(06-06-2022 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's take a look at Uvalde. Let's assume we had banned all AR-15s, and let's further assume that the ban actually worked (hypothetically, of course; the first assumption might happen, but no way the second assumption does). So the kid gets into the school with a non-semi-automatic rifle, or a pistol, or shotgun, or whatever. He had an hour in the building and he killed 19 kids. Does anybody truly believe you need a 30-round magazine to kill 19 people in an hour?

Considering that, does anybody really believe that outlawing any type of gun would have prevented the Uvalde tragedy? There may (or may not) be an argument that without an "assault rifle" he would have killed only 10 or 12 or 15, but would that still not be an awful tragedy?

The point is, if you want to prevent mass shootings, you have to look elsewhere from the gun. You have to look at the shooter and access controls.

Remember, the largest school shooting ever was with pistols.

You also have to consider that the left is not interested in any "solution" that results in anything other than the elimination of guns from law abiding citizens.

(06-06-2022 07:19 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 07:37 PM)scorpius Wrote:  I don't care the definition. As far as I'm concerned, anything that 1) has a magazine more than about a half dozen bullets or 2) shoots faster than about a second per round or 3) has a round strong enough to kill more than a bear should be outlawed except in very limited and well supervised cases. Definitely not something any ordinary citizen should be allowed to take home with them. And not only that, anything that can easily kill a human with almost no effort should be titled, licensed, checked, tracked and restricted AT LEAST as much as we do automobiles, as that is the very reason why we do so for automobiles.

So wait.. Ranchers should only have guns that can kill a bear to protect their herd if only supervised?

What about those of us who hunt, are we not allowed to have a weapon to defend ourselves in case of a bear attack?

I guess bear hunting is no longer an option unless you take a supervisor too.. Who's gonna supervise the people who purchase these guns illegally?

You seem to want to blame an inanimate object. Twice our DOJ failed to follow up when someone was reported to claim they wanted to shoot up a school.. One was Parkland the other Uvlade, so maybe we don't need to ban guns, maybe we need a better DOJ.

Is this where we point out that average AR can't be used in many states for deer hunting because the caliber is too small? So, Scorpius wants to ban a gun too small for deer, but everything up to a "bear" caliber is fine?

I can't get my mind around any of that.

(06-06-2022 10:34 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Is this where we point out that average AR can't be used in many states for deer hunting because the caliber is too small? So, Scorpius wants to ban a gun too small for deer, but everything up to a "bear" caliber is fine?
I can't get my mind around any of that.

One thing that most "gun control" advocates, particularly the most draconian of them, seem to share in common is that they don't know anything about guns.

(06-06-2022 09:48 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's take a look at Uvalde. Let's assume we had banned all AR-15s, and let's further assume that the ban actually worked (hypothetically, of course; the first assumption might happen, but no way the second assumption does). So the kid gets into the school with a non-semi-automatic rifle, or a pistol, or shotgun, or whatever. He had an hour in the building and he killed 19 kids. Does anybody truly believe you need a 30-round magazine to kill 19 people in an hour?

Considering that, does anybody really believe that outlawing any type of gun would have prevented the Uvalde tragedy? There may (or may not) be an argument that without an "assault rifle" he would have killed only 10 or 12 or 15, but would that still not be an awful tragedy?

The point is, if you want to prevent mass shootings, you have to look elsewhere from the gun. You have to look at the shooter and access controls.

Remember, the largest school shooting ever was with pistols.

You also have to consider that the left is not interested in any "solution" that results in anything other than the elimination of guns from law abiding citizens.

The is the truth. Stopping shootings does not interest libs. They want law-abiding citizens disarmed before they start stripping away the rest of our rights.

(06-06-2022 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 09:48 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's take a look at Uvalde. Let's assume we had banned all AR-15s, and let's further assume that the ban actually worked (hypothetically, of course; the first assumption might happen, but no way the second assumption does). So the kid gets into the school with a non-semi-automatic rifle, or a pistol, or shotgun, or whatever. He had an hour in the building and he killed 19 kids. Does anybody truly believe you need a 30-round magazine to kill 19 people in an hour?

Considering that, does anybody really believe that outlawing any type of gun would have prevented the Uvalde tragedy? There may (or may not) be an argument that without an "assault rifle" he would have killed only 10 or 12 or 15, but would that still not be an awful tragedy?

The point is, if you want to prevent mass shootings, you have to look elsewhere from the gun. You have to look at the shooter and access controls.

Remember, the largest school shooting ever was with pistols.

You also have to consider that the left is not interested in any "solution" that results in anything other than the elimination of guns from law abiding citizens.

The is the truth. Stopping shootings does not interest libs. They want law-abiding citizens disarmed before they start stripping away the rest of our rights.

Do you believe that rights have been taken away? This is a serious question, btw.

(06-06-2022 09:48 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's take a look at Uvalde. Let's assume we had banned all AR-15s, and let's further assume that the ban actually worked (hypothetically, of course; the first assumption might happen, but no way the second assumption does). So the kid gets into the school with a non-semi-automatic rifle, or a pistol, or shotgun, or whatever. He had an hour in the building and he killed 19 kids. Does anybody truly believe you need a 30-round magazine to kill 19 people in an hour?

