Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Should guns be banned
Yes 50%
Only when it is proved that they kill people 50%

Votes: 10

 Why we should make all guns illegal

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Aug 31, 2002
 Comments:
It's about time that America woke up to the truth - guns kill, not people.
diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
Well, of course people DO kill people, but not necessarily with guns. They could use knives, or axes, or chainsaws even. I'm not suggesting we ban axes and chainsaws though, because what would we cut trees down with? We need wood. However we sure as hell don't need guns to cut trees down.

So now that you know my opinion about guns here are some cold facts:

Every year millions of people across the world die.

Every year millions of guns are manufactured across the world.

It's clear that there is a strong correlation between gun manufacture and gun related deaths. This has been proven in many scientific studies like this one. So why on earth are guns still manufactured?

While there is no question that guns are needed for war, are they really needed for civilian use? This study proves that over 85% of shootings occur AT home, not in some far away warzone but AT home.

I'm not going to stand here and ask "what can we do about this?" because the answer is plain as day - we need a national ban on firearms in America.

So why do so many Americans disagree with banning firearms?

Well there are three reasons. Some people like shooting at non-human objects but this is just pointless anyway so it isn't really an argument.

Another well used reason is that Americans need handguns to defend themselves. These two studies prove that civilians with guns do more harm than good. Lets face it, criminals are always going to get the first shot anyway.

The final reason is because Americans think it is their right to be able to carry guns around and kill people indiscriminately. Well this might be true but it makes you think.

So what I propose is for a total nationwide ban on guns. All that you have to do is ban manufacture of ammunition. Guns will soon disapear that way...even from the criminals.


If Guns Are Outlawed, Only Oppressors Will Have Gu (none / 0) (#1)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 08:40:49 AM PST
We can't solve the drive-by shootings (or any other problems) by disarming the people, and leaving them defenseless before those police who beat Rodney King and murdered Amadou Diallo. To end the desperation of the youth, to end the killings over a street corner, you need to target the injustice of capitalism, the extremes of rich and poor, the lack of opportunity--you need to target capitalism.


What do you think this is about. (none / 0) (#5)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 11:08:37 AM PST
Of course banning guns is targeting capitalism as you quantly put it. Guns are not only a manifestation of consumerism, but, as a revolutionary ought to know, are also the driving force behind much of the capitalist economy.

Besides the colt and beretta are more of a fashion symbol than heavy gold chains, cell phones, or nike trainers will ever be.


An Unarmed People Cannot Change the World (none / 0) (#6)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 11:29:28 AM PST
An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot forget that we are living in a class society, that there is no way out of this society, and there can be none, except by means of the class struggle.

This system cannot be reformed. Revolution in the U.S. will mean revolutionary war!


You complete moron (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by PotatoError on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 12:57:18 PM PST
The military, the rulers will always have better weapons and technology as well as the experience.

Do you seriously believe for one second that a joe-sixpack "malicia" with hand guns could even put up half a fight against the US army's tanks and assualt rifles?

Face it, whether civilians have guns or not is irrelevant. If the military wanted to crush us they could.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

People Not Weapons Are Decisive in Warfare... (none / 0) (#9)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 01:15:45 PM PST
Mao summed up a whole lot about war in general--and about revolutionary war in particular--when he said: "They fight their way, and we fight our way." Their way relies, and can only rely, on technology and on maintaining the masses of people, and even the soldiers of their own army, in ignorance about what is actually being fought for. Our way relies, and can only rely, on giving the most powerful expression to the desire of the masses for a radical change and their increasingly conscious determination to put everything on the line in waging a revolutionary war to bring about such a change.

What are our great strategic strengths? Everything we represent, and specifically that we represent the only resolution of the fundamental contradictions of this system--the only resolution that is in the interests of the great majority of humanity, worldwide--and the whole world outlook and methodology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that gives us the most thoroughly correct and comprehensive way of understanding, and changing, the world. This, and the ways in which we can translate this into powerful resistance and ultimately revolutionary war against this system, is what we have to rely on most fundamentally in fighting "our way." It is the only thing we can fundamentally rely on.


Typical (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:46:55 PM PST
Bloody armchair nonesense.

You want a state? Go take your fantasy of guerillas in the mist, and masterbate over it, to some smoke filled room some place else.

The State is just a state of mind comrade. Pretty much like religion actually, you can have Roman Catholic, Jew, Anglican, Hindi, Moslem, Buhdist, living cheek by jowl in the same place, and political systems are just the same. Just go ahead and form your Maoist state.


 
Only in classical conflict paradigm. (none / 0) (#10)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:13:56 PM PST
The military, the rulers will always have better weapons and technology as well as the experience.

So move the conflict to the area they aren't good in. Make the conflict asymmetrical. Make it distributed; remember Charlie's equipment in the Indochina jungles, and you will see the magic isn't in who has better toys. Make any their usage of force only aggravating the situation. Their strength is their weakness, and their experiences can mislead them.

Do you seriously believe for one second that a joe-sixpack "malicia" with hand guns could even put up half a fight against the US army's tanks and assualt rifles?

One man with a gun can tie alot of adversaries and their resources for several hours, up to a day. A handful of them can cause nationwide problems, which you can need to divert the adversary's resources to allow you to mount another attack. You need coordination in space and time, and information security; standard guidelines apply. Then there are the Media; they are a powerful propaganda machine, playing according to their own rules, and when you understand them you can exploit them. It's like chess on steroids.

The adversary is stronger. So you should never allow the formation of defined battlespace. The adversary should never have clear image of what is happening, so the leaders will misdirect their forces and possibly lose the domestic support. The fog of war is your friend.


