Do we really need guns?

[ivwshane]

If you're going to do some research, why not be thorough? Tannerite slowly becomes unstable once mixed due to the moisture in the air. Adding water to Tannerite will push it to the point of either letting a firecracker set it off easily...or it just going off by being bumped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material#Hygroscopicity_and_water_resistance



Exactly: some soldiers will not open fire on civilians, and may in fact commandeer equipment and ordinance to join the civilians. Moreover, why on earth would go into the open to go toe to toe with a tank? Guerrilla warfare...

Again, you are trying to make it sound simple when, no matter how many ways you try, it's not as easy as picking up a gun and firing it. You keep missing this point, either deliberately or not.

 

[Darwin333]

If it were to come to armed rebellion, how effective do you think your collection of firearms will be against the weaponry of the United States military forces? They have tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads... and you think the threat of some Berettas and AR-15s is keeping them at bay? That's delusional paranoia so thick and rich I want to bottle it and sell it as pancake syrup.

It's almost as absurd as a bunch of farmers taking on the biggest military power in the world at the time and winning. Hell we are seeing rebellions in other countries right now against tanks and planes. The US military got bogged down in Iraq for years because of some assholes with AKs and improvised explosives and frankly short of an actual civil war I could never see the US using the same rules of engagement against it's own citizens as it does in an actual war zone on foreign soil.

 

[ivwshane]

It's almost as absurd as a bunch of farmers taking on the biggest military power in the world at the time and winning. Hell we are seeing rebellions in other countries right now against tanks and planes. The US military got bogged down in Iraq for years because of some assholes with AKs and improvised explosives and frankly short of an actual civil war I could never see the US using the same rules of engagement against it's own citizens as it does in an actual war zone on foreign soil.

So it's not the government we need to worry about, it's those that want to overthrow government we need to worry about?

 

[Darwin333]

What you said was true but the part you didn't factor in was the ignition. Tannerite requires a velocity impact to set it off. Since we are playing fantasy and in my fantasy guns are removed from the equation then that pretty much leaves blasting caps. That's another complication to the equation. Again, it's not easier than a gun.

Are you kidding? If you are smart enough to obtain the tannerite and plan to use it, it's absurdly easy to make something besides a gun/bullet to make it go boom. Hell a few additional components and you can dramatically reduce the energy needed to set it off.

And it's not like gunpowder is hard to make or anything, it's actually quite easy. An hour at the hardware store and you have yourself zip gun that can be ignited all kinds of ways which will then ignite the tannerite.

 

[Darwin333]

Again, you are trying to make it sound simple when, no matter how many ways you try, it's not as easy as picking up a gun and firing it. You keep missing this point, either deliberately or not.

No, it is not that simple but it is nice to have the option on the table just in case.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It's almost as absurd as a bunch of farmers taking on the biggest military power in the world at the time and winning. Hell we are seeing rebellions in other countries right now against tanks and planes. The US military got bogged down in Iraq for years because of some assholes with AKs and improvised explosives and frankly short of an actual civil war I could never see the US using the same rules of engagement against it's own citizens as it does in an actual war zone on foreign soil.

I'm not anti-gun. I just think the rationale of "I need this gun or Uncle Sam will oppress me" is so ludicrous as to be utterly nonsensical as a valid reason for owning a gun. I don't foresee armed rebellion becoming a reality at any point in the conceivable future in America, but it's not because government power is terrified of people with guns. The person I was responding to at once dismissed sporting and hunting as valid reasons for owning firearms and resorted to defeating the forces of tyranny as the sole rationale for firearm ownership, and that's the logic of an insane person.

 

[ivwshane]

No, it is not that simple but it is nice to have the option on the table just in case.

Well, I guess if your goal is to kill lots of people, having options is a good thing.

For those not trying to kill people it would seem like a smart thing to do would be to make it harder for people to be able to kill people.

Maybe I'm crazy though.

 

[waggy]

If you'd have your gun on/near you 100% of the time I'd say your "what if" scenarios, THAT YOU CREATED, makes sense but since you can't answer the question directly, I'll assume you, like many gun nutters, you are full of shit and only create "what if" scenarios when it fits your agenda. You'll note that when I proposed the exact opposite of a previous posters "what if" scenario you guys couldn't even fathom the possibility and your defense was even more "what if" scenarios.

Like I said, talking to gun nutters is an exercise in futility. It's already been pointed out that more deaths happen via accident in households with guns than does in households without guns so I'm not sure how one can logically safe they are safer with a gun than without.

lol and talking with anti-gun nutters is too.

we can agree to disagree. But i would far rather have gun for whatever "what if" that may (but odds won't) happen.

 

[ivwshane]

lol and talking with anti-gun nutters is too.

we can agree to disagree. But i would far rather have gun for whatever "what if" that may (but odds won't) happen.

