Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
In my experience, most people with large amounts of firearms tend to know a lot about using them. Indeed, knowing how to use them and taking them to the range is the appeal of owning many firearms.
Yes.
The people who are most afraid of guns have hardly even touched one before.
Quite simple, really. Ignorance of anything usually leads you to be cautious or even scared of it.
Also, people have taken Hollywood and mainstream media hook, line, and sinker.
People with guns do NOT behave like Bruce Willis. People are so saturated with television that they actually start to believe it.
And do you know why shootings are in the news?
Because they're relatively rare!!! Do you wonder why they don't televise every automotive death? Because there are so many! The news shows you what is unusual because it will capture your interest.
So they won't tell you about the 1000s of car accidents this year; they'll tell you about the 100-odd people that have been murdered with "assault" weapons this year.
And they don't very often mention any of the approximately 20000 people who use guns in home defense (in the US) annually.
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Another way in which the "well-regulated" doctrine could be upheld is by offering further classes on irregular warfare. ...
Ironically, this will never happen because the government is too scared that such things would weaken its control over the people.
As far as gun classes, why don't they standardize them? Almost like driver's ed.
Of course, if people knew more about guns, they wouldn't be swayed so easily by the mind-numbing spam put out by news services...
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
And again (moving away from the revolution) I remind you all that the Japanese avoided an invasion of Continental U.S. because so many people carried guns. That is only 60-some years ago. ;)
Thats another myth. The Japanese never had the logistical capabilty to even attempt such an invasion.
But apart from that nugget a decent post Maximus .
One question though , did Brazil defeat the one of the most powerful nations in the 1940s ? Or was its actual contribution pretty negligable since it had the aid of several global superpowers?
Bit like the militia isn't it.
Oh and just curious . Why are your approximate annual home defence figures only a miniscule tiny fraction of those which Rabbit frequently has claimed occur.
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Thats another myth.
Not to interrupt, but as a side-point, I think you 'misunderestimate' the value of "myth". Myth does not always = Lie.
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Thats another myth. The Japanese never had the logistical capabilty to even attempt such an invasion.
But apart from that nugget a decent post Maximus .
Hmmm; I guess we get into epistemology a bit there because we seem to doubt each others' sources of knowledge.
Quote:
One question though , did Brazil defeat the one of the most powerful nations in the 1940s ? Or was its actual contribution pretty negligable since it had the aid of several global superpowers?
Bit like the militia isn't it.
This is a skillful use of comparison on your part, however it is rather inconsistent:
The US had no other allies beyond perhaps those who sympathized with their cause. No other major nation did anything.
Also, the war was FOUGHT in the US, and the US INITIATED the war.
In 1776, it was the US (let's say for example, 20th overall in the global scale of military capacity), and France (2nd at the very best, and I wouldn't necessarily rate France over Prussia or Russia without a lot of research).
Now, to the comparison:
Brazil declared war in 1944 I think, well after the outcome was largely decided. i.e., after they didn't have to worry about being punished for siding against Germany (no offence Brazilians).
Also, there was no fighting that I've ever heard of that occurred in S. America that was directly related to WWII.
So Brazil was completely out of the fighting; obviously a massive inconsistency.
Lastly, Brazil fought alongside 45 other countries, including the US, GB, USSR, France, China, India, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Greece, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Philippines, and Italy (switched sides in '44 or '45).
The Axis Powers consisted of Germany, Italy, Japan, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, and Siam. Most of these had been defeated already by the time of Brazil's entry.
Therefore, making this comparison is like saying that sleeping in a garage makes you a car.
Quote:
Oh and just curious . Why are your approximate annual home defence figures only a miniscule tiny fraction of those which Rabbit frequently has claimed occur.
Because government would rather scan for aliens, whine about carbon emissions, and kow-tow to terrorists than fulfill its roll of protecting its citizens?
Beats me.
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Hmmm; I guess we get into epistemology a bit there because we seem to doubt each others' sources of knowledge.
The eastern plans never encompassed anything beyond the Western Aleutians , Hawai and Johnson island were included as possible outposts for a while but in reality were well beyond the Japanese capabilities for them to be remotely sustainable .
Quote:
The US had no other allies beyond perhaps those who sympathized with their cause. No other major nation did anything.
Ah but they did , France and Spain were assisting them from the very start
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Evil_Maniac From Mars
I find it amusing that two bizarre magicians have said some of the most intelligent stuff I have ever heard.
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reverend Joe
I find it amusing that two bizarre magicians have said some of the most intelligent stuff I have ever heard.
Penn & Teller did like a lot of "pundits" and got their foot in the door by being entertainers, then once they had a fan base, started in with the politics and investigative journalism.
Penn and Tellers "bull****" series is actually one of the most consistent, entertaining, politically incorrect programs I have ever see. They call a spade a spade, even if I don't always agree with them. I do, however, feel they have a bit of libertarian tilt, which really turns me on. I particulalry liked their program on PETAs hypocrisy, alternative medicine and the green movement.
On a side note, they ruined my honeymoon. There we were, in the hotel room, my wife never having seen an episode, and i see one is coming on so I convince her to watch it with me. Turns out to be the episode that argues porn is not bad....first 10 minutes about 5000 breasts and lots of talk of cheap sex etc.....had to turn the channel...wife hates me.....
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
Ah but they did , France and Spain were assisting them from the very start
Just exactly when do you consider the war started, and what are your specifics for "assisting"? I think that's part of the hang-up. I don't think the French and Spanish had much to do with Lexington & Concord, though by Breed's Hill we may have been purchasing arms and powder from them (which was not a complete charity on their part).
Re: The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
Ah but they did , France and Spain were assisting them from the very start
Ummm, to be honest, I was expecting a little more than that...
I think you need to give a little more of an argument to prove your point.
A few bucks and a nice word doesn't constitute assistance from the very start in my book. ;)
I'm talking MILITARY INTERVENTION here. I don't really feel like doing a study on how much $$$ the US received from Fr. and Sp., but if you keep using that as your thesis, I guess I'll have to...
But I guarantee you that money received negated the need for and value of civilians with guns, which is the crux of your argument. ;)