Is this what hollywood has done to you? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:05:20 AM PST
"One man with a gun can tie a lot of adversaries and their resources for several hours, up to a day"

This isn't Rocky. In real life there are no "action heroes", the one man with a gun who forgets this vital truth becomes filled with bullets. The majority of civilians would not be trained enough. They might know how to fire a gun but not how to use one.

As for what will happen if the military rise up in America, its quite interesting so im going to write a diary entry about it. Not enough space here and it also raises a contraversial position at the end which I would be interested to see many people on this site answer.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Hollywood is bullshit. (none / 0) (#27)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:49:07 AM PST
In real life there are no "action heroes", the one man with a gun who forgets this vital truth becomes filled with bullets.

At the end, possibly yes. But there are no action heroes on both sides of the conflict; the unit leaders are usually nervous about their pension, and their superiors as well, and both are afraid of screwing up. Thus resorting rather to keeping the adversary outgunned and surrounded and trying to negotiate. Add the factor that most of the policemen prefer to end as old retirees than as dead heroes, and that untrained adversaries are harder to predict, and you have a typical siege situation where no side is really eager to fire the first shot.

The majority of civilians would not be trained enough. They might know how to fire a gun but not how to use one.

Which makes them hard to predict, thus potentially more dangerous. Professionals don't tend to panic.


Hang on.... (none / 0) (#33)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 11:55:39 AM PST
We seem to be talking about different kinds of conflict.
I am talking about a conflict where soldiers are more bothered about survival than their pensions.

I don't see how this one man with a rifle can hold off say a unit of 8 marines for longer than 5 minutes. Reasons follow:

1) He has a limited field of view, he cannot watch his back and his front simultaneously. He is susceptable from multi-directional attack.

2) He is inexperienced. He will probably spray fire his weapon and also be easy to pin down. He is more likely to make a mistake.

3) He is more likely to panic because a) he is alone and b) he isn't trained. While panic is unpredictable it is a lot more dangerous to the person panicing.

4) Soldiers are trained to deal with this sort of situation. They will attempt to attack from a different angle, they will pin him down with fire while the rest move in.

5) You can't defend a building with only one person. You will not have 360 view and you will eventually have to assume that the enemy are in the building with you, this ruins any chances of firing at targets outside the building.

6) Why can't the soldiers just go around his position and ignore him?

7) If they really can't take him out they could simply call in an air strike or shell it with tanks - this solution works for one man hiding in a building, it also works for 100.


Look at Kosovo, look at Afghanistan - how would any American rebel group win when the US army owns the air? Any stronghold they make will just be bombed, they will be fragmented, always mobile and out gunned. While they may fight the US army for 100 years, the military dictatorship will continue to rule the people.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
I'm confused (none / 0) (#64)
by nathan on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 09:05:29 PM PST
One man with a gun can tie alot of adversaries and their resources for several hours, up to a day...

I think that's only if they don't really want to kill him, no?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Correct. (none / 0) (#65)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 01:46:25 AM PST
My statement was done thinking about a standard "peacetime" situation, rather than a full-scale war.

When the adversary is willing to kill you at sight, it's better to stay low-profile and resort to booby traps.


Yea (none / 0) (#68)
by PotatoError on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 09:46:26 AM PST
Yea thats true. Even the most trained special forces can't see laser trip mines.

I know they cut the phone lines before they go in and I suspect they also use mobile phone jammers and suchlike before entering buildings to prevent phone triggered devices. They may also use other jamming devices too.

But this only works against the more stupid enemy. Better devices would be local like laser trip mines (invisible lasers of course - not red ones like in movies). Also you could rig up internal remote explosives. Plastic explosive inside a wall with wires running upstairs to a computer. You could even use a web cam and motion detection software to detonate the charge when movement is detected...however the quality of such software hints that this is unwise. More likely, you would do it by hand.

Maybe special forces can get round the laser trip wires by firing dense gas into a building, but this would take time and give you lots of warning - not their style.
As for the C4 in a wall, short of detonating a nuke down the road so the EMP burst blows your computer what can they do?

On a side note, still on the topic of lethal defense systems - Do you think the military have developed automated sentry guns? They seem pretty easy in concept and have a use so I would be suprised if they hadn't been made.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

And combine the approaches. (4.00 / 1) (#69)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 12:28:13 PM PST
Infrared laser trip mine here. A mousetrap with a shotgun shell, tied with a string to the door knob just there. A couple of claymore mines hidden in the walls, triggered by several motion detectors (on ie. 3-of-5 basis, they aren't too reliable). Weakened stairs a bit further.

Combination of a system and chaos. System for placing of the strategically important "surprises", chaos for peppering the rest of protected space with other ones. The morale of the attacker forces tends to drop when they see their comrades fall (all over the area).

I know they cut the phone lines before they go in and I suspect they also use mobile phone jammers and suchlike before entering buildings to prevent phone triggered devices. They may also use other jamming devices too.

A detector of a jammer can then serve as an early warning system. When both landline and cellphone die, and the cellphone frequencies show unusual signals, something bad is going to happen. (Time for a bidirectional VSAT, or a packet modem radio.)

Maybe special forces can get round the laser trip wires by firing dense gas into a building, but this would take time and give you lots of warning - not their style.

It's why I advocate combining the approaches. They can disable some, but they can't disable all - at least not without extensive use of combined countermeasures.

As for the C4 in a wall, short of detonating a nuke down the road so the EMP burst blows your computer what can they do?

