Side story on the recent gun spree

[carl]

A government is an institutional tool to address a societies' troubles (by setting and enforcing rules and providing public goods). The less support this idea has, the lesser will no doubt be government's ability to do its job.

Ah yes. That is a fine idea. Doesn't always work out in practice though. And it is those examples of it not working out in practice, and the tens of millions of people killed by governments in just Europe in the 20th century when it didn't work out, that make us...let's see if I can get all this in...dysfunctional, paranoid, backward Americans with a 200 year record of kind-of-democracy very suspicious of government.

As far as the Irish go, that's easy. Most of the smart ones came here.

[Fuchs]

Ah yes. That is a fine idea. Doesn't always work out in practice though. And it is those examples of it not working out in practice, and the tens of millions of people killed by governments in just Europe in the 20th century when it didn't work out, that make us...let's see if I can get all this in...dysfunctional, paranoid, backward Americans with a 200 year record of kind-of-democracy very suspicious of government.

Yeah, sure. Slavery, Native Americans, joining a World War needlessly after everyone else understood it's a folly, having had a messy civil war, torture, wars of aggression, oppressing Latin America for a century, propping up evil dictators abroad by the dozens ... all was fine in the U.S..


Look, the problem is the American society is simply not working well, and paranoia as well as a huge susceptibility to distraction from what's important why fantasy and unimportant stuff is part of the mess.
Keep your military from developing stuff like this, disband militarised SWAT teams, repeal the Patriot Act if you want to be cautious about the government.
Don't get locked into power fantasies like assault rifles being what keeps the government from turning to Stalinism.

Guns are not decisive against an evil government (if there's one). Relevant is whether this government has the required support and tolerance from the people. If it has not, soldiers will allow civilians to plunder weapons depots and there are the real guns. The Romanians and Syrians did not need lots of AR-15s under their beds to turn violent against their dictators.
The U.S. is pushing more than any other country the development of technology that lowers the threshold for required support (by making surveillance that much easier and more effective) and it's the world leader in pushing for acceptance (tolerance) of evil government practices, such as torture.

On top of this, it has developed the approach for how to capture a large share of a population in a bubble of fantasyland where the people don't listen to dissenting news sources any more, think their president is a foreigner, think Iraq had WMD and so on. Until this development, it was much harder if not unknown to create such an encompassing fantasyland without the propaganda means of a dictatorship.


Yeah, but you guys think having an AR-15 under your bed is an insurance. Ridiculous.

[carl]

Yeah, sure. Slavery, Native Americans, joining a World War needlessly after everyone else understood it's a folly, having had a messy civil war, torture, wars of aggression, oppressing Latin America for a century, propping up evil dictators abroad by the dozens ... all was fine in the U.S..

Well I could respond to this in kind, about Europe in general and some European countries in particular, but that would serve no real purpose so I won't. No, I won't. Oh no. Like hell I won't. Joining WWI may not have been viewed with favor by Germany but France and Great Britain thought it a fine idea.

Look, the problem is the American society is simply not working well, and paranoia as well as a huge susceptibility to distraction from what's important why fantasy and unimportant stuff is part of the mess.

Oh.

Keep your military from developing stuff like this, disband militarised SWAT teams, repeal the Patriot Act if you want to be cautious about the government.

All modern militaries with the wherewithal are developing technologies such as the one linked to. SWAT teams with military appearing equipment have their uses, though there are probably far too many. But that is sort of the police dept equivalent of keeping up with the Jones'. Repealing the Patriot Act or large portions thereof is a good idea. But we ain't perfect, just better than most European countries in most ways.

Don't get locked into power fantasies like assault rifles being what keeps the government from turning to Stalinism.

This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons. A human without a weapon in a society where other humans are permitted weapons, is a servant, a person of no real worth or stature in that society. The import of being actually able to defend yourself if need be, isn't in the technical comparison of a having a rifle vs an infantry platoon with MGs and small mortars, the importance is that you are a person who, if they are to be taken, can at least make a fight of it, and also a person whose personhood merely in and of itself gives the right to defend themselves and possess the means to effectively do so.

Besides if 'assault rifles' aren't all that important, why do you care so much that us Yanks have them?

Guns are not decisive against an evil government (if there's one). Relevant is whether this government has the required support and tolerance from the people. If it has not, soldiers will allow civilians to plunder weapons depots and there are the real guns. The Romanians and Syrians did not need lots of AR-15s under their beds to turn violent against their dictators.

If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes? Because you can't fight without weapons.