I agree, anti gun nutters can be pretty bad too, they just aren't usually as invested as gun nutters.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Again, you are trying to make it sound simple when, no matter how many ways you try, it's not as easy as picking up a gun and firing it. You keep missing this point, either deliberately or not.

My point is that it's quite easy to go get some simple explosives. Hell, you can go buy black powder. That's not too hard to get....

But hey, you can tell me it's "easier" to buy a gun that requires background checks than it is to buy explosives that require no background checks. Especially when a bomb requires no aiming.

 

[Darwin333]

So it's not the government we need to worry about, it's those that want to overthrow government we need to worry about?

According to King George III, yes you are absolutely right. Personally I fall on the other side of the issue but the great thing about our ancestors flipping the bird to King George III is that we both have the freedom to believe what we want.

 

[Darwin333]

Well, I guess if your goal is to kill lots of people, having options is a good thing.

For those not trying to kill people it would seem like a smart thing to do would be to make it harder for people to be able to kill people.

Maybe I'm crazy though.

My guns have killed exactly zero people and you can read my story in this very thread about how my guns saved my and many others lives and property in the worst possible situation I could ever imagine being in while still in the United States.

So far my guns have saved lives without taking a single one. I get that you are scared of them and they aren't for you, that's just fine with me. If you are in danger of great bodily harm I might even intercede on your behalf with my gun but just because you are uncomfortable with them doesn't mean you get to tell the rest of us what to do. Fucking swimming pools and bathtubs pose more of a safety risk and the numbers get really skewed when you take out the gangbangers and people who deal in the government made black market underworld.

I would have loved to see your opinion on people being able to arm themselves down here a week after Katrina. I guarantee you that at that moment in time you would have had a completely different attitude towards them. Hell you can come on down right now and I will be happy to pay for your accommodations so long as you walk through certain parts of the city during daylight hours only. I'll even take you to some of the best restaurants you've never heard about before. Lets see how you feel about a person having the right to be able to protect themselves, if they so choose, then.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I agree, anti gun nutters can be pretty bad too, they just aren't usually as invested as gun nutters.

michael bloomberg disagrees

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This is another one of those Pavlovian bell ringers here.

Drunk and distracted driving kill each year. No one is outlawing Booze (again) or smart phones. When you answer why that is, you have your answer why guns are not outlawed. It comes down to using all of them responsibly. Fail to do so, and you get subjected to the criminal, and possibly, civil justice systems.

When they outlawed alcohol, how did that work out?

Do we need guns? No more than we need booze. But we have both and you can choose to make use of them or not. Ain't freedom grand!

 

[ivwshane]

This is another one of those Pavlovian bell ringers here.

Drunk and distracted driving kill each year. No one is outlawing Booze (again) or smart phones. When you answer why that is, you have your answer why guns are not outlawed. It comes down to using all of them responsibly. Fail to do so, and you get subjected to the criminal, and possibly, civil justice systems.

When they outlawed alcohol, how did that work out?

Do we need guns? No more than we need booze. But we have both and you can choose to make use of them or not. Ain't freedom grand!

Indeed it is!

 

[ivwshane]

My point is that it's quite easy to go get some simple explosives. Hell, you can go buy black powder. That's not too hard to get....

But hey, you can tell me it's "easier" to buy a gun that requires background checks than it is to buy explosives that require no background checks. Especially when a bomb requires no aiming.

You didn't explained how, after getting explosives, they are easier to use. You talked about one part of the equation, obtaining explosives. You claiming that it's easier to set up an explosive and the required arming device doesn't make it so.

 

[ivwshane]

michael bloomberg disagrees

Yeah, well we are talking generalities here. Anyone can point to an idiot on any side of a debate.

 

[ivwshane]

That's a great story, it really is but it didn't address the point being made.

Careful where you point that straw man

My guns have killed exactly zero people and you can read my story in this very thread about how my guns saved my and many others lives and property in the worst possible situation I could ever imagine being in while still in the United States.

So far my guns have saved lives without taking a single one. I get that you are scared of them and they aren't for you, that's just fine with me. If you are in danger of great bodily harm I might even intercede on your behalf with my gun but just because you are uncomfortable with them doesn't mean you get to tell the rest of us what to do. Fucking swimming pools and bathtubs pose more of a safety risk and the numbers get really skewed when you take out the gangbangers and people who deal in the government made black market underworld.

I would have loved to see your opinion on people being able to arm themselves down here a week after Katrina. I guarantee you that at that moment in time you would have had a completely different attitude towards them. Hell you can come on down right now and I will be happy to pay for your accommodations so long as you walk through certain parts of the city during daylight hours only. I'll even take you to some of the best restaurants you've never heard about before. Lets see how you feel about a person having the right to be able to protect themselves, if they so choose, then.