Cut off the power. Wait until the UPS of the central computer will not die, or the generator will not run out of fuel.

Hence it is important to not rely on any central computer. It is a nice thing to have - but if it fails, the security system - instead of stopping working - has to fall apart to individual, microcontroller-driven (or gate-array driven) units. Reflex nodes working even if the spine is cut or the brain is dead.

On a side note, still on the topic of lethal defense systems - Do you think the military have developed automated sentry guns? They seem pretty easy in concept and have a use so I would be suprised if they hadn't been made.

I would be surprised as well. Though there will be problems to prevent friendly fire.

I got another idea, similar to an automated gun. An automated thrower of fast-spinning circular saw blades. Typical adversaries are used to see the effects of machine guns, but witnessing a decapitation with flying swirling blade could have quite devastating effects on attacker's troops' morale. As a side benefit for long narrow corridors with concrete walls, the blades will have tendency to bounce and behave unpredictably. (I will admit my inspirations: shurikens, and "that" weapon from some game.)


Yea (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by PotatoError on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 02:59:37 PM PST
I don't like using films as examples of real life but...

In Aliens they had pretty effective sentry guns. I imagine it would have shot enemies and friendlies alike. I don't think it matters as long as u stay behind the gun, indeed you would only use them for defense and they would be very effective. I imagine a whole squad of well trained soldiers could get wiped out by one placed in a coridoor. Maybe the US uses them as a perimeter defense in their lower profile military bases.

Yea wheras Islamic Terrorists and Far Right extermist groups get screwed over by Special Forces all the time, computer geeks have an advantage - we don't rely on guns. I guess if the worst came to the worst I could put my Quake skillz into use and rocket jump out up the chimney lol.

Of course I sometimes worry about unconfirmed reports of amazing technology that our military have got their hands on and (for some weird reason) are reluctant to share. Not necessarily alien technology but human made technology. Some witness accounts of Roswell make for interesting reading...like strange materials found by civilians near the crash site. Not that it was anything to do with aliens - just that accounts of materials that levitate when a current is put through them are quite interesting and much unlike the publicity gaining "i was abducted" stories.





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Those that talk of the oppressed classes... (none / 0) (#15)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:52:09 PM PST
...are tomorrows oppressors.

Fucking vanguard - worse then the bloody Libertarians.


What It Means to Be the Vanguard (none / 0) (#17)
by Bob Avakian on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 05:58:05 PM PST
First of all, what does it mean to say you're the vanguard? Does it mean that you insist that everybody follow you whatever you do? No, that's not what it means--or that's not what it should mean.

What it means is not that you are declaring yourself that which everyone must follow, but that you're taking responsibility, in all of its different expressions and every dimension, for actually leading the process that has to be carried forward in order to deal with the problem, in order to bring about the solution, in order to upend and overturn the system and transform all of society and contribute to that process on a worldwide basis. That's what it means to be a vanguard fundamentally. It means you're taking the responsibility for that, and that means both leading and it also means learning. It means learning from the masses and it means learning from other people. It means carrying out a process of unity-struggle-unity with many different forces in society. But that's fundamentally what you're doing when you're saying that you're the--you're saying, "We are willing to and determined to take the responsibility for leading the revolutionary process to overturn this monstrous system and to bring into being a better world together with revolutionaries and vanguard forces throughout the world."




Elitist twaddle. (none / 0) (#18)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 06:20:32 PM PST
And unoriginal copy at that.

Return when you can formulate an argument of your own, little boy.


 
I agree. (none / 0) (#22)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:25:04 AM PST
However, we shouldn't limit our scope to physical arms only.

The best weapon is the information. With better informations than your adversary has, you can win a battle without even letting it happen.

The Adversary knows it. Hence the Carnivore, hence the relaxed regulations on eavesdropping and police access to ISP/telco logs, hence the laws mandating telcos to permit access to unencrypted communication. (Hence the need for end-to-end crypto for phones.)

Another related problem lies in the corporate media ownership. But it is a topic for a whole new thread.

Knowledge is power, and the brain is the best of weapons.


Somebody doesn't know their history (none / 0) (#31)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:56:15 AM PST
...and that person is PotatoError.

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerilla army wins if it does not lose."

This more or less sums up the reason why it would be impossible for the government to conquer its own subjects if they were armed.

Guerilla warfare is all hit-and-run tactics. They rely on sneaking up on unsuspecting enemies and then sabotage, which lowers their enemies' moral. Equipment gets destroyed, barracks get burned, and booby traps (such as land mines) pose a threat to passing squads of infantry.

The big, high-tech, organized army can only shoot at what they can see. What good is a Tomahawk cruise missile or an LGB smart bomb if you don't have a huge enemy installation to hit? Or what good would an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter be if you can't find any armored tanks on which to use its laser-guided Hellfire missiles? These high-tech weapons of war, which you believe enables a conventional army to crush civilian resistance, are utterly useless in the dark and very sneaky world of guerilla tactics.

The army would have nothing to shoot at. Who would their enemy be? The family sitting at the kitchen table? The begger on the street corner? The local youth basketball team? Or the pizza delivery boy passing by? Any of those people could have a gun or a grenade concealed beneath their clothing to use in a moment's notice. The military would have to kill them all. But that can't happen. Because there are 1 million troops in the U.S. armed forces and over 80 million Americans with guns. There aren't nearly enough soldiers to go door-to-door, confiscating guns from every single American home. Good luck to them.

