[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39743857]Wouldn't removing all of them take a long time? Especially if it's a big heist.[/QUOTE]
even if they didn't remove them but just had to conceal each one with some sort of RF shield while they loaded them into the van one by one it still would be crazy difficult to pull off. you'd also need your big armored van to be completely RF shielded, which means you'd have to put every gun in it at once and close the door to make sure they weren't sitting there transmitting while you're loading the rest of the guns up
[editline]27th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39743947]The most likely place for the tracker is in the stock, it's the most easy to put something into, and also the location where the chip will get the least wear on it due to the gun being used. All they'd need to do is put all the guns in the back of an insulated van and chop off all the stocks and dump them, thus making the gun somewhat more concealable and removing the tracker from them. The cops would think they'd found the criminal armoury the guns are being stored in, and instead they find a dumpster full of wood and plastic.[/QUOTE]
as I said, they'd need to figure out a way to actually load all the guns without letting any of the devices transmit while they were committing the robbery. that's a lot of trying to figure out how to shield all that RF
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39743966]even if they didn't remove them but just had to conceal each one with some sort of RF shield while they loaded them into the van one by one it still would be crazy difficult to pull off. you'd also need your big armored van to be completely RF shielded, which means you'd have to put every gun in it at once and close the door to make sure they weren't sitting there transmitting while you're loading the rest of the guns up[/QUOTE]
Given police response times are anywhere from 10-25 minutes to an emergency call, transmitting that the gun has been picked up for a slit second would be of little concern to the robbers, not to mention the chips likely wouldn't even transmit within the facility, because it's not unreasonable to believe the employees would be frequently moving, cleaning, or otherwise maintaining the guns, and having the police become suspicious of every gun being lifted inside the facility would be a waste of police resources. It would not be suspicious at all, and as a matter of fact would likely not even be broadcast, if the guns were picked up in the facility, and being RF shielded, the truck wouldn't be a beacon, as the chips would be unable to broadcast their location to any receiver while they're in the truck.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39744029]Given police response times are anywhere from 10-25 minutes to an emergency call, transmitting that the gun has been picked up for a slit second would be of little concern to the robbers, not to mention the chips likely wouldn't even transmit within the facility, because it's not unreasonable to believe the employees would be frequently moving, cleaning, or otherwise maintaining the guns, and having the police become suspicious of every gun being lifted inside the facility would be a waste of police resources. It would not be suspicious at all, and as a matter of fact would likely not even be broadcast, if the guns were picked up in the facility, and being RF shielded, the truck wouldn't be a beacon, as the chips would be unable to broadcast their location to any receiver while they're in the truck.[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine the vault would be completely locked during nights, so if the units started going off then, that would be indicative of a problem. There would also probably be security cameras throughout the facility, with the ones in the vault itself being motion-activated, because people aren't supposed to be in there at night. Maintenance could be done during the days, as that's when they're probably being rented out anyway, and with a larger crew on shift it would be reported faster in addition to a robbery being made more difficult in broad daylight.
Police response times aren't ideal, but in the case of an armory break-in, I would expect a response from the national guard, and the response times might be a bit hastier. I can't say for sure obviously, that's just what I would imagine.
[editline]27th February 2013[/editline]
if there were ratings in mass debate i wonder how many boxes download would have given to me by now, i hope a lot
At no point, under any circumstances, should a nation's military or militia force be deployed locally against its own people.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39744270]At no point, under any circumstances, should a nation's military or militia force be deployed locally against its own people.[/QUOTE]
ok, guess we will just let the cops deal with those insanely heavily-armed and well-prepared armory robbers in their armored van
seems to me like you're arbitrarily deciding rights and wrongs there. the military is there to protect the people; letting people escape with tons of armaments is not protecting all those people that are now potential victims of the armory robbers.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39744270]At no point, under any circumstances, should a nation's military or militia force be deployed locally against its own people.[/QUOTE]
So, you just let the robbers walk away?
