Opinion Should they ban assault weapons?

[PEDS Help me Post]

I'm just happy that I live in a first world country.


It must suck to live in a place where hatred, racism, selfishness and violence are so ingrained into society that its citizens will threaten civil war if laws are put into place to prevent 6 year old children from being massacred in schools.

Countries need to start imposing travel bans on Americans. They are clearly violent and have many serious mental issues.

 

[Greoric]

The reason why insurgencies are more successful now is because mass extermination is not really an option. There were insurgencies all the time in the past. They just got wiped out usually by tactics that would be considered illegal today. You also have to understand that the killing power of governments has increased much more in relation to the self defence ability of the citizen. Citizens with small arms would just be a nuisance to the US government. Its elements of the military siding with rebels that would be the major threat.

If the government went into total war mode on the civilian population, then that could only be hoped for with regard to a domestic insurgency. That's a pretty quick way to get 300 million people on your side. I guess they could just nuke the country... but then again that doesn't exactly further their goals either.

Bottom line? I don't think you're appreciating how the government would necessarily have to limit itself and the use of its ordinance just for a chance to win. Getting the people on their side is a necessary condition to victory in that conflict. See the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[jlagman]

It's more like, "Our ancestors already willingly forfeited the right to maintain an arsenal with any parity to the military or even the police force so why are you so obtuse when it comes to coming up with an intelligent set of gun laws that make sense for the current year"

"Forfeiting parity" was the original compromise. Demanding further concessions will get you nowhere fast.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I could make the moral justification for it. It has't just happened, because no one's hungry.

Just takes the right natural disaster for temporary breakdown.

I think when this argument is made the popular insurgencies that are always "championed" as a reason to not talk about doing anything about gun laws is that every one of those popular insurgencies were propped up by a major first world military industrial complex, sometimes even multiple at the same time.

That's fine. But then what makes you think there aren't well-armed governments out there who'd love to arm people looking to undermine the US government?

 

[IDL]

If the government went into total war mode on the civilian population, then that could only be hoped for with regard to a domestic insurgency. That's a pretty quick way to get 300 million people on your side. I guess they could just nuke the country... but then again that doesn't exactly further their goals either.

Bottom line? I don't think you're appreciating how the government would necessarily have to limit itself and the use of its ordinance just for a chance to win. Getting the people on their side is a necessary condition to victory in that conflict. See the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Yeah I don't understand the rational behind "Civilians couldn't win an all out war with the armed forces and all their technology therefor the 2nd amendment argument is faulty" because that isn't how it would play out in any shape or form.

Really all you need to have effective deterrence is to make it not worth their while.

Like a porcupine deterring a lion. Of course the lion could kill the porcupine if it wanted to but it is going to think twice about attempting it because of the cost involved.

 

[FyrFytr998]

All banning semiautomatic weapons will do is pave the way for total disarmament of law abiding citizens. Period.

If one life is too many to lose. Then anti gun proponents will just go right down the list of firearm systems until there are none, because they know for damn sure the killings won’t stop. So why should they? All the while, the criminal element laughs, knowing full well each and every ban means absolutely nothing to them.

 

[tramendous]

If the government went into total war mode on the civilian population, then that could only be hoped for with regard to a domestic insurgency. That's a pretty quick way to get 300 million people on your side. I guess they could just nuke the country... but then again that doesn't exactly further their goals either.

Bottom line? I don't think you're appreciating how the government would necessarily have to limit itself and the use of its ordinance just for a chance to win. Getting the people on their side is a necessary condition to victory in that conflict. See the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

of course they aren't going to automatically nuke the country. Yes lets think of Soviets in Afghanistan. 1st it was the Soviets in Afghanistan. Not the Soviets in Soviet union. Huge parts of the Afghan army deserted to fight for the Mujahideen against the government because they collaborated with godless communists. The same would need to happen in the US for any insurgency to stand a chance. The government was unpopular with the masses outside of Kabul from the get go. The Soviets also couldn't pursue the Muj outside of Afghanistan where they built bases and recruitment centers.

