Re: safety and politics
 

I'm amazed how much energy has been put into equivocating over the term "assault rifle". It's as if undermining that phrase subsequently undermines the overarching premise behind its application.

Preposterous.

Same goes for getting hung up over cosmetics. I don't necessarily support the offending legislation per se, but I can easily understand a concern over cosmetics. It may well be the same reasoning that led to orange caps on kids' toy guns: it helps keeping naive and stupid people from being needlessly shot by law enforcement personnel. I don't see such a goal as a bad thing.

It would be so nice if, instead of expending effort shouting down a 2-word phrase on tenuous grounds, opponents to gun regulations would approach the subject on a less emotional level. That would go a long way toward making wild-eyed regulation proponents look more like the potential gun-melters they're made out to be, and pull more public sentiment around to the opponents' side. In another words, tell Ted Nugent to shut up and sit at his farm. ;)

It would also be nice to see a rational, statistical approach overall to this subject-- from both sides. That's what's needed in a pluralistic society. If you want homogeneity, then start or join a society like that somewhere that crazy US laws can't touch. Otherwise, realize and accept that you're in a "melting pot" and, sorry to say, you don't and can't speak for the whole. It's too messy.

EDIT: and something else the gun extremists don't want to hear--- you're more likely to completely lose your guns under a right-wing regime than a left-wing regime. The left leans toward liberty (sometimes at the expense of order) while the right leans toward authoritarianism.

Re: safety and politics
 

I'm trying to stay out of this conversation as much as possible, because I have concluded that many of the arguments of the pro-gun faction are hysterical and unrealistic.

But let me add this. If the ownership of guns really is essential so we can fight against a government in power in the US that is trying to enslave us, it is already the end of the world. Then the US really would be like Sudan or some place and it would be time to move to Europe or something, where they don't have this problem. When I lived in Russia or for my 5+ months in Spain, it didn't seem to me like I was going to have to get my guns out of the closet and take to the streets, so if the US is a place where that is a real consideration, it's time to leave.

Fortunately, I think this is nonsense.

Re: safety and politics
 

Well, you're welcome to join in; I have concluded that many of the arguments of the anti-gun faction are the same. That doesn't mean that a discussion on those points is impossible, or that a discussion on the remaining points is unprofitable.

First, it's not obvious that Europe is better off, by and large. The European people have largely chosen to have their governments play what I would consider an oppressive role in their lives. Of course they're not considering revolt, because that's what they wanted. It doesn't mean that's what typical Americans want, much less that segment of Americans you're suggesting should emigrate. And patrotism, irrational as it may be, is a factor to be reckoned; not all will be content to leave their own country to its failure and live in peace abroad, rather than, as they see it, to tear down what is faulty and rebuild her as the founders did 250 years ago.

Moreover, it's not so much that we need guns to revolt, as we need guns to be able to revolt, and thus to temper governmental ambition with fear. I am really only directly familiar with the last two presidents, Clinton and W. Bush, but both of them (with the aid of the Congresses, under either party's control, during their terms) have done things that would have been unthinkable 100 years prior, and I think the blame for this lies as much with simple emboldenment due to the jointly diminished will and capability of the people to withstand the government, as with additional power from factors such as reduced states' rights.

Indeed, I'm not at all sure that by the time revolt comes, it won't be entirely too late, but the continual specter of revolt must slow the government in its usurpations, as it has until now, and that is reason enough.

Re: safety and politics
 

So... You're telling me the cops you know are going to distinguish me differently if I'm point a standard, run of the mil, glock 17 at them... or an ar-15??

I mean.. me personally... I don't particularly care what kind of gun you are pointing at me (barring, as you said, children's guns with the orange cap).. I'm likely going to draw and shoot you.

A glock 17 can kill a man quite efficiently... If you think the cop is going to somehow give me a chance to explain myself if I'm pointing any gun without a red cap at him... well. I'm sure you get the point.

OTOH.. Any cop had better not shoot anyone that is merely carrying either a rifle (of any kind) or a handgun in a holster, strapped to their back, or pointed at the ground.. before at least attempting to get them to drop it first. Otherwise his career, and likely a good part of his life, would be gone in the blink of an eye.

Considering that both open carry, and concealed carry, are legal (although the latter sometimes with a permit). We can't just have cops running around automatically shooting people because they have an evil black rifle hanging in the window of their truck.. now can we?

Now.. I do see your point about having kids and/or non-real guns having cosmetic markers.. because they are - not real. Some of the new Air-Soft guns out there are pretty scary since they are mockery's of real guns, and look pretty convincing too. So a marking on these makes sense.

But I don't see how the same logic could be applied to distinguishing real guns from... real guns?

Of course.. I might be missing your point again ;).

Re: safety and politics
 

I think most of "us" would agree that our founders did just that. See (most prolifically on this subject) Tench Coxe, and the Federalist Papers. The question, as I see it, isn't about what they set up, or about whether times and weapons technology have changed; it's about whether those changes justify changing the tight limits originally set, or realistically, in which directions to expand government control, as nobody in Washington ever reduces it. :mad:

If left means Dem and right means Rep, then the last couple Presidents seem to show otherwise. And I don't see the point in applying a 1D scale for any other basis.