Seriously, anybody who thinks that civilians with guns don't pose a threat to a heavily armed government do not have a clue what they are talking about. You obviously haven't learned your history. The U.S. did in the Vietnam War and Somalia. The Russians did in Afghanistan and Checnya.


So how are you going to fund... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:11:28 PM PST
...this guerilla army? Cocaine smuggling? Bank hiests?

Mad Scientist and his mates can't even put together a computer OS with a semi decent GUI. You think their going to give up the advantages of dial-a-pizza and rough it out in the woods?

Heck you got Ashcroft et al busy dismantling whatever freedom you thought you had, and yet we don't see you out in them there woods either.


I don't... (none / 0) (#35)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:32:15 PM PST
...like Ashcroft either. But until I see a real oppressive government that starts violating every amendment (the 2nd included), then I'm not afraid.

In any case, self-ensured funding wouldn't be entirely necesary. I'm sure that many countries would support the civilian uprising. I can easily see some Latin American and Southeast Asian countries supporting the American people's rebellion; if they won, it would give those countries a chance to get a slice of the economic pie. It happens all the time in guerilla wars.

I don't know if narcotics smuggling would be necesary, but it might. If so, I think it would be a necesary evil to ensure the preservation of the people's freedom.


Ah I see (none / 0) (#40)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 02:39:14 PM PST
Reintroduction of slavery, incarceration without due process, state religion - fine - but stop collecting taxes too and watch out Hyped will get real mad.

Who except Saddam and the FARC is gonna fund your terrorism? All economic eyes are on China.

The only person who said that... (none / 0) (#41)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 02:45:58 PM PST
...is you.

Reintroduction of slavery? Incarceration without due process? State religion? Where do I support any of those? I am against violations of basic principles of freedom, one of which is to own a gun.

Besides, maybe China WOULD fund a rebellion. Why not? Good way to gain a future economic customer, and they hate our government, not the people.


Pardon me but... (none / 0) (#42)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:02:37 PM PST
...didn't you say:

until I see a real oppressive government that starts violating every amendment (the 2nd included), then I'm not afraid.

why yes you did.

Now an apology would be nice but not expected.

If China were to fund your little rebellion, you'd have to show more commitment then you have up to now. It seems the sky would have to fall before you'd get off the sofa.


Don't you think... (none / 0) (#43)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:15:54 PM PST
...that I meant a real tyrannical government?

Now that I think about it (yes, this is a new idea; I've changed my view a bit), even if the government tried to collect all guns, I wouldn't join a rebellion. I just wouldn't turn in my guns. If the REALLY bad stuff started happening, then I would be willing to fight.

That said, let's talk about YOU for a second here. How about this:

If you are from America (I don't know where you're from), then leave. If you don't want to live in a country with guns, then go live somewhere else. If you're in another country, then stop treating law-abiding people in another as though they are criminals just because they like something that YOU don't.

What you think is... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:53:35 PM PST
...not at all clear. You're currently in a thread supporting a Maoist guerilla uprising on American soil to free the oppressed masses.

My suggestion was that the supposed Maoist could combat capitalism by attacking consumerism and through that the 'Military Industrial' machine, rather than start a killing spree.

You, however, start to drool over visions of brother killing brother, and, when prompted, eager to comtemplate drug smuggling, and taking the Chinese yuan.

In light of the above what right do you have to tell anyone to leave America?

You say "If the REALLY bad stuff started happening, then I would be willing to fight." but just how bad would it need to be?


I don't think you... (none / 0) (#45)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 04:28:43 PM PST
...understand.

Maoist guerilla uprising? To be honest, I really ignored most of those posts, but having read them, I can only say this: I support the right of the population to be armed, whether in defense against tyranny or against the criminal underworld. How it will be done, I do not know. Guerilla conflicts are unique in how they are fought, but often identical in their outcome.

"My suggestion was that the supposed Maoist could combat capitalism by attacking consumerism and through that the 'Military Industrial' machine, rather than start a killing spree."

Walwyn, why is that you associate resorting to guns as being a 'killing spree' or 'massacre'? Typical gun contoller behavior...let's associate all guns with senseless murder, shall we?

"You, however, start to drool over visions of brother killing brother, and, when prompted, eager to comtemplate drug smuggling, and taking the Chinese yuan."

Here we go again...you continue to portray gun owners in the most barbaric manner possible.

Brother killing brother? Since when are the oppressors your brothers when they choose to infringe upon your rights and put themselves above you?

Oh, and you think I'm "eager" and "drooling" to think of this? Walwyn, who the hell do you think I am? Do you think I ENJOY those thoughts? Do you really think I'm so trigger-happy that the thought of killing somebody or fighting in a revolution excites me?

As I have said, I hope it never happens. But if somebody tries to take from me what is rightfully mine, then I will fight for it. I have a right to do so. How hard is that for you to understand?

"In light of the above what right do you have to tell anyone to leave America?"

Telling you to leave America? Jesus, it's ridiculous how you fucking kids try to twist words to suit your own agendas. I was not ORDERING you to leave; I was SUGGESTING. There is a difference. If guns make you feel so insecure that you want to take away people's right to defend themselves, then MAYBE you ought to go to a place where there are no guns. That is simply a suggestion. Whether you decide to do it is YOUR choice, not mine.

"You say "If the REALLY bad stuff started happening, then I would be willing to fight." but just how bad would it need to be?"

Again, there is no way to know for sure. It depends upon the circumstances at the time. Do you think I can envision exactly what is going to happen and how?

Following a thread seems to be a mystery to you. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by walwyn on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 05:14:02 PM PST
To be honest, I really ignored most of those posts
So you just jumped right on in without ascertaining the facts first. Typical.

