LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: Your stance on weapons law
Pro gun (all guns for self defence) 12 38.71%
Anti gun (no guns for self defence) 9 29.03%
Selective gun (only selected guns for self defence) 4 12.90%
other option 6 19.35%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-14-2019, 11:18 AM   #76
sidzen
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2014
Location: GMT-7
Distribution: Slackware64, xenialpup64, Slacko5.7
Posts: 200

Rep: Reputation: 36

Early firearms training is ESSENTIAL
But it must go hand-in-hand with RESPECT. For humans, for nature and the other creatures who all have a niche in the whole way this planet works. It's not working well, at present, due to ADDICTION
Addiction to MONEY.

Meanwhile, the World is going crazy.

The whole thing is but a symptom of something deeper and more profound than just people killing people.

I learned to shoot a rifle at age 12 via NRA-sponsored training and was soon a sharpashooter.

Everyone needs rifle training and guns need to be free not in the 'free beer' sense in order for Americans to be free, IMHO.
 
Old 04-14-2019, 11:35 AM   #77
m.a.l.'s pa
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Location: albuquerque
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 281

Rep: Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidzen View Post
Early firearms training is ESSENTIAL
For those who want to own firearms, yes. For the rest of us, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidzen View Post
Everyone needs rifle training
I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidzen View Post
Meanwhile, the World is going crazy.
Agreed.
 
Old 04-14-2019, 03:32 PM   #78
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
C'mon ondoho... surely you see the difference? In every case you've listed above there is a distinct victim of an act of violence. Who is victimized by an individual merely possessing a weapon? A hammer can help build a home or cave a man's skull in. A car can make having a job possible and give you important mobility but it can kill people by either accident, negligence, or even on purpose. Do we outlaw cars?

The people who think guns should be outlawed think that's reasonable because they can't imagine how a gun can be used effectively for anything peaceful and law-abiding. I'm not saying everyone needs a gun but everyone isn't you and doesn't live in your circumstances. Maybe you can walk to work or take the Metro a few blocks away so you don't need a car. Maybe you don't have livestock to protect from predators. Maybe you live in a crime free environment or have complete confidence in your existing government and a coup is entirely impossible where you live. Maybe everything in your future is perfectly safe. That isn't true for everyone.

The most important issue is that if every gun in existence magically disappeared tonight and while we're at it and using magic let's add suddenly explosive powders that make firearms possible suddenly ceased to work and guns became impossible to recreate. Do you really imagine all crime and power plays would cease? Do you think you really would magically be safer? Do you not realize that firearms were and are the Great Equalizer since without them the biggest, strongest and most trained take whatever they want, including power over everyone else or have you not considered History?
Excellent response enorbet and thank you for saving me a response.

Only thing I would add is that everything ondoho had on his list is not (with exception to #1 and #4) mandated (requirements of) by government therefore are not examples of tyranny. #1 and #4 are however good examples of tyranny and have been and are still used by governments and political ideologies to justify theft by government and forceful submission/coercion. And yes, the right to bear arms would protect one from your entire list whether from government or individual nutjobs.

Nice strawman though ondoho, save that for Halloween.
 
Old 04-15-2019, 03:56 AM   #79
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,226
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
And as a result the UK police are the most stabbed in the developed world. Hence the need for stab vests, oh and they are shot often as well. Right fabulous advertisement for criminals: oy our bobbies are handicapped and cant protect themselves.
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2016
Note that "gunfire" is the notable statistic here.

By contrast, the last death of a police officer on duty in the UK was in 2017 (during the Westminster Terror attack).

Also on police using firearms against suspects:

Quote:
The death marks the first time a police officer has fatally shot a suspect in 2017 but overall deaths caused by firearms officers in the UK remain rare.
[...]
Even when adjusted for their total population sizes, the UK estimate is 64.1m and the US’ 318.9m, it shows that the fatal police shooting rate in the US is roughly 64 times that of the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7507051.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Interesting, but the fact that your reality is this does not preclude others from the right to protect themselves. That's one difference between freedom and tyranny, I am not going to force you to live a certain way (ie: you must have guns), but notice how tyranny does say you cannot protect yourself or own guns etc....
Apart from some fantasy idea about some of the army joining the "rebels", we still have no explanation as to how citizenry with "firearms training" can fare against a trained modern standing army with automatic weapons, artillery, mortars, armour, helicopter gunships + the air force, the Navy and the police, etc...

The argument has been made here that the mere "threat" of a firearm is enough to deter an attacker - I would argue that the threat posed by a well equipped and numerous military force is enough to deter any kind of uprising in the US.