For whatever reason, the Republicans are invested in gun culture, and they'd have a hard time making up the losses they'd take ditching it.

But as I see left and right, (aligned to D and R), it's more about collective/community concerns vs. individual/corporate concerns.

Re: safety and politics
 

Ok, let me try it this way. I'll try and pick you up where you see yourself:
You are the proud American people who, unlike Europeans, don't like to be oppressed. And your great nation is so much of a democracy that there is plenty to export into all the world.
And these god chosen people elect (time and again) a government that has to be withstood by the people, as you say?
Doesn't this mean that either you are not that free and democratic as you believe yourselfs to be? Or it means the majority of people is unable to make proper decisions.
In the first case, I'm all for guns in the peoples hands, quick, use them to spare us going down the same slope as you will. In the second case, do you really want to hand out guns to them?

EDIT: I want to apologize to all the sensible US-americans for these bitter words. Please wake up and take back your country.

Re: safety and politics
 

I can't believe we see things so differently...

Your Scenario:
At least one person shot, probably two or even some bystanders.
If attacker survives next time he will probably shoot even quicker if he believes his victim might be armed.

Me, being in that situation, I would raise my hands and get robbed.
My Scenario:
Everybody alive.
I lost some money/goods.
50% chance of police catching him.

Summing up: Even in the rare case of an actual assault I am against arms in the hands of individuals.
I gladly take the risk to loose some valuables to preserve my AND some fellow human being's life.
That's "my price" for the society I want to live in.
And guess what, I'm not the least bit afraid that someone might harm me.

Call it deescalation, call it European pussiness, call it will to live. I would always choose this over a militant society.

Re: safety and politics
 

Tell that to the thousands that do what you do and get shot anyway. Especially if the mugger is without a mask.. as you've seen his face.

As a criminal.. it would be easier to shoot you - and get away.. than to leave you alive and talking to police.

Now sure.. you're right.. sometimes the guy might just leave. But I rarely ever gamble money.. why would I want to gamble with my life?

Re: safety and politics
 

Couldn't just be that different people see things different ways, could it? I didn't say Europeans like to be oppressed, I said they like more government involvement in their life, a level that I would consider oppressive. We have different cultures, and different ideals of what governments should and should not do. You run your country your way, we'll run ours our way, and given reasonably open immigration policies on both sides, those who can't stand it in either place can move to the other.

But if it makes you happier to hear me state it, yeah, we are kinda proud. Patriotic, you might even say. ;)
Is there a race of men, no, angels we should elect instead, who are utterly without greed, so that given power, they will not tend to oppress? I haven't seen them, and certainly not running for office.

History seems to show that all government tends to tyranny (if not first cut short by war). I don't know (for sure) which country in Europe you're from, and I certainly realize the danger of stereotyping Europe as though either all people or all states are alike, but it's pretty likely that we've staved off the collapse to totalitarianism longer than any arbitrary European state, as currently constituted, has existed. Now some of that may be blamed on more nations, hence more wars, and hence disruptions of governments, on your continent, but it still seems a fair point -- we have kept the decay rather slow.
If there's a choice to be made at the ballot box that will stop tyranny, yes it would fall into those alternatives. But that's the whole reason we have the Constitution as an overarching (and difficult to change on a whim) law, to provide needed protection beyond fair elections and an educated populace.

(I also do recognize some shortcomings in our election system (I'm a range-voting advocate.) that do tend to predetermine poor outcomes, so I'm more with the first than the second, but not strongly with either...)

That's a fair point; the utility of an armed populace against (rather than for) tyranny does in part depend on the tyranny being imposed from above, by those in government seeking to expand their power.

However, even in the case of populist tyranny, if the tyrannical sect is less disposed to the use and skill of arms (as they may well be, favoring government control over individual arms use), it is possible that they may have a voting majority and yet be held in check by a fear of the well-armed remnant.

Re: safety and politics
 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that there seems to be a little thing going on over in Iraq.. where a bunch of proverbial "farmers with pitchforks" seem to be giving (one of) the most technologically and tactically advanced military out there a hell of a bad time.

And if some people in this country get what they want (just tuck tail and run, allowing millions to die in our wake) .. then not only did those farmers with pitchforks give us a damned hard time.. but technically kicked our sissy arse. Example: Vietnam.

So.. even in today's world with the heavy technology we've got going on now.. a bunch of idiots running around with AK's and a rudimentary knowledge of explosives is causing all kinds of destruction to the "occupying evil force" in their country. And yet people say it would be nigh impossible for us to do it on our homeland??

Well.. I simply disagree.

Whether it's sport, protection, defense against invaders, defense against tyranny, or any other reason.. Weapons have been used for all in the past.. they will be used for all in the future.. and could certainly be used for all in the present...

But.. Only if they are around when you need them.