I'm pretty sure you are allowed to use force against them.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39744373]ok, guess we'll just let the cops deal with those insanely-heavily armed and well-prepared armory robbers in their armored van
seems to me like you're arbitrarily deciding rights and wrongs there[/QUOTE]
Not at all, a military force implies an occupation, and a localized military occupation is actually against the constitution, not to mention oppressive and bordering on tyrannical. America has more than just one police force, you can have all of municipal, state, and federal (FBI) police forces respond to any given domestic crime, but there is no need to instate any kind of local military occupation, that is oppressive, unconstitutional, and dictatorial. The only reason to deploy the army in your own country is to protect against invasion, any domestic threats are the duty of the police force, the military are there to protect against foreign threats, and using them to protect against domestic ones when you have multitudes of capable police forces is overstepping their objective and blurring lines between a free nation and an occupied one.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39744436]Not at all, a military force implies an occupation, and a localized military occupation is actually against the constitution, not to mention oppressive and bordering on tyrannical. America has more than just one police force, you can have all of municipal, state, and federal (FBI) police forces respond to any given domestic crime, but there is no need to instate any kind of local military occupation, that is oppressive, unconstitutional, and dictatorial. The only reason to deploy the army in your own country is to protect against invasion, any domestic threats are the duty of the police force, the military are there to protect against foreign threats, and using them to protect against domestic ones when you have multitudes of capable police forces is overstepping their objective and blurring lines between a free nation and an occupied one.[/QUOTE]
This is more of an emotional argument rather than an actual one.
What is there to say that the robbers won't be met by strong force?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39744436]Not at all, a military force implies an occupation, and a localized military occupation is actually against the constitution, not to mention oppressive and bordering on tyrannical. America has more than just one police force, you can have all of municipal, state, and federal (FBI) police forces respond to any given domestic crime, but there is no need to instate any kind of local military occupation, that is oppressive, unconstitutional, and dictatorial. The only reason to deploy the army in your own country is to protect against invasion, any domestic threats are the duty of the police force, the military are there to protect against foreign threats, and using them to protect against domestic ones when you have multitudes of capable police forces is overstepping their objective and blurring lines between a free nation and an occupied one.[/QUOTE]
i'm not even setting a precedent here, the national guard has been deployed to deal with domestic threats before. it wouldn't be my decision though, government officials would obviously decide what actions to take and who to send in the event of a major armory robbery
edit: i also don't think a single citizen would complain or consider it tyrannical or oppressive to send a well-equipped force to deal with a serious security issue like that. the only difference between cops, FBI, and the military, is their uniforms. it's just about sending in the ones who are best suited for the job.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39744477]i'm not even setting a precedent here, the national guard has been deployed to deal with domestic threats before. it wouldn't be my decision though, government officials would obviously decide what actions to take and who to send in the event of a major armory robbery
edit: i also don't think a single citizen would complain or consider it tyrannical or oppressive to send a well-equipped force to deal with a serious security issue like that. the only difference between cops, FBI, and the military, is their uniforms. it's just about sending in the ones who are best suited for the job.[/QUOTE]
Actually, when Pierre Trudeau sent the military to occupy Montreal in the '70s there was public backlash, especially after people realized what kind of power this gave to the government over the people, to the point that he knew he was being overzealous, but did it anyways, and then made it so that nobody else could ever do it again, meaning he abused the system. The occupation of Montreal to deal with domestic terrorists kidnapping foreign and domestic diplomats was totally unnecessary, and it could have been resolved with the reinforcement of local police by both Provincial and Federal forces. In this case, official political opposition saw it as oppressive to use the army to deal with domestic terrorists, as did many news media outlets.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39744614]Actually, when Pierre Trudeau sent the military to occupy Montreal in the '70s there was public backlash, especially after people realized what kind of power this gave to the government over the people, to the point that he knew he was being overzealous, but did it anyways, and then made it so that nobody else could ever do it again, meaning he abused the system. The occupation of Montreal to deal with domestic terrorists kidnapping foreign and domestic diplomats was totally unnecessary, and it could have been resolved with the reinforcement of local police by both Provincial and Federal forces. In this case, official political opposition saw it as oppressive to use the army to deal with domestic terrorists, as did many news media outlets.[/QUOTE]
Montreal is in Canada however.