Your tyrants and oppressors are already firmly in place and they're there to stay for the foreseeable future. If the 2nd amendment rights had ever been a threat to the status quo they'd have already been removed decades ago... they're not, hence you get your guns, they make their money and you get to continue with your illusion.

More interesting stats here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

Of the 10,000 firearms murders, I wonder what proportion the gun lobby would have you believe would have been carried out anyway, just with a different weapon?

Interesting that there were 1600 fatal stabbings. Adjusted for population this would be about ~ 350'ish in UK terms. So higher than UK, albeit not by a huge amount, but with a fully armed police force seemingly having no impact on that figure.

Knife fatalities in the UK have always hovered around 200 per year since the 1990's, but 10 years of a downward trend has recently been reversed sharply due to a number of reasons - arguably due to cuts in policing and public services. So while the news media is having a great time reporting this, they probably would not be if there was something else to report. It's only getting airtime at all due to the attacks being in better neighbourhoods and by virtue of being in London.

I'm not sure how arming all the police would make much difference to this. All of the existing deterrents, such as prison, have no effect.

Last edited by cynwulf; 04-15-2019 at 06:22 AM.
 
Old 04-15-2019, 01:13 PM   #80
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 11,308
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Apart from some fantasy idea about some of the army joining the "rebels", we still have no explanation as to how citizenry with "firearms training" can fare against a trained modern standing army with automatic weapons, artillery, mortars, armour, helicopter gunships + the air force, the Navy and the police, etc...

The argument has been made here that the mere "threat" of a firearm is enough to deter an attacker - I would argue that the threat posed by a well equipped and numerous military force is enough to deter any kind of uprising in the US.

Your tyrants and oppressors are already firmly in place and they're there to stay for the foreseeable future. If the 2nd amendment rights had ever been a threat to the status quo they'd have already been removed decades ago... they're not, hence you get your guns, they make their money and you get to continue with your illusion.
and there it is in a nutshell.
thank you once again, cynwulf.
 
Old 04-15-2019, 02:48 PM   #81
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
cynwulf, keep repeating the same falacies and I will gladly keep reporting facts. Again, .0001% of guns are used in murders and gun crimes, 99.9999% are not.

There is a reason that the US has remained more free then other countries and it is partly because of the wording of the Constitution, partly because of the separation of powers, partly because of checks/balances and majorly because of the second amendment/right to bear arms. Notice I wrote "more free", those freedoms have been whittled down over time, skillfully using well crafted propaganda techniques that would have impressed Edward Bernays and Saul Alinsky.

Nice try though.
 
Old 04-15-2019, 07:07 PM   #82
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
Well cynwulf, I disagree with just about everything you wrote in your last post except for one thing. While I don't think it is as fanciful as "illusion" I do think the odds have gotten very bad for a "Citizen Resistance Army" to take on the military should that ever become the last option. I don't think that's because of "automatic weapons, artillery, mortars, armour, helicopter gunships". I think it is because of satellites, drones, thermal and other kinds of high tech imaging, and the various means technology has offered the armed forces to track and reveal enemies. Technology has exceeded the value of "boots on the ground" and that's where any such confrontation needs to focus.

That, however, does not mean that there is value in outlawing firearms simply because they have been rendered moot in such an extreme confrontation. Aside from protecting one's life and property, there is the issue of The Will. "Give me Liberty or give me Death" sounds hollow and silly if that means hanging one's head while being led to the Executioner because of becoming powerless to stand up for yourself and for generations forward. You have heard of the complacency of frogs in water brought slowly to boil, right?
 
Old 04-15-2019, 07:56 PM   #83
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
enorbet agreed...

I will add this to the equation: anyone who has ever served in the US Military took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution...from all enemies foreign and domestic... That oath is not something that's rescinded. So if it ever came to it, do not assume the entire Military would take the side of those in power.