You don't think that Revolution in the U.S. will mean revolutionary war! amounts to a killing spree? Amazing!

And if the 3rd to 5th paragraphs of this aren't an example of 'drooling over brother killing brother', I really don't want to know what you think is.

Since when are the oppressors your brothers when they choose to infringe upon your rights and put themselves above you?

We are talking about the US military here. They are trained not to follow unconstitutional orders. Your guerilla army isn't fighting oppressors it is in revolt against the lawful government.

you continue to portray gun owners in the most barbaric manner possible.
But if somebody tries to take from me what is rightfully mine, then I will fight for it.
You still don't get it do you? This is a thread on a Maoist revolutionary war on American soil. Your attempt to turn it into something about your gun ownership sounds like an obsession. Quite frankly your beginning to look like a comic strip character.

 
GUI? Phooey! (none / 0) (#61)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 02:51:43 PM PST
Who needs a GUI when we have brains?

Besides, computer specialist's role in the woods is somehow limited. While as a fifth column or as an agent sleeper, living two lives, he can accomplish much more.


Well, well, well (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by walwyn on Mon Sep 2nd, 2002 at 03:15:33 PM PST
a fifth column or as an agent sleeper, living two lives

A schizophrenic dreaming about the rise of Fascism eh?

 
Don't forget (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by because it isnt on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 08:48:55 AM PST
that the AQ just played host to a troll-free gun debate, which makes for very interesting reading.

Anyway, I don't think we need a ban on firearms. It's not possible. Instead I think we should just restrict firearms to criminals, the police and the military. Also perhaps the government ministers should get guns to defend themselves from crazy gun fetishists. Remember that if President Kennedy had been waving a gun instead of waving at the people, he could have shot his oppressor Lee Harvey Oswald before he was assassinated.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

But FP polls don't get archived. (none / 0) (#4)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 10:30:49 AM PST
At some point, probably fairly soon, the gun poll will be replaced and we'll have lost some primetime idiocy.


 
AQ? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by First Incision on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:43:09 PM PST
AQ? Al Qaeda? I think we all know what they think about gun control.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Don't look now (4.00 / 1) (#49)
by because it isnt on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 05:40:47 PM PST
but what's that on my toolbar?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Ban on ammo... (none / 0) (#3)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 09:32:40 AM PST
...wouldn't work. Anyone with basic chemistry knowledge can make quite effective gunpowder, anyone with basic lead casting experience can make bullets. The shell casings can be reused, when the primers - composed from ie. lead azide, which is well-within the skills of an average high-school chemistry student - are replaced. I don't even mention the simple construction of a shotgun shell.

The firearms themselves can be manufactured at home as well; all you need is a decently equipped workshop. As a side benefit, they are unregistered.

You may not have the accuracy of modern sniper rifles (a sawed-off shotgun doesn't need accuracy anyway), but you can achieve decent reliability. Look at the technology used just a few decades ago, now available to anyone interested. With the falling prices of control electronics and actuators, in couple years we may have numerically-controlled machines in quite many garages.

I love dual-use technologies.


I have to disagree (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 12:39:37 PM PST
You say that clever people could make firearms. But we're not worried about Microsoft employees here - no, we're concerned with criminals.

Clever criminals don't use guns.

It's a lot more difficult to make guns than u say. If you get flaws in the barrel it could end up blowing your hand off.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I think that... (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:18:36 PM PST
...you need to do more research.

In the Middle East, there are gun shops where peasants have produced <a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/photoessays/pakistan.092401/5.html">fully functioning automatic weapons such as AK47s'</a>, which are nearly identical to the real things. They use tools that are considerably inferior to what you would find in a Sears catalogue.

ANYBODY with a few simple tools can construct a submachine gun or shotgun. Criminals included. It's not that tough. And it's easy to rifle the barrel, too, so that it won't blow your hand off (as you suggested).

Frankly, though, when guns are no longer in civilian hands, then I bet criminals will on buying guns from military and police. If there is demand, there will be supply. And who better to give supply than America's poorly paid GIs' and police officers? Don't you think a police officer would gladly sell his Glock to a drug dealer if he thought he could make some extra bucks? Or maybe some Army officers would sell M16s' and .50 caliber machine guns to a paramilitary extremist group to earn profits.

You need to consider... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 03:06:51 PM PST
...that your most common criminal is looking to find his next fix. He is in no position to be gundrilling.

Arguing that GIs and police officers are likely to sell their guns to drug dealers: is the most disgraceful slur on Americans I've ever seen.


Demand and supply (none / 0) (#21)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:08:36 AM PST
...that your most common criminal is looking to find his next fix. He is in no position to be gundrilling.

Right. He is the demand side of the underground gun market. The ones with the skills and equipment and need or desire for money are the supply side.

Arguing that GIs and police officers are likely to sell their guns to drug dealers: is the most disgraceful slur on Americans I've ever seen.

But quite realistic. Even if the majority of them would be honest, the rest is enough for keeping the market alive and well.


 
how about a decent deterent... (none / 0) (#25)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 09:19:03 AM PST
Your link has shown me something I didn't know before but I still disagree that criminals can easily make guns.

I cant make guns. None of my friends can. Even if we looked it up on the internet we probably couldn't. It's one of those manufacturing processes which you need training with - go to that link yourself and look at the tools the bloke has on the back wall. Sure, organised criminals might well be able to find someone who is capable and get him to make their own weapons.