Considering that, does anybody really believe that outlawing any type of gun would have prevented the Uvalde tragedy? There may (or may not) be an argument that without an "assault rifle" he would have killed only 10 or 12 or 15, but would that still not be an awful tragedy?

The point is, if you want to prevent mass shootings, you have to look elsewhere from the gun. You have to look at the shooter and access controls.

Remember, the largest school shooting ever was with pistols.

You also have to consider that the left is not interested in any "solution" that results in anything other than the elimination of guns from law abiding citizens.

Exactly. All they care about is power and money, and they'll stop at nothing until they practically all of both of them.

The two best solutions are to address mental health and tighten up our DOJ. A lot of these people doing the shooting are people who have for whatever reason slipped through the fingers of the DOJ despite the fact they have mental issues, even if they haven't been diagnosed by any medical or psychological professional. But those on the left, particularly people like scorpie, don't care about that because it doesn't help them meet their goal, which is to make all of us subservient to the government for everything, even the clothes on our back. And I know that their saying anything contrary to that is a load of crap.

(06-06-2022 11:22 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  The two best solutions are to address mental health and tighten up our DOJ. A lot of these people doing the shooting are people who have for whatever reason slipped through the fingers of the DOJ despite the fact they have mental issues, even if they haven't been diagnosed by any medical or psychological professional. But those on the left, particularly people like scorpie, don't care about that because it doesn't help them meet their goal, which is to make all of us subservient to the government for everything, even the clothes on our back. And I know that their saying anything contrary to that is a load of crap.

Do that and restrict access. Those are the only things that have a chance to work.

(06-06-2022 11:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 09:48 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's take a look at Uvalde. Let's assume we had banned all AR-15s, and let's further assume that the ban actually worked (hypothetically, of course; the first assumption might happen, but no way the second assumption does). So the kid gets into the school with a non-semi-automatic rifle, or a pistol, or shotgun, or whatever. He had an hour in the building and he killed 19 kids. Does anybody truly believe you need a 30-round magazine to kill 19 people in an hour?

Considering that, does anybody really believe that outlawing any type of gun would have prevented the Uvalde tragedy? There may (or may not) be an argument that without an "assault rifle" he would have killed only 10 or 12 or 15, but would that still not be an awful tragedy?

The point is, if you want to prevent mass shootings, you have to look elsewhere from the gun. You have to look at the shooter and access controls.

Remember, the largest school shooting ever was with pistols.

You also have to consider that the left is not interested in any "solution" that results in anything other than the elimination of guns from law abiding citizens.

The is the truth. Stopping shootings does not interest libs. They want law-abiding citizens disarmed before they start stripping away the rest of our rights.

Do you believe that rights have been taken away? This is a serious question, btw.

Yes. The haven't been legislated away, but the unprecedented level of infringment the past 2+ years during covid should worry all of us. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is incredibly difficult to amend when you think about it. The vote threshold in Congress, the ratification by states, they were established as they are so the the Constitution would be a fixed document, not this "living (i.e. evolving) document" that the progressives so desperately want it to be. Even the most hardcore progressive liberals know this. They know that the change has to be gradual and that public opinion has to be coerced over time.
Technology has also made it easier to infringe on rights and to do so in a meaningful and impactful way without necessarily running afoul of the Constitution in a way that can be quickly and efficiently remediated. Look at Twitter. The reach that they have with little to no oversight is incredible. I'm no big-government supporter, but Twitter is more akin to a public utility now. Conservative voices aren't afforded the same means of communication as others all the time. Paypal would be another example. They fear public response to allowing some to conduct financial transactions from perfectly lawful means and have locked accounts and frozen funds on what is alarmingly clear political lines.
On the topic of the 2nd, regardless of most interpretations we can all agree that despite it very clearly stating "shall not be infringed" we have allowed numerous infringements in the name of public safety. Some make sense and have perhaps made society safer, others impose time and financial burdens that only make exercising said right more difficult for law-abiding citizens and do little to nothing to curtail criminals. Mass shootings are opportunities for the progressive liberal politicians to tug at the heart-strings of their supporters, to keep justifying more and more infringement on a right that is an explicit limit on government.

If I could propose a few new laws or modifications to existing laws they would focus on the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen.

People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

You are welcome anytime to come and try to take mine.

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

First off the Soviet Union was brought down due to being unable to keep up with the United States in the Cold War. It's citizens being armed or not had little to do with their downfall. Communism/socialism typically collapses under it's own weight and the implementation of communism/socialism is typically done on a defenseless people.
So the Ukraine had limitations on gun ownership, were invaded, had massive amounts of weapons sent in from other countries, are doing better than expected against the Russians and you use that as an example of how restricting citizens from owning weapons is good? Do you think that if the people there had been better armed it might have been a deterrent to aggression? Most bullies don't pick on those capable of defending themselves.