Ref:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
https://www.military.com/join-armed-...y-service.html
There are also those who take an extra oath: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K...ature=youtu.be
 
Old 04-16-2019, 03:21 AM   #84
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,226
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
cynwulf, keep repeating the same falacies and I will gladly keep reporting facts. Again, .0001% of guns are used in murders and gun crimes, 99.9999% are not.
I've presented some actual data which actually has some meaning - you have come back with meaningless and unverifiable statistic. You are not somehow ending the debate by presenting that. You have not shown how my "fallacies" are fallacies, while still repeating your "2nd amendment" and "freedom" from "tyranny" lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Well cynwulf, I disagree with just about everything you wrote in your last post except for one thing. While I don't think it is as fanciful as "illusion" I do think the odds have gotten very bad for a "Citizen Resistance Army" to take on the military should that ever become the last option. I don't think that's because of "automatic weapons, artillery, mortars, armour, helicopter gunships". I think it is because of satellites, drones, thermal and other kinds of high tech imaging, and the various means technology has offered the armed forces to track and reveal enemies. Technology has exceeded the value of "boots on the ground" and that's where any such confrontation needs to focus.
You seem to miss the point. In the event of an uprising a "show of force" will be sufficient - i.e. visible units on the streets will serve to keep the problem contained to one area, before it spreads.

This can only achieved by boots on the ground. A rioting mob can't be quelled by thermal imaging and satellites. Drone strikes are a possibility, but "shooting first", tends to fan the flames. Ordering the troops to fire on the people usually has disastrous consequences. As I've said, the mere threat is usually enough. If you do some basic research into historical engagements over the last few millennia, you will see where this tactic has succeeded time and again - even in ancient warfare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
That, however, does not mean that there is value in outlawing firearms[...]
There has been no suggestion of outlawing from me, I've said several times now that I find that unrealistic. I have advocated for better controls, as have others.
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:54 AM   #85
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,621

Rep: Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
cynwulf, keep repeating the same falacies and I will gladly keep reporting facts. Again, .0001% of guns are used in murders and gun crimes, 99.9999% are not.
ChuangTzu, that stat you keep repeating is absolutely meaningless by itself. First; you cannot fire a gun that is not there to begin with. Therefore, the harder it is for unstable people to possess guns, the less likely it is that they will get a hold of one to begin with. Because when it's as easy as walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, then walking out with it, then most unstable people are going to do just that. Second; you're effectively saying that victims of gun crime are basically collateral damage that don't matter. Third; name me one other country in the entire world that has the same amount of school shootings as the US. I'll bet you can't. So the fact is that, given that, then it's obviously a problem only seen in the US, where other countries simply don't have the same amount of school shootings. In my country, there are no armed guards at schools, why? Because it's very unlikely that someone would be going to one to shoot the place up. From what I've read, it's Switzerland that has the second highest gun ownership in the world (after the US), and how many school shootings do you hear about in Switzerland? Well, I'm struggling to think of even one such incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
Buying guns

In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (art. 8 WG/LArm). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not under a curator nor identified as being a danger for themselves or others, and who don't have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions as long as they haven't been written out can request such a permit. Foreigners with citizenship to the following countries are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania.[note 1] The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:
  • valid official identification or passport copy.
  • residence address.
  • criminal record copy not older than 3 months.
...
Quote:
There is a reason that the US has remained more free then other countries and it is partly because of the wording of the Constitution, partly because of the separation of powers, partly because of checks/balances and majorly because of the second amendment/right to bear arms. Notice I wrote "more free", those freedoms have been whittled down over time, skillfully using well crafted propaganda techniques that would have impressed Edward Bernays and Saul Alinsky.

Nice try though.
You don't think there is "separation of powers" in other countries ? There are also 2 houses of parliament here in Oz too, as in some other counties too. So you're comparing apples and oranges by comparing "freedoms" with "gun rights", as "bearing arms" is far from the only "freedom".

So nice try.
 
Old 04-16-2019, 09:33 AM   #86
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
You seem to miss the point. In the event of an uprising a "show of force" will be sufficient - i.e. visible units on the streets will serve to keep the problem contained to one area, before it spreads.

This can only achieved by boots on the ground. A rioting mob can't be quelled by thermal imaging and satellites. Drone strikes are a possibility, but "shooting first", tends to fan the flames. Ordering the troops to fire on the people usually has disastrous consequences. As I've said, the mere threat is usually enough. If you do some basic research into historical engagements over the last few millennia, you will see where this tactic has succeeded time and again - even in ancient warfare.
IIRC in most Nazi-occupied countries there were potent shows of force and also Partisan groups that played very important roles. Seems to me a Norwegian group stopped a train carrying fissionables iirc. Slaves at Peenemünde managed to sabotage many V2s. Resistance doesn't always just stop from a show of force. With or without firearms, resistance is also caused and/or escalated by shows of force. In fact, it is the fallacy of coercion and it's called things like "blowback" and it often lasts for many generations. This is historical, too and still is going on today all over the world, don't you think? Some are still fighting The Crusades just to mention one. Israel, Serbia, Bosnia, Estonia are a few others