But if the common criminal had no access to guns it would severly slash gun related crime. Even if they got hold of them from the black market, a good stop and search policy from the police force and severe penalties for possession of illegal firearms would put an end to people carrying them on the street.

A very conservative policy should be taken on gun law - not the pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America. Special armed response police (maybe more akin to soldiers) would react to any "gun disturbances". These people would be armed with automatic weapons, be well trained and shoot to kill.

I guarantee that faced against all this, your average criminal will give up the gun and go to using a knife instead. Problem solved.

The problem in america is that everyone looks at the gun problem in a 2D way. Many Americans say that the criminals will still keep their guns even if they became illegal. Yes, that's true but they wouldn't have them for long. If they took them onto the street and were stopped and searched they should be looking at 10 years imprisonment for possession. THAT will not only stop criminals using guns, it will get criminals off the street. Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand.







<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Do you... (none / 0) (#29)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:18:27 AM PST
...know your ends of the political scale?

"Pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America...Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand."

Communists? Do you know what you're talking about? The NRA is not communist. If guns are for a communist society, then why aren't people allowed to own guns in China or North Korea? In a communist society, there would be no need for guns. But, that's not the kind of society we are, or the type that we will ever become.

"...know your ends of the political scale?

"Pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America...Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand."

Communists? Do you know what you're talking about? The NRA is not communist. If guns are for a communist society, then why aren't people allowed to own guns in China or North Korea? In a communist society, there would be no need for guns. But, that's not the kind of society we are, or the type that we will ever become.

"Sure, organised criminals might well be able to find someone who is capable and get him to make their own weapons."

PotatoError, I don't think you understand. I'm not talking about criminals making guns themselves. I'm talking about major crime syndicates in the U.S. that have underground factories set up to manufacture guns for widespread distribution amongst the criminal underworld. You saw that picture. That poor Pakistani peasant was making fully automatic AK47 assault rifles with a primitive lathe and files. With the types of power tools that are available in the U.S., how hard do you think it would be for some criminals to set up a complete manufacturing plant in some abandoned warehouse out in the middle of nowhere? Many such factories would spring up. They could make guns and ammunition at a rate of millions per year, and then sell those guns to OTHER criminals. Suddenly, it's just as easy for common criminals to buy guns as it was before. Do you see what I mean?

Might I remind you that in Washington DC (where gun control is strict), almost 1/5th of the guns confiscated annually by the police are homemade. Washington police have found a range of homemade weapons in the hands of drug dealers ranging from Remington shotguns and .38 revolvers to Uzi and MAC10 submachine guns. Even though the weapons are homemade, they are often very authentic copies - right down to the fake serial numbers and trademarks. Many of these guns are not found in the hands of organized criminals, as you suggested; I recall reading an article about police finding a 15-year old heroin dealer in possession of an MP5 submachine gun (which cannot be legally owned in the U.S. for anyone under 21 without a special license).

Don't underestimate the power of black market firearms. What didn't work on narcotics won't work any better on guns when it comes to criminals.

"The problem in america is that everyone looks at the gun problem in a 2D way."

Yes. YOU are one of those people. You seem to hate guns for killing 30,000 people a year, yet you forget the fact that 2.5 million people will use a gun to defend themselves against criminals (in 90% of cases, by simply pointing it at the criminal and scaring him off).

"Even if they got hold of them from the black market, a good stop and search policy from the police force and severe penalties for possession of illegal firearms would put an end to people carrying them on the street."

Unfortunately, there is something called the 4th Amendment to the Constitution that prevents police from doing that. Can't happen.

"If they took them onto the street and were stopped and searched they should be looking at 10 years imprisonment for possession. THAT will not only stop criminals using guns, it will get criminals off the street."

In theory, this could work. In pratice, criminals will gladly shoot at police officers. Try going to lower Brooklyn sometime (where I used to live) where the gangs are out chillin. The Brotherhood, one of New York's toughest gangs, considers it dishonorable to bow down to police pressure. I recall reading in the newspaper every day about a cop who had gotten shot in the hood because he was sweating some gang member. I doubt that any criminals are going to care what the punishment is. They're criminals and know that what they do for a living is gonna land them FAR more time than 10 years if caught with a gun.

"Special armed response police (maybe more akin to soldiers) would react to any "gun disturbances". These people would be armed with automatic weapons, be well trained and shoot to kill."

Oh, yes, so we turn the U.S. into a police state? Again, it's remarkable how much freedom you are willing to sacrifice for a little personal protection, even though you disregard the fact that more Americans' lives are saved by guns than taken by them.

Might I remind you that there is one police officer for every 3,500 Americans. Do you really expect the police to protect you? I don't. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that the police are not responsible for people's personal protection. So if you expect the police to save you when all guns are gone, you are dead wrong.


 
Sure it would work? (none / 0) (#30)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:42:12 AM PST
Your link has shown me something I didn't know before but I still disagree that criminals can easily make guns.

Oh - in denial despite the facts?

I cant make guns. None of my friends can.

I can, and at least a dozen of my friends can too. Your country, or at least your social group, is apparently filled with unskilled people.

Even if we looked it up on the internet we probably couldn't.

The blueprints available from the Net are often inaccurate. If you know what are you doing, you can design your own.

It's one of those manufacturing processes which you need training with - go to that link yourself and look at the tools the bloke has on the back wall.

I seen just a few files, a lathe, and a few other more or less standard locksmithing equipment. Nothing I wouldn't have in my workshop except the lathe. A friend has it, though, so it is not really a problem.

Sure, organised criminals might well be able to find someone who is capable and get him to make their own weapons.