Also I wish to heard more of this armoury robbery in that city.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39744614]Actually, when Pierre Trudeau sent the military to occupy Montreal in the '70s there was public backlash, especially after people realized what kind of power this gave to the government over the people, to the point that he knew he was being overzealous, but did it anyways, and then made it so that nobody else could ever do it again, meaning he abused the system. The occupation of Montreal to deal with domestic terrorists kidnapping foreign and domestic diplomats was totally unnecessary, and it could have been resolved with the reinforcement of local police by both Provincial and Federal forces. In this case, official political opposition saw it as oppressive to use the army to deal with domestic terrorists, as did many news media outlets.[/QUOTE]
I mean no matter what minimal force necessary will be used, I was just saying the national guard in case things got way out of hand. I agree that it should start with regular law enforcement of course, the military will always be a last resort
It's illegal to deploy the military like that in the USA. The "posse comitatus (spelling?) act of the 1870s says so.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39743743]lmao because not one of those events wouldn't immediately alert authorities of what was going on, it's like you pick out one key word and try to debunk my argument without reading the rest of it[/quote]
Yea, because it's impossible to circumnavigate security systems? If you think they're infallible then you're an idiot
[quote]
please elaborate on the spoofed tracking signal one too, that's brilliant[/quote]
Easy. You put a transmitter in the armoury that broadcast the same signal the guns do.
[quote]
no you is retard[/quote]
Oh the irony
[quote]
you're still not getting it[/quote]
Again, the irony, you seem to have no clue what I was saying
[quote]
Exactly?[/quote]
The military can't put much more than armed guards on armouries in terms of security, and even then it was ineffective. To suggest more is ridiculous
[quote]
The military is actually all about accountability, and outside of special forces, I don't think it'd be hard at all. You seem to have some other idealization about the military though, let me hear it
Not to mention that firearms kept in military armories wouldn't be being rented out, so it wouldn't be even necessary to affix every single one with a tracking device, just one in five or even less would prevent a major robbery[/quote]
Well, lets see, the obvious... Well, maybe the enemy, you know, might use it to their advantage? Or that the more unnecessary weight you add to a soldier, the less effective in combat they will be? The less ammo they can carry now because you oh so wisely decided they needed a tracking beacon?
You also don't seem to realise they they are [I]effectively[/I] rented out. They're taken out of the armoury regularly for cleaning, for range use, or exercises etc
[quote]
1. that's literally what you've been doing ever since I started posting in this thread
2. I didn't dismiss data that doesn't support my view, I dismissed data that doesn't support anyone's view because the stupid chart shows a timeline of ten years with no real progress in either direction, and the question gallup asked doesn't even give real numbers on gun ownership, it gives numbers on who has a gun in their home[/quote]
The person may not have a firearm in their name, but they effectively own a gun because they can borrow it from family members. For example: I don't own any guns, but it will take me all of 10 minutes to get one as a family member does and I can pretty much borrow it whenever. It pretty much says who owns a gun as pretty much anyone i nthe household could get it
[quote]
It doesn't really look like it's going up, either. One year isn't enough upward trend to show any real significance. Especially such a sudden and extreme one, that sort of trend doesn't sustain itself. You should know that, come on man.[/quote]
If we put a trend line too it I'd expect at the very least to see an upwards trend on the South and East, the others are too hard to tell without doing the math
[quote]
lol he keeps quoting "gun in the household" surveys and pretending that's indicative of gun ownership
[/quote]
See above
[quote]Election season is probably going to show how much people care for guns better than that to be honest[/QUOTE]
I don't expect to see much difference in that from 73to26, least not in an election tipping way
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
It would seem none of you know, but RF shielding is easy, especially when you're talking low powered transmitters. All you need is a grounded, fine conductive mesh. It will easily block transmitters.
