America, shooting, again??

[scherzkeks]

Countdown said:

No. I think there are an awful lot of loons in the USA who resent the US Govt from carrying out its lawful duty. As such the US Govt. needs to be suitable armed.

Government agencies and local police forces need military hardware and assault weapons to deal with the general public? This is really what you think?

[Jimbeaux]

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

I wouldn't ever consider having a firearm in the house (even if I could!) for home defence.

That is certainly up to you Mario; however, the crims here are more likely to be armed when violating one's home. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

That may be true, but you're still faaaaar more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than a crim invading your house. So if you did in fact have an armed crim in your house, a pistol might be useful, the vast majority of the time you don't it's just a liability that's more likely to kill you and yours than a "baddie".

I have seen that statistic and I say it is misleading. There are more guns than people in America. If that claim where anywhere near truthful, we would have all accidently killed ourselves by now.

[Jimbeaux]

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

1st rule of Marxism, disarm your public, over-arm your government branches. You sound a bit Marxist here.

I just find the notion that an armed US public would stop a malicious US government oppressing them is quite laughable. You'd have Jim Bob and a few hundred of his fat middle aged mates popping away at the national guard with AR-15s for about 15 mins before a Super Hornet dropped a Paveway II on them.

The National Guard are mainly comprised of very fit and mostly combat-experienced troops. As to the Super Hornet, you assume Americans will carry out orders to kill their own. Most soldiers I know would not.

[Mario149]

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

1st rule of Marxism, disarm your public, over-arm your government branches. You sound a bit Marxist here.

I just find the notion that an armed US public would stop a malicious US government oppressing them is quite laughable. You'd have Jim Bob and a few hundred of his fat middle aged mates popping away at the national guard with AR-15s for about 15 mins before a Super Hornet dropped a Paveway II on them.

The National Guard are mainly comprised of very fit and mostly combat-experienced troops. As to the Super Hornet, you assume Americans will carry out orders to kill their own. Most soldiers I know would not.

That's what I'm saying, the militia probably wouldn't last 5 mins against against National Guard/Army/whatever. And even if they did, unless they pilfered a patriot battery for personal use, Uncle Sam will always win with his planes.

And if your men in uniform quite rightly won't kill Americans, why all the guns to protect yourself from the government if their orders wouldn't be carried out? Either you think you're armed institutions will turn on you - in which case a few privately held firearms won't make any difference, or you don't think they'd turn on you - in which case the firearms aren't needed

[Mario149]

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

I wouldn't ever consider having a firearm in the house (even if I could!) for home defence.

That is certainly up to you Mario; however, the crims here are more likely to be armed when violating one's home. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

That may be true, but you're still faaaaar more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than a crim invading your house. So if you did in fact have an armed crim in your house, a pistol might be useful, the vast majority of the time you don't it's just a liability that's more likely to kill you and yours than a "baddie".

I have seen that statistic and I say it is misleading. There are more guns than people in America. If that claim where anywhere near truthful, we would have all accidently killed ourselves by now.

Serious question: have you got any better statistics that aren't misleading and why? Otherwise I'm inclined to go with the Freakonomics chaps. On the plus side, they also said that if your kid goes to play at a neighbours who have a pool and a gun, the pool is more dangerous, so all is not lost!

[Fittster]

Jimbeaux said:

1st rule of Marxism, disarm your public, over-arm your government branches. You sound a bit Marxist here.

Where do you get this stuff from?

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

Karl Marx - Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

London, March 1850

[Jimbeaux]

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

1st rule of Marxism, disarm your public, over-arm your government branches. You sound a bit Marxist here.

I just find the notion that an armed US public would stop a malicious US government oppressing them is quite laughable. You'd have Jim Bob and a few hundred of his fat middle aged mates popping away at the national guard with AR-15s for about 15 mins before a Super Hornet dropped a Paveway II on them.

The National Guard are mainly comprised of very fit and mostly combat-experienced troops. As to the Super Hornet, you assume Americans will carry out orders to kill their own. Most soldiers I know would not.

