Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

Options
1…252627282931»

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    robindch wrote: »
    I have to say I haven't come across the "a 400lb bear might show up" argument from a gun-lobbyist before.
    First off, take your trolling nonsense and shovel it. I'm not a lobbyist, I'm a software engineer and the forum charter has rules about personal abuse and being a dick and you're breaking them right there.
    Second of all, you not having seen people make the point does not invalidate it, it just means you need to see more.


  • Options
    #903
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Sparks wrote: »
    I believe the Afghans have disproven your thesis to three major armies now, the British, the Russian and the Americans. And I think we disproved it to the British ourselves back when they were a superpower. That's the nature of asymmetric warfare.
    I don't happen to like that particular aspect of their belief in their right to own firearms, but history doesn't permit its simple hand-wavey dismissal.

    So you're equating the afghans with the self indulgence of the american loony toon right?

    Who's going to equip these theoretical american insurrectionists with military grade equipment to help in their fight against the worlds foremost super power on its home turf? Ther russians?

    Do they have the right to bear semtex? the right to decent anti aircraft missiles? How about the right to gather intelligence and the right to surveillance or the right to execute suspected spies? All of these will be more vital cometh the great revolution than the right to keep rifles

    Its all posture.


  • Options
    #904
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,102 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Bambi wrote: »
    So you're equating the afghans with the self indulgence of the american loony toon right?

    Who's going to equip these theoretical american insurrectionists with military grade equipment to help in their fight against the worlds foremost super power on its home turf? Ther russians?

    Do they have the right to bear semtex? the right to decent anti aircraft missiles? How about the right to gather intelligence and the right to surveillance or the right to execute suspected spies? All of these will be more vital cometh the great revolution than the right to keep rifles

    Its all posture.

    Must be quite the field you're guarding, with all those strawmen there.

    The Constitution in the US is what it is, however much ridicule and scorn you want to heap upon it. Reserving the ability to resist an oppressive government is rooted in their history and is not likely to ever change.

    Debating whether or not a group of citizens could ever effectively fight the government is irrelevant. If the situation arose where that became necessary, people would fight, regardless of whether it was a doomed cause or not. That's just a fundamental difference in national psyche I suspect. The same attitude holds true for personal defense, people want the option to protect themselves from an armed criminal, and thankfully, they have that right.


  • Options
    #905
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bambi wrote: »
    So you're equating the afghans with the self indulgence of the american loony toon right?
    Nope, I'm saying that the principle can't be dismissed just by waving your hands in the air and saying it's silly because others have done it before. And against both large numbers of troops and against armies equipped with the latest and greatest techniology.

    I don't happen to agree with it, but that's for other less hand-wavey reasons.


  • Options
    #906
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    robindch wrote: »
    I have to say I haven't come across the "a 400lb bear might show up" argument from a gun-lobbyist before.

    No doubt the increased risk of gun-related injury or death universally observed for people who keep a gun in their house probably increases still further for people who are out and about with a loaded weapon and the willingness to use it.

    I've made it a few times, even on this thread. Like our neighbors in the Great White North (Canada, also well armed), there are many open areas inhabited by large animals well capable of killing you. The most recent known bear fatality was less than two months ago, it was not the most recent attack. I'm not sure there's much more dangerous to humans in Ireland than an angry badger. There are many parts of the U.S. where it is considered downright foolish to not bring a large firearm along with you, and by 'large', I mean .30cal or better. Bigger than current military rifle rounds.

    With respect to your second point, this is probably true. Not necessarily a problem, though, as long as the injuries and deaths continue to predominantly occur amongst the criminals as they are now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I've made it a few times, even on this thread. Like our neighbors in the Great White North (Canada, also well armed), there are many open areas inhabited by large animals well capable of killing you.
    While the part about dangerous animals is true, to be fair..

    Guns per 100 people, USA: 112.6
    Guns per 100 people, Canada: 30.8

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country


  • Options
    #908
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,170 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    Billy86 wrote: »
    While the part about dangerous animals is true, to be fair..

    Guns per 100 people, USA: 112.6
    Guns per 100 people, Canada: 30.8

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

    Also, where I live is one of the most deadly places when it comes to animals in North America. We've got the Gila Monsters, Diamondback Rattlesnakes, All kinds of Deadly Spider (the most common of the deadly animals),Javelina, Coyotes, Mountain Lions (Only been one since I've been here, ususally stay a few miles away from here), Bears (rare but have had 4 in the last couple of years), Bobcats, Mexican Grey Wolf (even more rare, only seen once since I've been here), Scorpions and a few other types of Snake.

    But to be honest. Having been to Australia, lived here and been to other 'wilderness' type areas. If there's any kind of town build up with a decent population. Most of these predators stay the f*ck gone. I'd only get a gun, if I was way, way out in the wilderness and I bet if only people out that far in the wilderness had guns there'd be a lot less guns....


Advertisement