Indeed, Wolverine's posts often are level headed, thoughtful and over all quite reasonable, there are times it seems he has conflicting voices in his head. 1. He doesn't quite grasp the validity of what a deadly weapon can be. I used to carry a small bat that fit in my door panel in my car when I couldn't afford a gun. And it could be construed as a very deadly weapon. As I have yet to obtain any martial arts training, the only deadly weapons I can now carry are my brain, my arms, fists, legs and feet and use them as appropriately as I can. It is VERY difficult to get a CCW in the SF Bay Area and with a CCW comes a GREAT responsibility and much threat to your own welfare as well. I struggle all the time weather I should get one or not. Until then, I will continue to use the deadly weapons I have at my disposal. Although a rolling pin seems a bit unwieldy for my tastes. 2. Anyone who is reasonable will agree that some sort of gun regulation is reasonable. 3. That whole more/less guns = less/more crime is a very sticky game to play with studies/evidence etc... It is NOT clear in any direction. It is funny that Wolverine would take such a staunch stance on something so unclear. 4. War with the government? OMG what a nightmare indeed. I hope I never see the day when that occurs. As other have stated, and 6Gunner did quite eloquently I might add, guerilla tactics have been winning wars all the world over, to this day. Vietnam is a PRIME example. Airpower? Modern Armor? We had F-4 phantoms going up against AK-47's and SKS'!! We left vietnam with our tails between our legs. And with good measure. Wolverine, you say that a gun is "the most effective way of stopping an attacker." What if your government became "the attacker?" Would you roll over and die? I'm just asking, as I might. I would be scared beyond measure, I might not be able to act. 5. 6Gunner says it quite nicely. I can see why you were banned from some "progun" forums as you have stated. There are some very apparent conflicting views that arise from time to time. And that is not meant in any disrespectful way. I (for what that's worth) hold you in very high esteem.
I am quite aware that anything can be used as a weapon. My point is clearly made that guns are the most effective weapons we have at our disposal. I carry a M&P40, not a rolling pin. I have an AR-15 in the corner, not a baseball bat. They are the most effective tools for those two firearms intended purposes. That cuts both ways. My stance is based on the evidence. I made these quite some time back. The states are ranked in the order of gun control, based on the Brady Campaign's state scores. The more gun control, the higher the score. Actually the F-4's did not go up against AK-47's. Unless you can point out an instance of a large number of F-4's being shot down by small arms. SAM's were a big issue. Something that we as US civilians do not have access to. Very much appreciated. However, firearms are limited in their effectiveness when you start looking outside the scope of biological beings. Fighting a war with the government with small arms is just silly.
I won't even try to pretend to get into the statistics, variables, regressions etc... of those arguments. I will just acknowledge that there are unclear areas. My hats off to you for your efforts in that regard. Although I wasn't there, do you really think that not a single vietcong armed with and sks or ak-47 shot at an F-4? Silly speculation really, however, small arms were a very real concern in vietnam. I can't venture to say "the ak-47 won vietnam!", albeit, it was VERY influential in that regard. And hence, why fighting wars with small arms doesn't quite fall in the "silly" category, just quite yet.
There are unclear areas. However poverty is the driving force behind crime. I am far more interested in why people do things rather than how. I really don't care if the Vietcong shot F-4's or not. Point being, small arms are not effective tools against all targets. They are ineffective against most military vehicles. You won't be shooting down much aircraft with an AK-47. That is what anti-aircraft weapons are for. I am certain you have seen the videos of insurgents being hit with 30mm cannon fire. Thing is, the insurgents are unaware of the helicopter's presence. When I see people talk about fighting the government, I think about all of the tools the military has and civilians do not. I usually flash of drones launching Hellfires and Apaches firing a 30mm cannon over a mile away.
It seems that the "why" would be a very valuable thing to know. I'm wondering about things like relationship status, failed dates, difficult family situations, etc...how does those play into gun violence. And then, how to glean useful rubber meeting the road type of solutions. And those Ah-64 apache's, predator drones, hellfire, etc.... still haven't taken out those insurgents and their nasty AK's!