Whether that evil gov has the required support and tolerance from the people?! I think it is more a matter of how strong the apparatus of the police state is. You have talked to some former East Germans about what it was like there I hope. Well developed police states are extremely difficult to overthrow from within.

Of course with us backward Yanks, we prefer to keep weapons available to the people to discourage the development of a police state. It may not be a foolproof thing but the Founders thought it would be helpful and might have a dissuasive effect. So do I.

The U.S. is pushing more than any other country the development of technology that lowers the threshold for required support (by making surveillance that much easier and more effective) and it's the world leader in pushing for acceptance (tolerance) of evil government practices, such as torture.

Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that. There are lots of European examples to choose from.

We had a brief and horribly shameful flirtation with torture in the early 2000s. It is a blot on our national honor and will be there forever. But I would note, that we officially gave up that tool of the weak and twisted years ago and I pray to God we don't go back. It is interesting, and disturbing, that the prime pusher of torture in the US now is the entertainment industry, an industry that marches almost in political lockstep with the superzip establishment.

On top of this, it has developed the approach for how to capture a large share of a population in a bubble of fantasyland where the people don't listen to dissenting news sources any more, think their president is a foreigner, think Iraq had WMD and so on. Until this development, it was much harder if not unknown to create such an encompassing fantasyland without the propaganda means of a dictatorship.

Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.

Yeah, but you guys think having an AR-15 under your bed is an insurance. Ridiculous.

I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.

Besides, having that about will save the trouble of breaking into an armory if the need arises.

[Fuchs]

This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons.

This particular 'importance' is none. I'm not a particularly fearful guy, and I feel safe without a gun.
Besides, I CAN fight without a weapon. Not having a weapon and still being ready to fight means to have the advantage of surprise.

If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes?

You didn't get what 'decisive' means.
Enough popular support for rebels = government is doomed, the means to complete its demise will be found.
Not enough popular support for insurgents = government will massacre the rebels, doesn't matter how well they're armed.
The armament of rebels is a superficiality.

Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that.

A sample without the agent cannot disprove the agent's effectiveness.
What you meant to say was that a police state does not needs high tech. Well, I agree, but what I really said was that a police state needs less support (by people) with labour-saving surveillance high tech.

Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.

An optic for home defence? Tacticool has taken over.
Seriously, your reply was to a quote which spoke against weapons as insurance against evil government (context!). That is ridiculous.

[slapout9]

Good Job Carl!!!!This thread is a good example of why logic,college degree-ism, and empty euro-trash philosophy are the ultimate threats against mankind. Criminals-Terrorist don't care about any of the logical arguments as to why you should or should not own guns. All they care about are WHO has the force and Who has a counter-force. And that is why Europe had to be bailed out by the Superior American Philosophy 3 times in the last century, probably more if you count the entire cold war. They are incapable of any kind of Free thinking based upon reality as opposed to thinking along the lines of some dead German guy they were taught about in school. They don't understand Freedom and Responsibility and the Force that is required to protect such brilliant Philosophy.

[M-A Lagrange]

Good Job Carl!!!!This thread is a good example of why logic,college degree-ism, and empty euro-trash philosophy are the ultimate threats against mankind. Criminals-Terrorist don't care about any of the logical arguments as to why you should or should not own guns. All they care about are WHO has the force and Who has a counter-force. And that is why Europe had to be bailed out by the Superior American Philosophy 3 times in the last century, probably more if you count the entire cold war. They are incapable of any kind of Free thinking based upon reality as opposed to thinking along the lines of some dead German guy they were taught about in school. They don't understand Freedom and Responsibility and the Force that is required to protect such brilliant Philosophy.

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

[carl]

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

Just a technical note to start with. People legally can and do have fully automatic belt fed machine guns in the US. They are limited in number and are subject to more laws. They, except for one time I think, have never been used in a crime since the 30s.

There have been several school shootings in Finland and Germany in the last 10 years or so. Plus the incident in Norway.

You are right, people in both places are looking for physical security. But many more people in the US would rather look more to themselves for that security than to the government. Governments can't be fully trusted.

In that part of Africa, most of the people living there could probably attest to that.

[slapout9]

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

Hi M-A Lagrange,

The trap that needs to be avoided is the one where we accept some of the most intrusive searches ever devised in order to be safe on our Airlines but refuse to propely fund and train an armed security force for our schools. It is this course of action that is being recommended by the same people who have their own children protected by armed secuity forces, that is the trap that needs to be avoided. Hope you are having a good time over there in Africa.