 

[Genx87]

If it were to come to armed rebellion, how effective do you think your collection of firearms will be against the weaponry of the United States military forces? They have tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads... and you think the threat of some Berettas and AR-15s is keeping them at bay? That's delusional paranoia so thick and rich I want to bottle it and sell it as pancake syrup.

How effective were they in Iraq? We put our full military in there and couldnt stop the rebellion. Do you believe the US military will fight harder against US citizens than they did against Iraqis and Afghanistanis? I don't for a second believe they will.

Secondly as we have seen across the world when armed rebellion happens parts of the military establishment join the rebellion. Stockpiles are overrun and the rebellion does have more than just guns to fight against a tyrannical govt. ISIS has hundreds of Humvees and a few M1 Abram tanks now.

 

[HumblePie]

My point is that it's quite easy to go get some simple explosives. Hell, you can go buy black powder. That's not too hard to get....

But hey, you can tell me it's "easier" to buy a gun that requires background checks than it is to buy explosives that require no background checks. Especially when a bomb requires no aiming.

Bombs are easier to get and are far more likely to have a higher body count. There is several reasons they aren't used more often though over guns.

1) Improperly handling of explosive material tends to blow up the bomber before they get a chance to blow up victims. Improper handling of guns can kill the shooter before he finds any victims too.. but it's a whole lot less likely to happen in comparison.

Bombs as mentioned can be a fickle thing to someone that hasn't experimented enough with them to use properly. It's easier to learn how to get better with guns by going to gun range. One doesn't exactly drive down the street to practice bomb making and deployment methods at the local bomb range.

2) Bombs have a higher chance of killing the bomber during the explosion along with the victims. This related to point 1 in lack of realizing the timing of the bomb going off and the explosion radius.

3) Bombs are set and forget weapons. This is a MAJOR reason if not the main reason for less people choosing bombs over guns when it comes to mass murder attempts in terms of how often a murder weapon is chosen. The murderer doesn't know if the bomb has done what he wants it to do, nor the murderer know the body count until much later. Which is a huge turn off for these murderers. They don't get to see their victims die by their hands. It's also seen a "cheating" because successful bombs tend to have much higher body counts than gun shooting sprees. To some it's a challenge.

It's mainly for those 3 reasons above that there is more mass shooters than bombers. With number 3 being the biggest reason of the group. But if guns were impossible to obtain, those intent on mass murder would just switch weapons to the something else. Unless are under the misguided assumption there were no mass murderers prior to the inventions of guns and bombs?

 

[RampantAndroid]

You didn't explained how, after getting explosives, they are easier to use. You talked about one part of the equation, obtaining explosives. You claiming that it's easier to set up an explosive and the required arming device doesn't make it so.

Actually, I did.

If you're going to do some research, why not be thorough? Tannerite slowly becomes unstable once mixed due to the moisture in the air. Adding water to Tannerite will push it to the point of either letting a firecracker set it off easily...or it just going off by being bumped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material#Hygroscopicity_and_water_resistance

Tannerite + water (well, most explosives + water) = unstable as fucking hell, and can be set off with a simple firecracker. Add same gas cans into the equation and now you've not only made a nice big bang, you've also spread fire everywhere.

Bombs are easier to get and are far more likely to have a higher body count. There is several reasons they aren't used more often though over guns.

1) Improperly handling of explosive material tends to blow up the bomber before they get a chance to blow up victims. Improper handling of guns can kill the shooter before he finds any victims too.. but it's a whole lot less likely to happen in comparison.

Bombs as mentioned can be a fickle thing to someone that hasn't experimented enough with them to use properly. It's easier to learn how to get better with guns by going to gun range. One doesn't exactly drive down the street to practice bomb making and deployment methods at the local bomb range.

2) Bombs have a higher chance of killing the bomber during the explosion along with the victims. This related to point 1 in lack of realizing the timing of the bomb going off and the explosion radius.

3) Bombs are set and forget weapons. This is a MAJOR reason if not the main reason for less people choosing bombs over guns when it comes to mass murder attempts in terms of how often a murder weapon is chosen. The murderer doesn't know if the bomb has done what he wants it to do, nor the murderer know the body count until much later. Which is a huge turn off for these murderers. They don't get to see their victims die by their hands. It's also seen a "cheating" because successful bombs tend to have much higher body counts than gun shooting sprees. To some it's a challenge.

It's mainly for those 3 reasons above that there is more mass shooters than bombers. With number 3 being the biggest reason of the group. But if guns were impossible to obtain, those intent on mass murder would just switch weapons to the something else. Unless are under the misguided assumption there were no mass murderers prior to the inventions of guns and bombs?

That sounds....believeable. Why though, when this guy returned from Jordan and was clearly not right in the head, did no one report him? Had someone made a report then maybe something would have been done (maybe).