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...r-shoots-dollar-store-robber-killing-him?lite these events are more often than not, swept under the rug. At least this fellow had witnesses
You ignore the manufacturer's stated purpose: ambushing. And now you're in somewhat of an entanglement. If I use my car to run somebody down, use defines purpose. The car manufacturer will swear in court that they make cars for transportation and there you'll be telling the jury that use defines purpose. Sorry, but your argument carries zero weight. I suppose if your gun lays on a stack of papers then it becomes a paperweight? What is a three gun competition and how do, say, 20 round mags diminish one's participation? This is your argument, not mine. Define YOUR need. My argument has been defined, and is reasonable and logical. You can disagree with it, but claiming it hasn't been made just calls your reading comprehension into question.
You used your car as a weapon, it becomes a weapon. If I hit someone with a tire iron I am charged with assault with a weapon. Basic law. I don't need a beta magazine. However because I do not need it does not mean that I wish to prohibit other people from obtaining them. You are using a single instance to justify banning them. It is silly. Especially considering your "needs test" is non-existent. Its just fun to sit on a high horse and say "you don't need X" while knowing very little about the issue.
How many are left then? How about, in Afghanistan? If there are any left, do you think some of them have small arms?
This is propaganda. If the Afgans, and Vietcong who were farmers and tribal people can effectively implement asymmetrical warfare, than I don't see why millions of veterans, chemists, and engineers can't. Can you offer some rational for why asymmetrical warfare became unrealistic?
So you're saying use doesn't define purpose. Gotcha'. You admit you don't need them, yet I know very little and sit on a high horse when I say the same thing? I'll chalk that up to evidence of your crumbling position on the matter.
I just said use defines purpose. The use of a car or a tire iron as a weapon then that object is a weapon. My lack of need or interest is not justification for prohibition. It is not hard (for most) to understand. Go play along now.
Right. Don't forget the Afgans were aided by the US and the Vietcong was aided by the Soviet Union and China.
Most of the coalition deaths are caused from IED's. Not small arms. As for how are left? I bet hundreds of thousands.
I'm already playing. I enjoy pointing out the folly of your position on HCMs. If I use a car as a weapon, my usage most certainly does NOT change the purpose of cars. Transportation is their purpose. Ambushes are HCM's purpose.
You are using the car as a weapon, the car is a weapon. Plain and simple. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to realize an object's use defines its purpose.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with purpose. The purpose of a car is transportation. You might say that use defines intent, but certainly not purpose. If I stab somebody with a pencil, purpose is still a writing instrument even while I'm using it as a weapon!
If I stab someone with a pencil, the purpose of that pencil in that moment is a weapon. Your argument is moot.
No. You have REpurposed it as a weapon. It was made to write with. Cars are made for transportation. And HCMs are made to ambush the unsuspecting
All of which is irrelevant. Use defines purpose. If I never write with the pencil and stab someone, it's "original intent" is irrelevant. If I use a high capacity (if you were to use proper terminology, I may have a more difficult time dismissing everything you say on the issue as non-sense. If you would grant me atleast that mediocore level of intellectual might, and something less than intellectual bankrupcy, that would be great.) for target shooting, as are done with the vast majority of beta type magazines, then what value is the original intent? None. Your argument of "Original Intent" is moot.
I made that mistake once and owned it. The fact that you can't let it go is evidence of the weakness of your arguments. The fact that you are resorting to ad hominems is more evidence. The fact that you equate mistaking "large capacacity" for "high capacity" to intellectual bankruptcy is only evidence of your intellectual bankruptcy. Your definition of debate is childish: no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is.... you are dismissed.
You mention that the manufacturer of some magazine or other claims the "purpose" of a high capacity magazine is for "ambushing the unsuspecting". I haven't seen such, and if so I would find such advertising claims ludicrous at best. Anyone with knowledge of firearms could readily see the fallacy of such a claim. A magazine such as the Beta-C Magazine (100 rounds) makes a weapon much more unwieldy. Its purpose is best for a fixed position scenario where one must hold off attacking enemy through the use of sustained fire. A magazine of that type does not facilitate "ambushing". In another post you make a statement about "need". Well, what I feel I "need" and what you think I "need" are two very different things, and your opinion of what I "need" is irrelevant to me. My right to bear arms is not subject to the whim of someone such as yourself. I believe that I "need" magazines of sufficiently reliable design that I can be fairly certain my primary defensive firearms will function without problem when my life or the lives of my loved ones are on the line. You say my ability for defense is not affected by restrictions upon magazine capacity, and I say that is nonsense. As gang violence and incidents of multiple perpetrator assaults multiply, the possession of tactical carbines with appropriate ammunition capacities becomes ever more desirable and necessary.