So, this is how I'd pull of a gun vault hiest:
1) Kill/blackmail guards
2) Either break into or have guards open vault
3) Set up transmitter in vault.
4) Inside of shielded truck place: Transmitter to spoof GPS satellites, receiver to pick up tracking device broadcasts. Receiver is connected via internet to transmitter in vault
5) Load guns into truck
6) Drive away. To anyone watching, it will look like the guns are still in the vault. Both because the GPSs will say they're in the vault, and because they'll look like they're broadcasting the location from the vault.
7) Remove tracking devices at will
Several steps could be omitted/modified dependent on security:
My plan assumes the tracking device signal is too difficult to be replicated, so instead of replicating it, the signal it transmits is rebroadcast inside the vault. If it can be replicated, it would be easier to create a device the spoof the tracking device signal and leave that in the vault, than go the spoof GPS, collect, rebroadcast way.
[QUOTE=download;39746210]Yea, because it's impossible to circumnavigate security systems? If you think they're infallible then you're an idiot[/QUOTE]
If you'll notice I haven't claimed a single time they're infallible, but you have yet to come up with a way around even my unrefined idea
[quote]Easy. You put a transmitter in the armoury that broadcast the same signal the guns do.[/quote]
Slow down, speed racer, no one's supposed to be in the vault at night so the signals shouldn't be going off. Now you're replicating that signal and congrats, it looks like someone's in the vault when no one is supposed to be
[quote]The military can't put much more than armed guards on armouries in terms of security, and even then it was ineffective. To suggest more is ridiculous[/quote]
yeah guys seriously the military puts security cameras everywhere but you're being ridiculous if you think they can do any better than armed guards at an armory omg get a grip
[quote]Well, lets see, the obvious... Well, maybe the enemy, you know, might use it to their advantage? Or that the more unnecessary weight you add to a soldier, the less effective in combat they will be? The less ammo they can carry now because you oh so wisely decided they needed a tracking beacon?[/quote]
Since when do tracking units weigh enough to affect anything? Lol now they have to carry less ammo because of their really heavy tracking units that take up so much room inside the stock of their guns. And that's still ignoring the possibility that they can be supplied with firearms without tracking units on deployments (not that they'd do much anyways in the desert, what with its awesome cell service)
[quote]You also don't seem to realise they they are [I]effectively[/I] rented out. They're taken out of the armoury regularly for cleaning, for range use, or exercises etc[/quote]
The difference though is that military members won't ever be taking them out and going off by themselves, unlike civilians who could rent one and go out hunting solo and thus need to be tracked.
[quote]The person may not have a firearm in their name, but they effectively own a gun because they can borrow it from family members. For example: I don't own any guns, but it will take me all of 10 minutes to get one as a family member does and I can pretty much borrow it whenever. It pretty much says who owns a gun as pretty much anyone i nthe household could get it[/quote]
So you're saying that gun ownership as a whole is increasing because in a household of five, the dad buys a gun and now everyone is considered a gun owner. That isn't indicative of peoples' attitudes toward firearms. The graph actually shows "% of people with access to firearms, by gender." It doesn't actually reflect gun ownership, which could be answered by asking the question "do you personally own a firearm?"
[quote]It would seem none of you know, but RF shielding is easy, especially when you're talking low powered transmitters. All you need is a grounded, fine conductive mesh. It will easily block transmitters.
So, this is how I'd pull of a gun vault hiest:
1) Kill/blackmail guards
2) Either break into or have guards open vault
3) Set up transmitter in vault.
