Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gun sales up since the electionFollow

#27 Nov 12 2008 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
**
291 posts
Of course an armed populace could resist a trained military ... unless that trained military simply wanted to exterminate everyone else and was willing to use massive firepower or weapons of mass destruction to do it. Not win outright, but resist, hopefully long enough for the forces of oppression to come apart at the seams.

Would Canada and Mexico become the resistance's Pakistan?

Then there are always scenarios with foreign invaders, alien (ET) invaders, mutant giant spiders, genetically engineered dinosaurs, or zombies.

By the way the SCOTUS heard another gun law-related case Nov 10th, U.S. v. Hayes. The focus is on interpretation of the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968. The decision should be interesting.

Oral arguments: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-608.pdf

Briefs:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov08.shtml

EDIT: Trying to fix the first link.


Edited, Nov 12th 2008 12:05pm by Ahkuraj
#28 Nov 12 2008 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Mindel wrote:
Stupid comment is stupid. There are around 15,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year compared to 600,000 crimes in which a gun is used in self-defense. I'm personally in favor of sensible gun control, but srsly, they are used in their intended manner quite often.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a cite. The typical consensus for most studies is that you or a family member are for more likely to be injured or killed by a gun bought for protection than to be saved by it. The typical gun owner is less safe having bought the gun. (All data specific to the U.S.)

Edited, Nov 12th 2008 12:25pm by Allegory
#29 Nov 12 2008 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
Allegory wrote:
Mindel wrote:
Stupid comment is stupid. There are around 15,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year compared to 600,000 crimes in which a gun is used in self-defense. I'm personally in favor of sensible gun control, but srsly, they are used in their intended manner quite often.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a cite. The typical consensus for most studies is that you or a family member are for more likely to be injured or killed by a gun bought for protection than to be saved by it. The typical gun owner is less safe having bought the gun. (All data specific to the U.S.)

Edited, Nov 12th 2008 12:25pm by Allegory


There are several studies available. The ones conducted by John Lott and Gary Kleck are by far the two most prominent and highly debated. Each suggests, by means of survey, an approximate 2 to 2.5 million DGU (defensive gun uses) per year. Even conservative critics of these reports admit the actual number is probably between 500,000 to a million. Google either one and do take a gander, if you wish.

As for gun related death statistics, I'll refer you to this post:
http://www.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4;mid=122513275391957825;page=3;howmany=50#m122516726894951677

The 30,000 mark seems to hold relatively steady across the past decade. Now, to be fair, 60% of gun-related deaths are either suicide or accident, with a mere 39% recorded as homocide, but you're comparing the types of deaths. Mindel's comment has nothing to do with the suicide/accident vs homocide and instead relates to the number of times guns are used defensively vs the number of times guns are used offensively. Statistics overwhelmingly indicate that there are FAR more defensive gun uses per year than gun related deaths as a whole, regardless of intent.
#30 Nov 12 2008 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Mindel wrote:
Stupid comment is stupid. There are around 15,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year compared to 600,000 crimes in which a gun is used in self-defense. I'm personally in favor of sensible gun control, but srsly, they are used in their intended manner quite often.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a cite. The typical consensus for most studies is that you or a family member are for more likely to be injured or killed by a gun bought for protection than to be saved by it. The typical gun owner is less safe having bought the gun. (All data specific to the U.S.)

Edited, Nov 12th 2008 12:25pm by Allegory


There are several studies available. The ones conducted by John Lott and Gary Kleck are by far the two most prominent and highly debated. Each suggests, by means of survey, an approximate 2 to 2.5 million DGU (defensive gun uses) per year. Even conservative critics of these reports admit the actual number is probably between 500,000 to a million. Google either one and do take a gander, if you wish.

As for gun related death statistics, I'll refer you to this post:
http://www.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4;mid=122513275391957825;page=3;howmany=50#m122516726894951677

The 30,000 mark seems to hold relatively steady across the past decade. Now, to be fair, 60% of gun-related deaths are either suicide or accident, with a mere 39% recorded as homocide, but you're comparing the types of deaths. Mindel's comment has nothing to do with the suicide/accident vs homocide and instead relates to the number of times guns are used defensively vs the number of times guns are used offensively. Statistics overwhelmingly indicate that there are FAR more defensive gun uses per year than gun related deaths as a whole, regardless of intent.
Thanks, Stubs. :)
#31 Nov 12 2008 at 11:24 AM Rating: Decent
zepoodle wrote:
large battleships.


Battleships are no longer in commission.
#32 Nov 12 2008 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
I'm sure that gun stores etc are just using Obama to help with marketing and sales.
____________________________
Do what now?
#33 Nov 12 2008 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
NaughtyWord wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
large battleships.


Battleships are no longer in commission.


Battleship sunk. Smiley: frown
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#34 Nov 12 2008 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Aircraft carrier > Battleship.
#35 Nov 12 2008 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
NaughtyWord wrote:
Battleships are no longer in commission.
Are the old ones for sale? I might need something in case the gummint starts getting all dictatorish.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Nov 12 2008 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
Aircraft carrier > Battleship.