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
There has been no suggestion of outlawing from me, I've said several times now that I find that unrealistic. I have advocated for better controls, as have others.
I happen to agree in part about controls since I see US Gun Shows as outlets as one area that is a bit "wild and wooly" but I do choose to be very cautious about slipping to an endpoint by degrees. Sometimes cures are worse than the disease and misdirection can be a powerful tool. I still don't see ChuangTzu's statistics as fallacious or irrelevant but he and I disagree on what that implies. It is my opinion that automobile deaths and common medical deaths in the millions are more important than gun deaths and I think transportation and the whole healhcare system needs to be deeply altered to help create a higher quality of life with options and prospects that help reduce the hopelessness that has an important role in instigating crime. I take The Social Contract very seriously and I'm very dismayed to see the gaps between classes widening. It does not bode well for the long run.
 
Old 04-16-2019, 12:14 PM   #87
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 11,308
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934
Godwin's Law is happening again...
 
Old 04-16-2019, 03:50 PM   #88
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
I've presented some actual data which actually has some meaning - you have come back with meaningless and unverifiable statistic. You are not somehow ending the debate by presenting that. You have not shown how my "fallacies" are fallacies, while still repeating your "2nd amendment" and "freedom" from "tyranny" lines...
.0001% of guns being used in gun violence out of 400 million guns is not a problem. Why should the owners of the other 99.9999% suffer or have their rights infringed upon for because of the "for the most part" criminal class that will use any weapon at their disposal to commit their crime(s)?

Keep in mind since this all goes back to the 2nd Amendment (in the USA anyway, which is what the OP based his/her question on) contains an often forgotten phrase..."Shall not be infringed..."

I have a question for you now (and everyone else that is not American or living in the USA): why are non-Americans so obsessed/concerned with our Bill of Rights in particular the 2nd Amendment that protects our right to bear arms?
 
Old 04-16-2019, 03:53 PM   #89
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
Godwin's Law is happening again...
Malcolm Turnbull's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
Quote:
"As a politician with no policy keeps talking, the probability of an illogical comparison approaches 1."
 
Old 04-16-2019, 04:02 PM   #90
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
ChuangTzu, that stat you keep repeating is absolutely meaningless by itself. First; you cannot fire a gun that is not there to begin with. Therefore, the harder it is for unstable people to possess guns, the less likely it is that they will get a hold of one to begin with. Because when it's as easy as walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, then walking out with it, then most unstable people are going to do just that. Second; you're effectively saying that victims of gun crime are basically collateral damage that don't matter. Third; name me one other country in the entire world that has the same amount of school shootings as the US. I'll bet you can't. So the fact is that, given that, then it's obviously a problem only seen in the US, where other countries simply don't have the same amount of school shootings. In my country, there are no armed guards at schools, why? Because it's very unlikely that someone would be going to one to shoot the place up. From what I've read, it's Switzerland that has the second highest gun ownership in the world (after the US), and how many school shootings do you hear about in Switzerland? Well, I'm struggling to think of even one such incident.





You don't think there is "separation of powers" in other countries ? There are also 2 houses of parliament here in Oz too, as in some other counties too. So you're comparing apples and oranges by comparing "freedoms" with "gun rights", as "bearing arms" is far from the only "freedom".

So nice try.
some countries separations are mere appearances, and yes the US is moving more towards this as well. House of Lords and House of Commons (UK) are not separate but equal, as the House of Lords has far more power then the House of Commoners, I mean Commons.

The idea behind the US is each state was its own country that was unified for defense and commerce, hence why each state has its own Governor, House, Senate, Supreme Court etc... The federal level had the House which represented the people and the Senate which represented the states, this was changed when the government prejudiciously changed it to having the people elect the Senate instead of the Senate being appointed by the States. Now the House and Senate both serve the voters and the States are left with no representation. But that is another discussion for another thread at another time.
 
  


Reply

Tags
safety


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dynamic local subnet allowance based on current IP xxmsaxx Linux - Networking 2 10-22-2009 01:18 PM
Trying to avoid bad color gun in old CRT ktvoelker Linux - Software 2 07-23-2005 10:14 AM
disk space allowance? whovian Linux - Newbie 2 07-10-2005 03:11 PM
why gun compiler doesn't work michaelwu Linux - Software 1 04-22-2005 02:50 AM
pcmcia, Mandrake, modules, and a smoking gun oiper Linux - Networking 0 07-26-2004 12:20 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration