Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Kostya: Sorry, but you are missing the point entirely. And you still haven't answered the question. Will you roll over and die? If not, why would you not have the best tool to even give you the slimmest chance of survival?
Lawyerdude: The only reason you would not keep your firearm readily accessible is if you are trying to prevent them from being accessed by other people (your children, for instance). And in this case, they have gun safes and lockers which are quickly accessed with either quickly entered codes or fingerprint identification.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Fine. To answer your question I would probably give them whatever they want instead of fighting or running. If I think they'll kill me I'll try and knock a few down before running away. Under no circumstances would I fight even with a gun because I know they'll just shoot me into Swiss cheese. I see no logical reason for how a gun will help me in this scenario.
Look I'm gonna have a gun, and I'd prefer that I have it legally than illegally.
But either way I'm still going to have it.
Because we all know criminals follow the law.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:29:21 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I'm going to guess that no one read my whole statement about throwing your wallet in one direction and running the other way while they're distracted. And also attempting to run in the opposite direction of the way the gun is facing, as that wastes their time. If they don't go after your wallet, it's not your money they're after. THROW THE FUCKING WALLET AND RUN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
Anyway, when Australia did its gun ban of certain guns, they also instituted a buy back program wherein you could turn in any gun that was now disallowed and get cash for it. Sort of like the buy back program Obama put it for cars. That seems like a pretty good plan to me, since people are as motivated by money as they are anything else.
As regards military style stuff? Fuck no a civilian should not have that shit. It's military grade. If you want to do sport shooting you can do it at a range where you rent/borrow the guns and then return them when you're done. That seems reasonable to me, provided the business owner keeps properly tight security in his place of business. I support this for much the same reason I support taking guns out of Wal-Mart: I want guns in a place with proper security and largely in the hands of people who know how not to fuck up with them.
Also, I feel like these hypotheticals are dragging us off the topic of politics, guys. Let's try and be careful about that. The self defense scenarios are interesting, but not necessarily related to politics.
![]()
IIRC some places in the USA do have something of a buyback program. You turn in the gun and get something like a fifty or hundred dollar gift card. Not sure if it's at a city or state level though. . .
edit- A few instances documented on wikipedia, though I've heard of others elsewhere.
They seem to be conducted only at a community level. I'd be interested to see what effect a national program might have.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:35:29 PM by carbon-mantis
Thorn, none of us are suggesting that. Instead we got derailed into a self defense argument. What we want is better gun control and oversight.
@Carbon: well, Obama created a similar program for selling back old cars, and that seems to have done very well. It was national in Australia, and it seems to have gone quite well. And I highly doubt they banned all guns, considering the vast amounts of wilderness they've got there.
NRA Pledges ‘Meaningful Contributions’ to End Mass Shootings
EDIT: I'm all for more regulation, but when people start banning guns I get a little pissed.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:45:01 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The moronic "if we ban guns, only criminals will have them" needs to fucking stop. Just STOP. By that logic, why should we try to regulate anything? After all, criminals will just break the law. It's memetic Perfect Solution Fallacy, and it's frankly, retarded logic. Furthermore, I think we all agree that banning guns is impractical, and stupid. However, they should have the same sort of regulation that anything that's a significant danger to people have. Right now, they aren't even as regulated as cars.
Buybacks in the US are mostly City level. Oakland recently had some gun buyback runs this year. Their first effort sucked
, but their more recent one was a bit more successfull
.
There's nothing wrong with believing that, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. But many people do see the benefits of carrying a gun as a self-defense measure. The virtues of more good people with guns has historically outweighed good people with no guns.
But again, banning guns isn't going to solve the problem of guns being out there in the hands of bad people. So there is much more to be done than just regulating the tools. It's the society that drives people to use them improperly.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Somewhat related to the recent topic.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13445313460A16820100&page=3#56
@Ace
Again, I get what you're saying, but civilian versions of military-style weapons are not, technically speaking, mil-spec (military specification). I know I'm nitpicking, and I honestly get your point, but as Devil said, many of the modifications that can be found on civilian-model AR-15s and AK-47s are mostly cosmetic.