(06-06-2022 03:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

First off the Soviet Union was brought down due to being unable to keep up with the United States in the Cold War. It's citizens being armed or not had little to do with their downfall. Communism/socialism typically collapses under it's own weight and the implementation of communism/socialism is typically done on a defenseless people.
So the Ukraine had limitations on gun ownership, were invaded, had massive amounts of weapons sent in from other countries, are doing better than expected against the Russians and you use that as an example of how restricting citizens from owning weapons is good? Do you think that if the people there had been better armed it might have been a deterrent to aggression? Most bullies don't pick on those capable of defending themselves.

Scorp doesn't think, and is proving incessantly his/her incapability to do so.

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

Do you need the list of murders and atrocities committed in countries where firearms were confiscated again?

I wonder how many Ukrainians the Soviets sent to Siberia and/or death during the Cold War.

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

Exactly.
I can think of a few democracies that were not saved, arguably because of the government severely limiting their access to defensive tools.

scorpius Wrote:But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

But at what cost? Tens of millions starved to death? I don't know if I'd call surviving attrition as necessarily a 'win'.

scorpius Wrote:I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

I'd certainly hope that should tyranny raise it's head here, other democracies would support the citizens......however I think the following chart is pertinent to this area of the discussion:

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

The states defeated Britain because of the common ownership of firearms, among other things.
There are numerous examples of disarmed populaces suffer horribly at the hands of government, e.g. Nazi Germany, any communist country.
There are tons of examples of native armed populaces resisting and overcoming a stronger military opponent through guerilla warfare: Iraq, Afghanistan (twice).

(06-06-2022 03:36 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

The states defeated Britain because of the common ownership of firearms, among other things.
There are numerous examples of disarmed populaces suffer horribly at the hands of government, e.g. Nazi Germany, any communist country.
There are tons of examples of native armed populaces resisting and overcoming a stronger military opponent through guerilla warfare: Iraq, Afghanistan (twice).

Almost always because the population was "obedient" to government.

(06-06-2022 02:58 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People keep preaching we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but no one can ever provide any example of where an already existing democracy was threatened and saved by it's citizens taking up arms using guns already owned by the population. I don't think a single example exists in history. Our revolutionary war created a democracy and freed ourselves from Britian's monarchy.

But I can think of many examples of where citizens were able to rise up in a society of outlawed guns to create a democracy and free themselves from oppressive governments. All of the former Soviet block countries are a perfect example. Guns were outlawed in the Soviet Union, but democracy won the day WITHOUT a shot being fired.

I'd even mention Ukraine as an example of a country with pretty strick gun ownership regulation and pretty weak military, yet STILL being able to defend against one of the most powerful militaries in the world. From Wikipedia, here were their rules before the war:

In Ukraine, a license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. Because of the lack of statutes regarding firearm ownership, authorities have great discretion when giving firearm licenses. The president and ministers often give guns to members of the elite, while making it hard for ordinary people to obtain them. It is estimated that more than 50,000 guns have been issued as presents from authorities.[3] Gun owners are required by order to renew their licenses and registration of their guns every three years. Failure to comply will result in revocation of the license, as well as confiscation of guns. There is a 10-round magazine limit for rifles.

Notably also, Ukraine was 88th in the list of world countries in guns per capita. So VERY weak gun ownership rates. Yet here they are more than holding their own and even arguably WINNING against the totalitarian regime of Russian and successfully being able to defend democracy. What people fail to realize is that democracies come together to defend each other against invaders, whether it's foreign or domestic. They don't need to arm their citizens like terrorists to the point where they are killing themselves unnecessarily like an uncivilized society of the wild west.

Exactly. Because---as you noted---there are very few societies where private gun ownership of the masses is allowed. Given that most nations were monarchies or some other form of autocracies---why do think those types of governments might frown on allowing mass ownership of fire arms? We are pretty unique in the respect that our population owns firearms. What you fail to grasp is that mass private ownership of guns has been a characteristic of American society for some 250+ years. Semi-automatic weapons have been around essentially since the revolver. Yet these mass shootings is a relatively new phenomenon. So---its not the guns that have changed---its the people that make up the society.

(06-06-2022 03:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  First off the Soviet Union was brought down due to being unable to keep up with the United States in the Cold War. It's citizens being armed or not had little to do with their downfall. Communism/socialism typically collapses under it's own weight and the implementation of communism/socialism is typically done on a defenseless people.
So the Ukraine had limitations on gun ownership, were invaded, had massive amounts of weapons sent in from other countries, are doing better than expected against the Russians and you use that as an example of how restricting citizens from owning weapons is good? Do you think that if the people there had been better armed it might have been a deterrent to aggression? Most bullies don't pick on those capable of defending themselves.

Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  First off the Soviet Union was brought down due to being unable to keep up with the United States in the Cold War. It's citizens being armed or not had little to do with their downfall. Communism/socialism typically collapses under it's own weight and the implementation of communism/socialism is typically done on a defenseless people.
So the Ukraine had limitations on gun ownership, were invaded, had massive amounts of weapons sent in from other countries, are doing better than expected against the Russians and you use that as an example of how restricting citizens from owning weapons is good? Do you think that if the people there had been better armed it might have been a deterrent to aggression? Most bullies don't pick on those capable of defending themselves.

Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.