[slapout9]

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

Hi M-A Lagrange,

The trap that needs to be avoided is the one where we accept some of the most intrusive searches ever devised in order to be safe on our Airlines but refuse to propely fund and train an armed security force for our schools. It is this course of action that is being recommended by the same people who have their own children protected by armed secuity forces, that is the trap that needs to be avoided. Hope you are having a good time over there in Africa.

[Steve Blair]

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

Of course you don't. You get your news through a set of filters, which in turn colors your perception. News is far more concerned with ratings than truth, and that's a given no matter which country you happen to be in.

[Fuchs]

The prominence of a loud minority which has gone of the rails is not a universal symptom, though.

It's in my opinion a society's essential requirement to keep dangerous people from power (not from voting, of course). Many Western countries are much less about to fail spectacularly in this regard.
Just look at the current firearms regulation debate:
The NRA's leadership which represents a minority of NRA members (in regard to its stance concerning universal background checks, loopholes etc.) who are in turn a minority of the citizens effectively plays the role of representing one half (side) of the debate. It does even so after an obvious record of fearmongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.


It's dysfunctionality that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.


Sadly, this dysfunctionality extends to foreign policy and eve the question of war or not war. This is where it becomes important to foreigners.

[J Wolfsberger]

It does even so after an obvious record of fear mongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

On this I agree with you. Despite all of the things you cite coming in a never ending stream from Democrats and other Leftists, the NRA is still a very widely respected organization. Incidentally, part of your confusion is due to the fact that many more millions of people look to the NRA to protect their rights than actually join. (Of which, last I heard, they were getting close to 5 million members [1 million new in the past couple of months]. Hats off to Obama for running such a successful membership drive on their behalf.)

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.

I realize that growing up in the old DDR makes it difficult to understand what a lot of terms mean. A "society working well" does, in fact, pay a lot of attention to the leadership of organizations that represent sizable portions of its membership. What I think confused you is the hard Left definition of "society" as "the properly indoctrinated Leftists" who make noise out of all proportion to their membership in that society.

It's dysfunctional that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.

Likewise with your use of the term "dysfunction." It does NOT mean "refuses to rubber stamp the majority opinion." What dominates in the U.S. is a dynamic tension between different points of view. That does, indeed, make it very difficult for one side to impose its will on the other. Again, given that you grew up in the DDR it's understandable you'd be confused about this.

Incidentally, I read one of those constitutions you recommended as a modern, responsible constitution. They "granted" the citizens the "right" to food, clothing shelter, jobs, health care, etc. (I suspect a right to free puppies was in there somewhere, but I didn't look.) They also "granted" government the "right" to levy taxes. I was underwhelmed.

I think you need to work on understanding the distinction among the concepts of "right," "privilege" and "desires." One thing you could try that might help along those lines would be to put some effort into understanding the 2000+ years of philosophical and theological reasoning that underpins the U.S. Constitution (with particular attention to Plato, Cicero, St. Thomas, Spinoza, and a whole library of English and French philosophers). Another would be to understand why that "modern" constitution looks, to this U.S. citizen, to lie somewhere between infantile and childish.

[carl]

This particular 'importance' is none. I'm not a particularly fearful guy, and I feel safe without a gun.
Besides, I CAN fight without a weapon. Not having a weapon and still being ready to fight means to have the advantage of surprise.

You miss the point about individuals having the recourse to arms, two points actually.

The first is a member of society in which the individual has recourse to arms, is a member of a society that recognizes the intrinsic rights of individuals. That is a society worthy.

The second is a person who has recourse to arms is a person who can effectively defend themselves. They are not a victim in waiting. That is hugely critical to individual morale.

Thirdly is, you, Fuchs, may be an entirely fearsome fellow able to take on all comers. But it isn't just about you. It is also about the petite 55 year old woman with a bad knee that I mentioned before. If you deny her recourse to arms, you deny her the right to self defense. You can't do that.

That was three points.

You didn't get what 'decisive' means.
Enough popular support for rebels = government is doomed, the means to complete its demise will be found.
Not enough popular support for insurgents = government will massacre the rebels, doesn't matter how well they're armed.
The armament of rebels is a superficiality.

I know perfectly well what decisive means. If you have arms, you can fight. If you don't, you can't. That is pretty decisive.

A sample without the agent cannot disprove the agent's effectiveness.
What you meant to say was that a police state does not needs high tech. Well, I agree, but what I really said was that a police state needs less support (by people) with labour-saving surveillance high tech.