The term "mall ninja" typically applies to individuals who dress up their AR-15 or other firearm so they can get a more "tactical" look. However, most of the people who do this aren't likely to use the accessories in an emergency. Eotech holographic sights, laser aiming modules, 9-point tactical slings, undercarry flashlights (or "iluminators" if you want to be a dick about it), quad-rail systems, and ACOG scopes are all nice accessories that you'll often find on a gun enthusiast who probably has too much money to burn. The extent to which a person at the range does this with the AR can send off the "Special Forces wannabe" vibe.
The Eotech holographic sight, for example, runs anywhere between $400 and $700, depending on specific configurations. I could buy a nice pistol with that much cash. You see my point. Having a folding stock and a flip-up sight aren't going to turn you into a Green Beret. Aside from rate of fire, it's not a huge difference. As Morven said, handguns are more problematic in that regard mainly because they are easier to conceal and more portable, among other reasons.
My usual response to the desire to remove assault-ish looking weapons is "okay, fair enough, but we have data showing that isn't going to reduce gun crimes". I'm just not keen on the notion that firearms should be relegated to strictly utilitarian purposes despite occurrences of gun-related violence. 69 percent of gun-related crimes involve handguns, and limitations on magazine capacity and tactical accessories in 1994 as part of the Clinton-era ban did not stop the occurrence of the North Hollywood shootout in 1997. Now, I'm not saying that the Assault Weapons Ban was completely ineffective just because of this one incident, but I am saying that the restrictions outlined in that ban did little to nothing to stop gun-related crimes.
I'll freely admit that my main reason for owning an AR is basically for shits and giggles. I'm a hobbyist, and while I consider myself responsible and disciplined with my rifle, I didn't buy it for the primary purpose of preparing for an invasion of some sort. Unfortunately, many other people buy firearms expressly for that purpose, and America's paranoia and fear mongering is a problem we really need to address. Even if you take weapons out of the argument, I still see this paranoia as a martial arts instructor. Crap like "every man is a potential rapist" and "in a real fight, you have to do X, Y, Z or you'll get raped and stabbed". It's getting people to separate themselves from their cash in exchange for a false sense of security. On those grounds, I don't believe guns are the core problem, but rather a volatile side-effect of our country's hyperactive imagination and its obsession with violent conflict resolution in general, guns be damned.
edited 18th Dec '12 5:02:39 PM by Aprilla
Because while regulating guns may not keep them out of the hands of criminals, it keeps them away from the mentally unbalanced (at least most of the time) while still allowing sane citizens to own them.
Banning guns just takes them away from law-abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to criminals.
Chris Christie best-rated in 2016 field, poll says
Damn, he crushed Jindal, Santorum, and Rubio
Who would win Christie or Clinton?
edited 18th Dec '12 5:19:46 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Actually, "every man is a potential rapist" is not as unreasonable as it sounds, for reasons of systemic cultural sexism. That not being the topic, I'll leave it there and for the threads about sexism. That said, the far right is thriving on the paranoia you mentioned, and it's going to be decades worth of rooting that shit out before anything gets done.
Hell, paranoia is why the right gets to do anything these days; they thrive on making us fear the very government they work for. And by deliberately running things badly.
As neither has put forth their bids for candidacy I don't see why that's a relevant question at this particular point in time.
edited 18th Dec '12 5:24:04 PM by AceofSpades
Obviously, anybody could potentially be a rapist. Heck, in some cultures, rape is considered perfectly acceptable. And yes, rape is not simply penetration with a penis, so a person with erectile dysfunction could do it. And eunuchs actually can still get erect.
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.Oh my GOD Thorn, that's the kind of uselessly pessimistic shit I'm sick of people throwing around. It's also the kind of thinking that's contributed in part to nothing being done. No, people DO NOT love killing each other. A few very sick minded individuals think that they can get on TV and go out in a blaze of glory doing something massively horrible. If we loved killing each other, these school shootings wouldn't stand out as terrible at all.
- pinch Thorn for being to cynical -
You know, there are more things going on in the US than the violence.
Just look at Sandy, there were people to help the victims of the storm.
It's not because of some insane assholes that the whole country is doomed to being violent...
Also, that
edited 18th Dec '12 6:12:26 PM by QuestionMarc

Want a gun for home defense? So you're going to keep an automatic pistol, loaded and easily accessible at all times? And why are you living somewhere where you're afraid of people invading your home while you're there? Nearly all burglaries occur when the occupant is away from home.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:21:12 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.