4) Inside of shielded truck place: Transmitter to spoof GPS satellites, receiver to pick up tracking device broadcasts. Receiver is connected via internet to transmitter in vault
5) Load guns into truck
6) Drive away. To anyone watching, it will look like the guns are still in the vault. Both because the GPSs will say they're in the vault, and because they'll look like they're broadcasting the location from the vault.
7) Remove tracking devices at will
Several steps could be omitted/modified dependent on security:
My plan assumes the tracking device signal is too difficult to be replicated, so instead of replicating it, the signal it transmits is rebroadcast inside the vault. If it can be replicated, it would be easier to create a device the spoof the tracking device signal and leave that in the vault, than go the spoof GPS, collect, rebroadcast way.[/quote]
2. Motion activated security cameras in vault, "why's somebody breaking into the vault at night?"
3. As I said before, you're now transmitting the signal that shouldn't be transmitted at night because that means someone's in the vault when they shouldn't be
6. The guns aren't supposed to be transmitting at all because it shows that they're being moved
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=viper shtf;39745729]It's illegal to deploy the military like that in the USA. The "posse comitatus (spelling?) act of the 1870s says so.[/QUOTE]
From the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page for the Posse Comitatus Act: "Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency parts within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain 'law and order'". It only requires approval of the President/Congress. And that only applies to active duty military. The National Guard can act in a law enforcement capacity in its home state without needing permission from the President/Congress.
Not to mention that even if the Act actually did prohibit it, I can still think off the top of my head of two separate instances of military intervention against domestic threats (look up Battle of Blair Mountain).
I know this thread has been dead for several days, but I wanted to post a [url=http://www.hulu.com/watch/463351?playlist_id=1031&asset_scope=all]pretty humorous segment[/url] from the Colbert Report on guns.
I've been hearing more and more about guns every other day and It really just seems like a war nobody is ever going to win. Some people want guns for protection and some people want guns for other reasons such as hunting or gang violence, etc. What I personally think is no matter what the government does to try and put the hammer down on gun violence in public areas, they will always face the factor that people will always claim they "Need" guns. For "Protection". If it was up to me I would only allow tazers and other self protection devices to the people.
Guns are way too powerful. Giving everyone in the world access to a piece of equipment that has the capability to kill hundreds in minutes is just too much to trust everyone in the united states with.. Some people are crazy some people aren't.. It's an issue that we the people have to overcome and it will never happen because people who truly beleive they are the victim will think what they are doing is right or they will just do it out of revenge or spite from someone else. I am currently in an uncomfortable situation now with my girlfriends mom for example.
She has a son thats mentally ill(Anger Issues)... He has been in and out of loony bins in downsouth california and is on multiple medications. This woman is also very crazy I will save you the details but she is the spawn of the devil to cut it short. Anyways she has told me in the passed that if she wanted me dead it could happen easily. She has told me it could "accidently happen by her mental sons poor confused hands."
It's fucked up I know but It gives me the chills thinking she has guns in her house and her son has vandalized our house and property before so I'm only wondering what she will do next? Tell him to shoot up my house and claim insanity? Who knows thats just another reason why I believe guns shouldnt be given to anyone. I believe in massive background checks before you can even hold a pea shooter. Sorry for the rant and the off topic bullshit.
All it takes is one person to say FML and cock that gun and their goes families after families. Thats another way to think about it.
To avoid all that hassle you could just get in your car and embed yourself into the closest minivan or local soccer game.
[QUOTE=White;39851976]I've been hearing more and more about guns every other day and It really just seems like a war nobody is ever going to win. Some people want guns for protection and some people want guns for other reasons such as hunting or gang violence, etc. What I personally think is no matter what the government does to try and put the hammer down on gun violence in public areas, they will always face the factor that people will always claim they "Need" guns. For "Protection". If it was up to me I would only allow tazers and other self protection devices to the people.