Moreover you would need to be careful and not use examples of 3rd world insurgencies because the 3rd world is different. In the third world, its extremely easy for outside powers to influence the outcome of the conflict. Where a few thousand RPG 7s can turn the tide of a major battle. Ship a few thousand AK47s and RPGs and grenades to a part of the country where government rule is already shakey and you have an existential crisis for that government. That would not work in the US because of how easily accessible the US would be for US forces and because it would be extremely easy for the government to infiltrate any militia in the US. They already have.

 

[dragonsfly]

After Florida shooting, people are giving up their weapons

About 40% of Americans say they have a gun. Almost 40% of Americans defend their right to have a gun. But on Saturday, Scott Pappalardo sawed his gun into pieces and he's not the only one.

After the shooting at a school in Parkland, Florida, last week where 17 died people and many more were injured, teenage survivors have rallied under the #Never Again movement to lobby for an end to gun violence.

They are demanding change and some gun owners have heeding the call.

Mr Pappalardo's video of him cutting up his AR-15 assault rifle - the same model used by gunman Nikolas Cruz in Florida and the most popular gun in America - has been watched 22 million times on his Facebook account. "My drop in a very large bucket," he wrote.

"Seeing the events in Parkland, Florida deeply affected me," he told the BBC from New York where he lives.

"I had planned on selling it last year but I was always worried about getting a phone call from the police telling me that it had been used in a deadly shooting.

"The Sandy Hook shooting was horrible but the surviving children couldn't speak out.

"With Florida, these high school students are speaking out. Seeing the pain in their faces and hearing the stories out of their mouths made me change my mind."

Mr Pappalardo said he still supports the Second Amendment and would be keeping his other guns but added: "I was quite fond of the rifle. It was like taking my sick dog to the backyard and having it put down.

"I would love for others to give up their weapons but don't cut them up, because I found out that's a crime. I'd recommend taking them to a police station."

• America's gun culture in 10 charts

Using the hashtag #OneLess, his action has inspired others.

On Tuesday Debbie Lentz posted a photograph on Facebook of her AR-15 weapon in pieces, writing "Thank you, [Scott Pappalardo], for showing me what I needed to do. I've had this gun for many years. I could not live with myself if it had ever been used to injure or kill an innocent person".


source: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43142323
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow who's going to protect this people when the economy goes down or when a riot happens in their area and people start stealing stuff due to survival.

Some people are naive and short sighted

 

[RerouteToRemain]

This dumbass committed a federal crime on camera. He created a short barrel rifle.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Mr Pappalardo said he still supports the Second Amendment

Lol

 

[White Whale]

I’m not giving up any of my guns. Guns do not tend lose value like other things do. I have guns that I could sell far more than what I paid for them.

 

[BEER]

This is just cringe-worthy.

 

[bobgeese]

5 people out of 300 million. Totally news worthy.

 

[zebby23]

Good for these people

 

[zebby23]

5 people out of 300 million. Totally news worthy.

300 million people do not own guns but why discuss facts right?

 

[MicroBrew]

Bunch of virtue signalling attention hoes. Like people who give to charity and tell everyone about it.

How does these folk giving up their guns change anything? Are criminals and those prone to go on mass shooting rampages going to give up their guns? Only law abiding people do it.

 

[BudKing8806]

Hahaha. What idiots.

 

[Rational Poster]

5 people out of 300 million. Totally news worthy.

Less than 35% of households own guns.

You are fake news.

 

[jlagman]

This dumbass committed a federal crime on camera. He created a short barrel rifle.

Holy shit dude, you caught me off guard and I just laughed my ass off. If I was drinking coffee I would have been all over my screen.

 

[S-dot]

If that’s what they want to do, I have no care one way or the other, to each their own. I do find it really disturbing though that people will make serious decisions because their 9 year old cried on their lap.