point as to why Anarchists didn't commit the atrocities you point out. You also fail to note that Anarchists also didn't create the wonderful technology you use to share your views with us, create and maintain the infrastructure used to design and power your home or even design and manufacture the weapons you so passionately defend. You're not capable of it. You are, in effect, a parasite living off the proceeds of the society you sneer at.

If that's not true; I urge you to fulfill the promise of your creed. Put down the weapons you didn't make. Turn off the computer you didn't design. Disconnect the power to your home and live off the wood that you cut. I bet anarchy will suddenly look a lot less appealing.

The state is the natural byproduct of a desire to collaborate. It starts with neighbours needing to maintain infrastructure, share resources and act to the mutual benefit of each other - much as I imagine you might do with the people you know. It grows into community and from there into nationhood. Over time, it does become a compulsory membership - with people born into a form of servitude in a system they had no say over. But the returns of this, even for the poorest in our society (in the West, at least) improve the outlook of us all. It's not perfect; far from it. But I'd sooner my family grew up in a society that advanced socially, economically and technologically than one that embraced a complete lack of law, order or respect for other individuals.

Rant over.

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein

"If individual liberty goes, then surely all is lost, for if the individual ceases to count, what is left of society? … No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. … Every individual must have the fullest liberty to use his talents. … Individual liberty and inter-dependence are both essential for life in society." - Mohandas K. Gandhi

"All this talk: the state should do this or that, ultimately means: the police should force consumers to behave otherwise than they would behave spontaneously." - Ludwig von Mises

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can’t really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." - Murray Rothbard

 

[Cydramech]

And how do you plan to accomplish that?

I don't plan on accomplishing it. It's happening as we speak, and you're part of the cogs in the system that's responsible. The more laws are made, the more laws are made irrelevant.

 

[Talarin]

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein

"If individual liberty goes, then surely all is lost, for if the individual ceases to count, what is left of society? … No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. … Every individual must have the fullest liberty to use his talents. … Individual liberty and inter-dependence are both essential for life in society." - Mohandas K. Gandhi

"All this talk: the state should do this or that, ultimately means: the police should force consumers to behave otherwise than they would behave spontaneously." - Ludwig von Mises

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can’t really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." - Murray Rothbard

Ah, yes. Quotes about freedom. Without any context about the quotes. In a discussion about gun control. That's not an argument. These are platitudes that you've dug out and not understood. Do you really think a physicist, a solicitor (lawyer for you, as I believe you're American) and two economists would support your views? Really?

 

[Cydramech]

Ah, yes. Quotes about freedom. Without any context about the quotes. In a discussion about gun control. That's not an argument. These are platitudes that you've dug out and not understood. Do you really think a physicist, a solicitor (lawyer for you, as I believe you're American) and two economists would support your views? Really?

Gandhi was an anarchist. Mises was an anarchist-leaning minarchist (and the Mises Institute is practically an anarchist organization). Rothbard was an anarchist. So that just leaves Einstein, though he came to regret working with the government. I also have dozens of other anarchists to quote from.

Furthermore, it only gives me additional leverage to quote non-anarchists as it proves most people are far more anarchist than they want to admit. There is not a single position in limiting government or keeping government under some umbrella control, that was not stolen from anarchist philosophy. The minarchist has always been a hypocrite, only six months of logic before he becomes an anarchist.

 

[AJW]

Regarding the Einstein quotation, its context may be found here: http://swat150.swarthmore.edu/1938-albert-einsteins-commencement-address.html I suggest people read it in full if they want to understand what Einstein was discussing - it has next to nothing to do with support for anarchist ideals.