Guns are way too powerful. Giving everyone in the world access to a piece of equipment that has the capability to kill hundreds in minutes is just too much to trust everyone in the united states with.. Some people are crazy some people aren't.. It's an issue that we the people have to overcome and it will never happen because people who truly beleive they are the victim will think what they are doing is right or they will just do it out of revenge or spite from someone else. I am currently in an uncomfortable situation now with my girlfriends mom for example.
She has a son thats mentally ill(Anger Issues)... He has been in and out of loony bins in downsouth california and is on multiple medications. This woman is also very crazy I will save you the details but she is the spawn of the devil to cut it short. Anyways she has told me in the passed that if she wanted me dead it could happen easily. She has told me it could "accidently happen by her mental sons poor confused hands."
It's fucked up I know but It gives me the chills thinking she has guns in her house and her son has vandalized our house and property before so I'm only wondering what she will do next? Tell him to shoot up my house and claim insanity? Who knows thats just another reason why I believe guns shouldnt be given to anyone. I believe in massive background checks before you can even hold a pea shooter. Sorry for the rant and the off topic bullshit.
All it takes is one person to say FML and cock that gun and their goes families after families. Thats another way to think about it.[/QUOTE]
4473 already disallows mentals, lunatics, anyone with a felony, anyone charged of a DUI, and otherwise to own a firearm.
Here's the kicker, registration of firearms as well as "massive background checks" have not stemmed or dissolved any amounts of crimes over the last 50 years in the United States(GCA 68' is what implemented the 4473 if I remember correctly).
All though causation and correlation isn't so much related, it's actually interesting to find that with the increase of civil rights, greater acceptance of narcotics, and otherwise, we're coming to a period where the overall homicide in this country has been practically cut in half since the early 90's.
Also in regards to the whole, "massive background checks for peashooters" why? You need to explain where and how you believe this could work.
The source of the US's high gun violence is it's capitalistic/individualistic culture and gangs. Not it's guns, although they do act as a good tool for it. It's also not caused by videogames ;p, no matter what Hugo Chavez says [They are banned in Argentina]
American violence exploded during prohibition and exploded again when Drug prohibition [War on Drugs, whatever] began. The US culture encourages individual success and glorifies criminals. When an individual fails they have failed society and to attain any fame they must kill. The US also has crap mental health, etc. Without gang violence and the violence from these prohibitions the US would have a much lower crime rate.
ban ALL weapons...
but make samurai swords mandatory (for 20 year olds and up only).
...bring back the art.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;39935884]no matter what Hugo Chavez says [They are banned in Argentina][/QUOTE]
too bad he was president of Venezuela
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39977314]too bad he was president of Venezuela[/QUOTE]
Both guns and Videogames are banned in Venezuela... and gun crime didn't really change at all, if anything it went up a bit.
[QUOTE=White;39851976]I've been hearing more and more about guns every other day and It really just seems like a war nobody is ever going to win. Some people want guns for protection and some people want guns for other reasons such as hunting or gang violence, etc. What I personally think is no matter what the government does to try and put the hammer down on gun violence in public areas, they will always face the factor that people will always claim they "Need" guns. For "Protection". If it was up to me I would only allow tazers and other self protection devices to the people.
Guns are way too powerful. Giving everyone in the world access to a piece of equipment that has the capability to kill hundreds in minutes is just too much to trust everyone in the united states with.. Some people are crazy some people aren't.. It's an issue that we the people have to overcome and it will never happen because people who truly beleive they are the victim will think what they are doing is right or they will just do it out of revenge or spite from someone else. I am currently in an uncomfortable situation now with my girlfriends mom for example.
She has a son thats mentally ill(Anger Issues)... He has been in and out of loony bins in downsouth california and is on multiple medications. This woman is also very crazy I will save you the details but she is the spawn of the devil to cut it short. Anyways she has told me in the passed that if she wanted me dead it could happen easily. She has told me it could "accidently happen by her mental sons poor confused hands."