I want to go home and play Civ 4.
#37 Nov 12 2008 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
zepoodle wrote:
What I find kind of pointless about that sort of armed insurrection logic is that even if every adult male owned a military-grade rifle, there is no chance, should the military ever choose to oppress its citizens in such a manner, that it would be any help at all.


If the entire US military decided to attack the ordinary citizens of the US the average Joe could have nothing but a butter knife and the civilians would defeat the military, quickly. I don't think you quite grasp the number of people you are talking about.
#38 Nov 12 2008 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Lady Tare wrote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug



The problem is that America is plagued with Superninjas and Terminator-style Robotic Bears.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#39 Nov 12 2008 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yodabunny wrote:
If the entire US military decided to attack the ordinary citizens of the US the average Joe could have nothing but a butter knife and the civilians would defeat the military, quickly.
Would we have to share the butter knife?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Nov 12 2008 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
No, but you'd have to share the butter, keep your damn crumbs to yourself.
#41 Nov 12 2008 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
It's the Brady effect.

When white people are alone and finally faced with the possibility of a black President, they will tend to buy more guns to try and shoot the President.
#42 Nov 12 2008 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default
**
496 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
f the entire US military decided to attack the ordinary citizens of the US the average Joe could have nothing but a butter knife and the civilians would defeat the military, quickly. I don't think you quite grasp the number of people you are talking about.
How do you figure? If I have a bread knife, the guy next to me has a bread knife and I see him get shot, I'm going to think twice, possibly thrice, about running forwards towards that guy with the big black gun.
Not everyone is selfless enough to swarm the military barricades WW1 trenches style.
Did I say selfless? I meant stupid
Also the argument that gun laws are relics of a violent struggle is, I'm sorry, but just plain stupid. There are a number of countries around the world, France for instance, who suffered far more devastation (see: French Revolution, 1789-95) at more or less the same period of time who now have no such relics.
But I'm a product of my countries media and I am aware of that, so don't mind me. (Yay for Australia...)
#43 Nov 12 2008 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Um, the 2nd amendment only gives us the right to hang bear arms in our houses, so I don't know what all the arguing about gun rights is about.
#44 Nov 12 2008 at 3:33 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

f the entire US military decided to attack the ordinary citizens of the US the average Joe could have nothing but a butter knife and the civilians would defeat the military, quickly. I don't think you quite grasp the number of people you are talking about.


Killing every man, woman, and child in the US would require the use of about 1/1000000000000th of the aggregate killing power of the US military, and about three days.

I don't think you quite grasp the structural asymmetry of the situation. If the goal of the US military were to slaughter large populations of people anywhere in the world, they'd never fail. The difficulties all happen around *not killing* particular people.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Nov 12 2008 at 3:36 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
As for the OP: People who large amounts of (more than say, three total) guns are by and large complete fucking morons living in constant abject fear.

Shocker.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Nov 12 2008 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:
As for the OP: People who large amounts of (more than say, three total) guns are by and large complete fucking morons living in constant abject fear.

Shocker.


Very few people who own that many guns do so for reasons of protection. The desire to shoot for recreational purposes hardly implies abject fear, and like any hobby, variety keeps things interesting.
#47 Nov 12 2008 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
***
3,909 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
What I find kind of pointless about that sort of armed insurrection logic is that even if every adult male owned a military-grade rifle, there is no chance, should the military ever choose to oppress its citizens in such a manner, that it would be any help at all.


If the entire US military decided to attack the ordinary citizens of the US the average Joe could have nothing but a butter knife and the civilians would defeat the military, quickly. I don't think you quite grasp the number of people you are talking about.


I don't think you've ever tried to kill a man with a butter knife.
#48 Nov 13 2008 at 12:22 AM Rating: Good
Smasharoo wrote:

Killing every man, woman, and child in the US would require the use of about 1/1000000000000th of the aggregate killing power of the US military, and about three days.



Not sure how true it is, but there was a study in a book I read that claimed a single Nimitz-Class aircraft carrier could level LA in about 12 hours with conventional weaponry. The US has 13 total aircraft carriers (most of which are Nimitz-Class).

Edited, Nov 13th 2008 1:01am by NaughtyWord
#49 Nov 13 2008 at 12:28 AM Rating: Decent
Iamadam the Shady wrote:
NaughtyWord wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
large battleships.


Battleships are no longer in commission.


Battleship sunk. Smiley: frown


While I knew that Battleships were no longer in commission wholly to the technological superiority of aircraft carriers in every quantifiable way, the last one was decommissioned in 1992, but they saw action in Vietnam and Korean War.
#50 Nov 13 2008 at 12:35 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
So how many red pieces does it take to take out an aircraft carrier?
#51 Nov 13 2008 at 12:59 AM Rating: Decent
sweetumssama wrote:
So how many red pieces does it take to take out an aircraft carrier?


The obvious, over 9000.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)