That's what I'm saying, the militia probably wouldn't last 5 mins against against National Guard/Army/whatever. And even if they did, unless they pilfered a patriot battery for personal use, Uncle Sam will always win with his planes.

And if your men in uniform quite rightly won't kill Americans, why all the guns to protect yourself from the government if their orders wouldn't be carried out? Either you think you're armed institutions will turn on you - in which case a few privately held firearms won't make any difference, or you don't think they'd turn on you - in which case the firearms aren't needed

Make of this what you will. The Homeland Security Dept., which is mainly intel & investigative resources (relatively few police officers)have ordered 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. For who? Benign federal agencies (Agriculture Dept., etc.) have purchased large amounts of military style hardware, for what? It may be nothing to fear but such things do make one take a second look.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/06/25/the...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/7/gol...

[Jimbeaux]

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

I wouldn't ever consider having a firearm in the house (even if I could!) for home defence.

That is certainly up to you Mario; however, the crims here are more likely to be armed when violating one's home. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

That may be true, but you're still faaaaar more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than a crim invading your house. So if you did in fact have an armed crim in your house, a pistol might be useful, the vast majority of the time you don't it's just a liability that's more likely to kill you and yours than a "baddie".

I have seen that statistic and I say it is misleading. There are more guns than people in America. If that claim where anywhere near truthful, we would have all accidently killed ourselves by now.

Serious question: have you got any better statistics that aren't misleading and why? Otherwise I'm inclined to go with the Freakonomics chaps. On the plus side, they also said that if your kid goes to play at a neighbours who have a pool and a gun, the pool is more dangerous, so all is not lost!

I am applying common sense. There are more guns than people in the US. If the stat. you mentioned was correct, would not at least a 1/3 of us already have accidently shot ourselves? I know doxens of people/families personally who own multiple guns and none have been shot by their own weapon.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 7th July 21:08

[Lucas CAV]

wc98 said:

Mario149 said:

I just find the notion that an armed US public would stop a malicious US government oppressing them is quite laughable. You'd have Jim Bob and a few hundred of his fat middle aged mates popping away at the national guard with AR-15s for about 15 mins before a Super Hornet dropped a Paveway II on them.

and what gives jim bob or one of his mates the authority to decide the government is acting maliciously ? one mans malicious is anothers democratic governance .

This is the question.

[AJL308]

Lucas CAV said:

wc98 said:

Mario149 said:

I just find the notion that an armed US public would stop a malicious US government oppressing them is quite laughable. You'd have Jim Bob and a few hundred of his fat middle aged mates popping away at the national guard with AR-15s for about 15 mins before a Super Hornet dropped a Paveway II on them.

and what gives jim bob or one of his mates the authority to decide the government is acting maliciously ? one mans malicious is anothers democratic governance .

This is the question.

Didn't the USA last decide this around the 1770's?

[Mario149]

Jimbeaux said:

Make of this what you will. The Homeland Security Dept., which is mainly intel & investigative resources (relatively few police officers)have ordered 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. For who? Benign federal agencies (Agriculture Dept., etc.) have purchased large amounts of military style hardware, for what? It may be nothing to fear but such things do make one take a second look.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/06/25/the...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/7/gol...

That doesn't address the point I was making, but I take it from those link you *do* think your uniformed armed people might try and oppress you? And that Jim Bob and his mates will make a difference?

[Mario149]

Jimbeaux said:

I am imply applying common sense. There are more guns than people in the US. If the stat. you mentioned was correct, would not at least a 1/3 of us already have accidently shot ourselves? I know doxens of people/families personally who own multiple guns and none have been shot by their own weapon.

That's not what the stat says at all. It merely says that you are more likely to shoot yourself, your own/an innocent as opposed to a baddie. The vast majority of people who own firearms for home protection will do neither. But on average, they're much more likely to shoot someone who doesn't "deserve" it than someone who does.

[Jimbeaux]

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Make of this what you will. The Homeland Security Dept., which is mainly intel & investigative resources (relatively few police officers)have ordered 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. For who? Benign federal agencies (Agriculture Dept., etc.) have purchased large amounts of military style hardware, for what? It may be nothing to fear but such things do make one take a second look.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/06/25/the...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/7/gol...