It's fucked up I know but It gives me the chills thinking she has guns in her house and her son has vandalized our house and property before so I'm only wondering what she will do next? Tell him to shoot up my house and claim insanity? Who knows thats just another reason why I believe guns shouldnt be given to anyone. I believe in massive background checks before you can even hold a pea shooter. Sorry for the rant and the off topic bullshit.
All it takes is one person to say FML and cock that gun and their goes families after families. Thats another way to think about it.[/QUOTE]
Hey
Ever hear of Andrew Kehoe?
He killed 43 people (including 38 kids) and injured 58 people.
He didn't use a single gun.
So.
All it takes is one person to say FML and use ANY TOOL AVAILABLE and there goes family after family.
That's ANOTHER way to think about it.
Gameel Al-Batouti killed 216 people.
Didn't use a single gun.
Kim Dae-Han killed 198 and injured 147.
Didn't use a single gun.
Robert Dale Segee killed between 167-169 people and wounded at least 700.
Didn't use a firearm.
Jin Ruchao killed 108 people and injured 38.
No firearms used.
Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people.
No guns involved.
A gun is a tool, a hammer is a tool, dynamite is a tool, a knife is a tool, a chainsaw is a tool, fire is a tool, an ax is a tool, your hands are tools.
Stop trying to blame the tool.
Start blaming the user.
Mass killings have happened way before guns were ever invented and in much, much, much higher numbers that what we see today.
Sure, it's fucked up, it shouldn't happen, but guns aren't to blame. It's the mental health of individuals that decide they want to end someones life.
If there isn't a firearm available, and they want to kill someone, guess what, they still will.
Just by other means.
There is also the fact that, even if they ban firearms, criminals will STILL GET THEM.
Sure, mental health background checks would help a lot, and they should be required.
But even that doesn't guarantee that nut jobs won't get a gun.
What we need to focus on is the mental health of the population.
[QUOTE=MasadaEntGroup;39976951]ban ALL weapons...
but make samurai swords mandatory (for 20 year olds and up only).
...bring back the art.[/QUOTE]
How unnecessarily unneeded and pointless.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39980364]How unnecessarily unneeded and pointless.[/QUOTE]
Like this comment?
Anyways, Gun regulation is like the sword hunt, take away weapon's from the commoners so they can't oppose the ruling government. Japan, actually has incredibly tough regulation on swords, you need licenses, sword registration, etc.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;39980878]Like this comment?
Anyways, Gun regulation is like the sword hunt, take away weapon's from the commoners so they can't oppose the ruling government. Japan, actually has incredibly tough regulation on swords, you need licenses, sword registration, etc.[/QUOTE]
Taking away weapons from people doesn't really prevent them from opposing the government.
And when do you draw the line for revolution?
At what point, when the government does XYZ, should everybody rise up in revolution to topple the government?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39982699]Taking away weapons from people doesn't really prevent them from opposing the government.[/QUOTE][B][U]Yes it does[/U][/B]. We as people only have what we can afford and only whats available to us to defend ourselves. Guns, kitchen knives, our car, whatever. The government on the other hand is an entirely different story. They have total control over our military. They have access to advanced weaponry than no civilian could ever get. For example, what civilian could ever acquire a nuclear bomb? Or a battleship? They also have the ability to create laws that forcibly take away our ability to defend ourselves.
Let's say for instance *poof* Civil War 2 breaks out and now its people vs government. The government has access to every military anything in the U.S. The people have access to guns. Oh, wait. some law was passed saying they can't have guns. All they have are kitchen knives and BB guns. Now tell me who would win this fight? Or hell, if the populous did nothing but defend from the oncoming military could they succeed?
Now if you say "but that'll never happen" your missing the point. It's not if it [I]will[/I] but if it [I]can[/I]. An example is SOPA/PIPA and whatnot. Everyone was saying it'll never happen but every single time it was brought up it [I]could[/I] happen. And they keep trying. As long as it [I]can[/I] happen it will never be impossible and someone somewhere [I]will[/I] try to make it happen.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39982699]And when do you draw the line for revolution?