 

[HumblePie]

That sounds....believeable. Why though, when this guy returned from Jordan and was clearly not right in the head, did no one report him? Had someone made a report then maybe something would have been done (maybe).

Mass murderers want it easy but not too easy usually. Well those of the gun profile. Which means easier than using a more primitive weapon, but not as easy as a set and forget bomb they walk away from.

Most of the mass murderers that use guns to kill targets are doing it for the thrill of the kill or a vendetta to someone or something specific. They need to see their victims because of this.

Those that use bombs for mass murders do tend to do it for an ideological cause. Whether they live or die doesn't matter as they feel that if they die in the explosion too they are martyrs to their cause. Most of the gun toting mass murderers all intend to escape although their lack of timing on making good on their escapes tends to end up either them having suicide by cop with a shoot out, or they shoot themselves in the head to avoid justice because they inherently know what they are doing is wrong. Versus bombers who believe what they are doing is right and working for a cause. There are rare exceptions to the shooting mass murderers that get caught like Holmes, but that was from other factors as well.

It's really why there are separate profiles for mass murderer bombers, who tend to be labeled terrorists more often, versus shooters.

Still if guns were taken away from everyone in America and there wasn't any legal way for civilians to get them, the mass murderers WOULD switch to bombs, chems, or other mass murdering vectors instead.

 

[werepossum]

If it were to come to armed rebellion, how effective do you think your collection of firearms will be against the weaponry of the United States military forces? They have tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads... and you think the threat of some Berettas and AR-15s is keeping them at bay? That's delusional paranoia so thick and rich I want to bottle it and sell it as pancake syrup.

Vietnam would disagree. We had virtually all the tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads, and we still lost, badly, as did the French before us and the Chinese after us. Fact is, simple firearms in the hands of people willing and determined to fight and sacrifice will win against tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads every time. It simply takes determination and a lot of time and blood. Hell, this wouldn't even be a country if the fight went to the side with the most and best weapons.

 

[nickqt]

Vietnam would disagree. We had virtually all the tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads, and we still lost, badly, as did the French before us and the Chinese after us. Fact is, simple firearms in the hands of people willing and determined to fight and sacrifice will win against tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads every time. It simply takes determination and a lot of time and blood. Hell, this wouldn't even be a country if the fight went to the side with the most and best weapons.

I believe he started out saying that it's ridiculous to think that small arms are going to keep the military at bay when they're more likely to be used for hunting than anything else, and then pointed out that regardless of whether there could be an overall "victory" of the US Military fighting against US citizens in the US, someone running around with an AR-15 and a .45 is going to be red splatter, if and when a US armored division comes rolling through town.

I seriously doubt US soldiers who aren't simply psychopaths would follow orders to fight inside the US, but that's right now. In the future, depending on how much Americans stay divided and think of people they disagree with as "Others", it could happen.

One thing is for sure. It's a hell of a lot easier to put down a rebellion in your own country than it is to put one down when men and material are on the other side of the world, and your average soldier doesn't speak the language of the natives. Just being able to understand verbal communications in a pitched street battle is pretty valuable on the side putting down a rebellion. You have professional soldiers speaking quietly with satellites and tech, and rebels screaming because you can bet the government would turn off ye olde internet access and the electrical grid.

Now add-in the fact that intelligence is a lot easier to gather when the people you're fighting speak, act, eat, drink, recreate, worship, and look pretty much just like you.

Factoring in those two things, I believe that you have to think of any rebellion inside the US with the Civil War in mind, rather than the American Revolution or Iraq. Not to mention that Britain was fighting a world war when it was also fighting the American revolution, and the American rebels had real support from -gasp- France and Spain by proxy. In essence, the US beat Britain here at home, but for Britain, this was just a colony giving them a bunch of shit. Britain maintained a lot of their Caribbean colonies and India even with France and Spain fighting against them. And don't forget that they still gave the US a bunch of shit, burning the capitol in 1812 for the giggles.

Every time I see the "we have to keep the gub'mint from tyrannizing us", I realize that the person defending gun ownership is shooting (pun intended!) right past the most logical and reasonable reasons for protection of gun ownership and going straight into paranoid delusions that they've been trained to focus on - that they're modern day American patriots who are going to protect liberty and freedom from tyranny.

Seriously, I don't want to grab guns (or am I just saying that as an Agenda21 Obamabot plant?!?) but if you asked me to defend the second amendment in the most expansive way possible, I'd say that most people don't use their guns to kill other people, and target shooting is fun, while hunting can also be fun and damn well useful to feed yourself. The whole "but the military is comin' with black helicopters" thing is the last point I'd bring up, because gross.

 

[highland145]

I picked up a Taurus .357, stainless, 6rnd, 4" ported barrel today. $400.

I needed it. Hope it's not hot.