I'd guess it is a matter of a phonecall or two. (Okay, okay, maybe three.)

But if the common criminal had no access to guns it would severly slash gun related crime. Even if they got hold of them from the black market, a good stop and search policy from the police force and severe penalties for possession of illegal firearms would put an end to people carrying them on the street.

I don't know how you, but I don't want the police to be able to stop and search me on a whim.

A very conservative policy should be taken on gun law - not the pathetic communist "everyone should have a gun" view in America. Special armed response police (maybe more akin to soldiers) would react to any "gun disturbances".

What about the civilians around? Or are you a fan of "collateral damage"?

These people would be armed with automatic weapons, be well trained and shoot to kill.

Automatic weapons are inaccurate. Have civilians around, and there will be "damages".

I guarantee that faced against all this, your average criminal will give up the gun and go to using a knife instead. Problem solved.

Really? When swords were forbidden to own for the peasants, in Far East ages ago, nunchaku and tonfas appeared - agricultural tools repurposed for combat. Martial arts using sticks or even bare hands appeared. Ban something, and either it will stay on the black market, or workarounds appear.

The problem in america is that everyone looks at the gun problem in a 2D way. Many Americans say that the criminals will still keep their guns even if they became illegal. Yes, that's true but they wouldn't have them for long.

If you carry one 24/7, you have decent chance you will be caught over time. However, if you carry it only to the action, the probability of being intercepted during a routine search is much lower. If the screening process for the searches is nonrandom, which it usually is, you can further lower the odds using the Carnival Booth algorithm.

If they took them onto the street and were stopped and searched they should be looking at 10 years imprisonment for possession.

Nice way how to get rid of you. Just sticking a gun into your briefcase, then alerting a nearby police officer that you behave suspiciously. Try to prove it isn't yours.

THAT will not only stop criminals using guns, it will get criminals off the street.

Yeah, really.

Communists like the NRA are just burying their heads in the sand.

I thought Communists are on the left, while NRA members are typically on the right?


Yea it would (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:51:10 PM PST
I can, and at least a dozen of my friends can too. Your country, or at least your social group, is apparently filled with unskilled people.

Well are you a common criminal? My point is that if you were one, you probably wouldn't know how to make guns and your choice of friends would be very different too.

I don't want the police to be able to stop and search me on a whim

Do you disagree with searches at airports? Do you disagree with metal detectors and X-ray machines being used?

What about the civilians around? Or are you a fan of "collateral damage"?

Interesting, on one hand you argue that civilians need guns to protect themselves but here you argue that guns harm civilians. Why do you think that a gun used by a trained police officer is more likely to cause "collateral damage" than a gun used by an untrained civilian?

Ban something, and either it will stay on the black market, or workarounds appear.

Knives, sticks, hammers, etc are all melee weapons but gun can take someone out at range. At least if there were no guns around you could run from aggressors.

However, if you carry it only to the action, the probability of being intercepted during a routine search is much lower

In Britain the police throw more resources into catching criminals who use guns than ones who use knives. In a twisted way this encourages criminals to use knives rather than guns as well as causing a form of natural selection where a higher proportion of gun weilding criminals end up in prison.
Over time this will reduce the number of gun criminals, not immediately you understand but my proposal is one of deterent - and deterent takes time to establish. Once the criminals know that the police take guns very seriously they will learn to avoid them.

Just sticking a gun into your briefcase, then alerting a nearby police officer that you behave suspiciously. Try to prove it isn't yours.

It's no different from drugs or any other illegal item. Do you disagree with the policy of arresting people found in possession of drugs? Would you rather drugs were ignored on the off chance that it could have been planted?

"I thought Communists are on the left, while NRA members are typically on the right?"

While NRA members might seem right-wing there is a lot of leftish "power to the people" in their movement. They can't possibly be described as right-wing or their "take up arms to defend against authority" rhetoric would make them hypocrites. They don't fear the threat of a left-wing revolution but they do fear the threat of a right-wing dictatorship. Their only connection with right-wing extremists is a shared liking of firearms.

The NRA is often misnamed as a right-wing organisation because they oppose the ideas of many liberals. Many liberals denounce guns, but just because the liberals disagree the NRA on this issue doesn't make the NRA a right-wing organisation. In fact liberals agree with NRA members on many issues. NRA members often see the government intruding on freedom, a view they share with liberals and the left in general. I think you can sum it up as follows: The NRA and the left hate authority unless they are that authority.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Perhaps... (none / 0) (#39)
by Hyped on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:17:51 PM PST
...we should watch who we call criminals, huh?

"Well are you a common criminal? My point is that if you were one, you probably wouldn't know how to make guns and your choice of friends would be very different too."

Potato, I have a drill press, a lathe, a bunch of files, a vice, and a large Sears tool kit in my basement. I have access to scrap steel at Duke Unversity (where I work), and blueprints for the Sten submachine gun. With all that stuff, I could produce a fully functioning Sten, which would fire 600 rounds per minute. Police would be outgunned if I decided to rob a bank with it. But guess what? I don't intend to do that. Why? Because I am a law-abiding citizen, even though you have labeled me as an evil person.

"Do you disagree with searches at airports? Do you disagree with metal detectors and X-ray machines being used?"

That's because you are entering federal property. It's their land, their building. They have a right to check you when you come in for their sake. But they don't have a right to trespass on your land, in your home. Again, the 4th Amendment prevents this.

"Interesting, on one hand you argue that civilians need guns to protect themselves but here you argue that guns harm civilians. Why do you think that a gun used by a trained police officer is more likely to cause "collateral damage" than a gun used by an untrained civilian?"