At what point, when the government does XYZ, should everybody rise up in revolution to topple the government?[/QUOTE]That answer is idiot simple.
When the government takes away your freedom.
Am I currently free to defend myself with a gun? With whatever gun I choose? Or am I now (or soon to be) limited to only being able to defend myself with a gun the government says I can defend myself with? Or even allowed to defend myself with a gun at all?
There's a quote (can't remember who said it) "Those who give up their freedoms for security deserve neither." People for the right to bear arms are fighting to keep their freedoms so that they can keep their own security. People who are fighting to ban guns are fighting to take the freedoms of [I]other[/I] people to create a [I]feeling[/I] of security. All that gun restrictions do is take away everyone's security.
Say an entire town bans and takes away guns from everyone in the town. What happens when someone comes in and starts shooting up the place with illegally gained guns? Not a single person in that town will be able to sufficiently defend themselves. Now say that the exact opposite happened. The town required and gives guns to everyone in the town. Now when the same guy who came in with his guns starts shooting up the place anyone in that town can take him out. [B]Anyone[/B] and [B]Everyone[/B] [I]can defend themselves [B]and anyone else.[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=Balistics_Dummy;39983306][B][U]Yes it does[/U][/B]. We as people only have what we can afford and only whats available to us to defend ourselves. Guns, kitchen knives, our car, whatever. The government on the other hand is an entirely different story. They have total control over our military. They have access to advanced weaponry than no civilian could ever get. For example, what civilian could ever acquire a nuclear bomb? Or a battleship? They also have the ability to create laws that forcibly take away our ability to defend ourselves.
Let's say for instance *poof* Civil War 2 breaks out and now its people vs government. The government has access to every military anything in the U.S. The people have access to guns. Oh, wait. some law was passed saying they can't have guns. All they have are kitchen knives and BB guns. Now tell me who would win this fight? Or hell, if the populous did nothing but defend from the oncoming military could they succeed?
Now if you say "but that'll never happen" your missing the point. It's not if it [I]will[/I] but if it [I]can[/I]. An example is SOPA/PIPA and whatnot. Everyone was saying it'll never happen but every single time it was brought up it [I]could[/I] happen. And they keep trying. As long as it [I]can[/I] happen it will never be impossible and someone somewhere [I]will[/I] try to make it happen.[/quote]
Have you ever looked at military strategy?
To organize the people of a country to rise up to overthrow the government, using non-standardized firearms, people with questionable loyalties, different goals, over a continent, is a crapshoot at best.
Having firearms for the people, or not having firearms, is not going to matter a jot.
[quote]When the government takes away your freedom.[/quote]
How do you define this?
When they introduce taxes for petrol? When the state establishes monopolies for sanitation or electrical services? When they mandate your electric socket gives a certain voltage?
It's not even clearcut for guns.
Do you rebel when they introduce gun licenses? Do you rebel when they ban incendiary rounds, chemical weapons or biological ones? Do you rebel when they introduce background checks?
If you took a few seconds to even consider these glaring problems, it would dawn on you that not everybody will rise up at the same time, with the same goals, and are incorruptible.
Could you imagine the USA having a revolution? People would flee, people would war profiteer, Marxists and Anarchists would jump on to bring about communism, the kkk would drive around lynching blacks and people would starve to death once infrastructure collapsed and agriculture was ruined?
How could you possibly account for the breakdown of nuclear power facilities? Hydroelectric dams? Water shortages? Riots? Food riots?
The above even assumes no foreign country would intervene.
In other words, a well armed populace overthrowing a tyrant is all but a wet dream.
Well recently in Libya the people have risen against their government. Despite overwhelming weapon superiority on the side of the government, using advanced tanks and African mercenaries the citizens have met relative success. Without guns this revolution would have probably failed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