That doesn't address the point I was making, but I take it from those link you *do* think your uniformed armed people might try and oppress you? And that Jim Bob and his mates will make a difference?

No, I said the news reports would "make one wonder or take note". I have made no such assumption myself either way. In addition, it is not the "uniformed" people in question. When the Food & Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and the like are buying military hardware, ones pauses to think. As to "Jim Bob" and his mates, if the citizenry gun ownership out numbers the military and other uniformed gun toters by many times (and they do), "Jim Bob" and his mates would well have so say in the matter; and in sufficent numbers to counter the better training and organization. That said, as I stated, I have no opinion on that matter either way.

[Jimbeaux]

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

I am imply applying common sense. There are more guns than people in the US. If the stat. you mentioned was correct, would not at least a 1/3 of us already have accidently shot ourselves? I know doxens of people/families personally who own multiple guns and none have been shot by their own weapon.

That's not what the stat says at all. It merely says that you are more likely to shoot yourself, your own/an innocent as opposed to a baddie. The vast majority of people who own firearms for home protection will do neither. But on average, they're much more likely to shoot someone who doesn't "deserve" it than someone who does.

I fully understand your point, I just don't personally believe that stat.

[DonkeyApple]

Founded by religious extremists and seemingly rapidly reverting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/noahs-a...

I suspect history will view America's 20th century as an even shorter period of academic enlightenment than Islam's.

Trucks, beards, guns and religion. All the same mentally deranged nutters regardless of what their favourite book is or the colour of their skin.

Moron Magnets for the under educated, socially inadequate and mentally feeble.

[Randy Winkman]

For some serious US citizen firepower watch this, especially at about 40-45 mins:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07k1dkj/unit...

The Anti-Bureau of American Islamic Relations, the Nation of Islam, Black Power. Phew. And it's a bit confusing who is on who's side at one point. It's all a bit depressing but there's one nice bit at 50 mins.

[Jimbeaux]

DonkeyApple said:

Founded by religious extremists and seemingly rapidly reverting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/noahs-a...

I suspect history will view America's 20th century as an even shorter period of academic enlightenment than Islam's.

Trucks, beards, guns and religion. All the same mentally deranged nutters regardless of what their favourite book is or the colour of their skin.

Moron Magnets for the under educated, socially inadequate and mentally feeble.

I would disagree, but you are free to hold your opinion; and you may be able to do so a bit longer seeing as how you have freed yourselves from the Euro-Socialist Union,

[Countdown]

DonkeyApple said:

Founded by religious extremists and seemingly rapidly reverting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/noahs-a...

I suspect history will view America's 20th century as an even shorter period of academic enlightenment than Islam's.

Trucks, beards, guns and religion. All the same mentally deranged nutters regardless of what their favourite book is or the colour of their skin.

Moron Magnets for the under educated, socially inadequate and mentally feeble.

I think that's unfair. The U.S. has made a huge amount of progress over the last 50 years. Arguably it was starting from a low base but it must have been quite a challenge given how diverse the population is. There is quite a large nutty element but it's not the majority.

[DonkeyApple]

Countdown said:

I think that's unfair. The U.S. has made a huge amount of progress over the last 50 years. Arguably it was starting from a low base but it must have been quite a challenge given how diverse the population is. There is quite a large nutty element but it's not the majority.

Sure, I'm being very blunt but I've seen it culturally going backwards since the turn of the century. Whether there on business or pleasure their is a stronger air of both elitism and intolerance that has been growing rapidly. Whether political, cultural or religious, extremism has been growing since the turn of the century not waning. It's not the happy, forward thinking and hopeful place that it used to be. Personally, my view is that excessive debt has driven divides through not just cultural elements of society but also through age groups within cultures.

[BlackLabel]

"An elderly Florida woman who was helping the police with a training exercise has been shot dead by an officer using a real gun and live ammunition.

Mary Knowlton, 73, was killed in a role play involving a real firearm which was being performed as part of a 35-strong citizenship class. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/f...