Trained police officers? Police officers were responsible for 330 accidental shootings last year (compared to 30 for civilians).

When you give police machine guns and turn them loose on a crowded neighborhood, then you increase the chances of damage. Twenty cops firing hundreds of rounds a second, compared to a civilian firing a few? Yes, that's not a good thing. It's not at all like what he meant.

"In Britain the police throw more resources into catching criminals who use guns than ones who use knives. In a twisted way this encourages criminals to use knives rather than guns as well as causing a form of natural selection where a higher proportion of gun weilding criminals end up in prison."

You are dead wrong about this. Haven't you been paying attention to crime statistics coming out of Britain recently? Their gun crime has INCREASED since the 1997 handgun ban. More criminals are using handguns and automatic weapons than ever before (even though those guns are banned). Gun prohibition sure does work then, huh?

"While NRA members might seem right-wing there is a lot of leftish "power to the people" in their movement."

That doesn't make them communist. Again, in a communist society, there would be a notion towards complete peace and harmony. If guns are a communist society aspect, then why aren't people allowed to own them in China, North Korea, or any other communist nation?


well... (none / 0) (#46)
by PotatoError on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 04:58:31 PM PST
If you think giving civilians guns protects them then how come more civilians die from gun deaths in America than any other country at peace time in the world?

Sure, kids in other countries with guns aplenty don't go around mowing down their class mates with automatic weapons but this is because their society isn't fucked up. It shows how screwed up Western society is and how it can create crazy people. What you don't do in a country of crazy people is lay guns all over the place.

In America can civilians carry guns on the street? No, hardly ever. So if armed robbers burst into a bank lobby and there are 30 people in there are any of them armed? No, so whats all this rubbish about civilians being able to protect themselves?

Imagine if your dream did come true and every civilian walks around with firearms.
Sure that is a deterent and many criminals would decide against attacking people. But have you thought about the lunatics? Arguments happen all the time, some people just can't deal with arguments and lose it. Fortunately most of these people aren't armed at the time and lash out with their fists only. But give everyone a gun and you can be guaranteed that thousands of people will die every year from unplanned shootings bought on in sudden anger.

There are also crazy people. Maybe they've had a breakdown, lost their job or wife, or just have a mental problem, maybe they just don't give a shit anymore..but they can just suddenly snap with no warning. These people don't have the frame of mind to go out and buy guns, especially if there is no warning. But if you put a deadly killing tool in these peoples hands you can guarantee people will start dying.

The criminal will always get the first shot in. Maybe they will only take down one other person before they are taken out by another civilian, maybe they will get more.

Which leads to an interesting point:
If everyone has guns and one maniac is in the middle of a crowd and shoots someone, what happens? Panic, followed by a dozen people drawing their firearms and firing at the aggressor. How many of these people will miss? How will people know that none of these people are accomplises? Surely an all out shootout is going to occur - much like how a brawl starts. The crowd would literally shoot itself. Hundreds could die. That's why everyone should NOT be able to own guns.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Come, now. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by because it isnt on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 05:06:42 PM PST
Potato, I have a drill press, a lathe, a bunch of files, a vice, and a large Sears tool kit in my basement. I have access to scrap steel at Duke Unversity (where I work), and blueprints for the Sten submachine gun. With all that stuff, I could produce a fully functioning Sten, which would fire 600 rounds per minute.

I have a bunch of wires, ICs, resistors, capacitors and a soldering iron. It doesn't mean I can make a Pentium 4.

600 rounds of what, incidentally? You haven't made any homebrew ammo for it, and making the 1000s of rounds you'll need quickly becomes tedious.

Police would be outgunned if I decided to rob a bank with it. But guess what? I don't intend to do that. Why? Because I am a law-abiding citizen, even though you have labeled me as an evil person.

Is that so? The FBI report for last night says you were rubbing it between your legs and chanting the word 'Heston'. Your next shipment's going to be late, by the way.

You are dead wrong about this. Haven't you been paying attention to crime statistics coming out of Britain recently? Their gun crime has INCREASED since the 1997 handgun ban. More criminals are using handguns and automatic weapons than ever before (even though those guns are banned). Gun prohibition sure does work then, huh?

Look, I've had it with you. You are completely stupid. Yes, there has been an increase in violent crime using guns. There has been an even LARGER increase in violent crime not involving guns, i.e. THE GENERAL INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIMES HAS BROUGHT UP THE GUN CRIME RATE. If it weren't for the 1997 ban, the general anti-gun culture of Britain, and the lack of armed patrol officers in Britain, then there would be an even LARGER increase in gun crime. Currently, films like the 1998 Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels have made guns 'fashionable' amongst inner-city gang members, which is why there is a specifically targetted police crackdown on this, as PotatoError was trying to tell you.

In 1997, we had *39* handgun homicides, i.e. criminals murdering people with handguns. Yes, 39. Yes, for the entire country. Yes, really. No, I am not missing out any zeros. Yes, I know 30,000 of your lot snuff it with guns every year. Yes, I know that's 80 a day. But anyway, this *39* went up to *42* in 1999. Yes, that's an increase of 3. How many percent? That's a 7.6% increase, but keep in mind that being out by one counts as 2.5%, so let's be careful in counting. Yes, I know twice as many people were killed by guns per day in the US (by guns in general) as are killed in the UK (by handguns) per year.

You like statistics? Here's some 1998 statistics for gun death rates across countries:
  • USA: 14.24 (deaths per 100,000)
  • Scotland: 0.54
  • England & Wales: 0.41