You know there is a contradiction in what you say when you comment about police states and popular support. Police states exist because popular support isn't great enough to ensure their survival without police state measures.

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

See Steve Blair's comment. Listening to the BBC, watching CNN and reading the New York Times doesn't get you very close to understanding the US.

An optic for home defence? Tacticool has taken over.
Seriously, your reply was to a quote which spoke against weapons as insurance against evil government (context!). That is ridiculous.

Hardly. An optic greatly increase your ability to make hits in low light, when adopting awkward positions and it will allow you to make hits much faster. Most people who have used one will attest to that. Very handy for defending oneself and one's family.

That is the beauty of an AR-15 as I described, it is dual purpose. Good for tyrants and hoods.

[Fuchs]

The first is a member of society in which the individual has recourse to arms, is a member of a society that recognizes the intrinsic rights of individuals. That is a society worthy.

That's ideological blather, nothing you'll be able to prove with logic by providing conclusive evidence. In fact, it's easily falsified by mere pointing at countries such as Taliban Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq.

The second is a person who has recourse to arms is a person who can effectively defend themselves.

This is factually wrong. That high profile guy who got shot yesterday was a trained soldier, had recourse to arms and was still unable to defend himself.
There's no defence against surprise attacks other than vigilance, and vigilance all life equals a horrible life.

Thirdly is, you, Fuchs, may be an entirely fearsome fellow able to take on all comers.

I'm not, albeit I have some martial arts background to exploit opportunities with a devastating surprise attack when I see them. Normal hostiles face resolution, while I let violent hostiles think they're safe, meanwhile being ready to strike.

Guess what? I had no fight in ages. People with enough self-confidence (and this includes curiously almost all martial arts practitioners) rarely get into fights involuntarily. There's experimental psychological research backing this up. Actual robbers on parole were used in an experiment to pick targets for assault, and they reliably picked people who signalled a victim attitude with certain gestures. (I doubt that such people could make good use of a gun.)

It is also about the petite 55 year old woman with a bad knee that I mentioned before. If you deny her recourse to arms, you deny her the right to self defense.

(1) The petite 55 year old woman with a bad knee would not be kept from buying a pistol by universal background checks (= you used a strawman),
(2) even a pistol would not ensure her safety (in fact, it would even add risks to her life due to accidents, illegal use by others and a mcuh higher lethality of suicide attempts)
(3) you badly distort the right to self defence here. The right to self defence does not entitle you to the possession of weapons of your choice. It entitles you to use weapons already at your disposal, within limits of proportionality.
A crazy neighbour who owns a Cessna may threaten to crash into you house with full gasoline tank - this does not entitle you to the possession of anti-air missiles. There are limits, and this talk about a at best misinterpreted "right" is again a mere propagandistic distortion. It's not about the actual right to self defence.

I already wrote here about the distortion of actual rights for propaganda. It totally messes up thinking and yields stupid opinions.

I know perfectly well what decisive means. If you have arms, you can fight. If you don't, you can't. That is pretty decisive.

You don't get it. The gun fights are in such a case a mere confirmation of the decision, they aren't decisive. Rebels rarely employ much firepower.

The defence of Berlin in 1945 had hundreds of tanks, thousands of artillery pieces and mortars, hundreds of thousands of troops with guns. None of that had any influence on the decision, for the decision fell not in the fight, but prior to it.
The Red Army of June 1941 had many times as many tanks and guns as the Germans, but other factors decided that they would suffer millions of casualties in short order.
The Soviet coup d'tat ~1992 wasn't about tanks or AKMs or Frogfoots, for example; it was about the troops turning against the coup generals.

Likewise, rebels rarely win through battles, but through disruption of and by gaining of support. That's why they often win even in face of a lasting material superiority of government forces.

You know there is a contradiction in what you say when you comment about police states and popular support. Police states exist because popular support isn't great enough to ensure their survival without police state measures.

You insist on not getting it. The more effective the tools of a police state and the more tolerable it is, the less supporters (% population) the regime needs to maintain its grip. This may be as little as 5 or 15% support (probably even less; see Apartheid regimes, South Africa).
The police state may be so effective the rebels would probably need 80% instead of 40% support to overthrow the government (the remaining shares being neutral people). Numbers were made up to show the thought behind it, I suppose that's more readable than mathematic variables and formula.

Hardly. An optic greatly increase your ability to make hits in low light, when adopting awkward positions and it will allow you to make hits much faster. Most people who have used one will attest to that. Very handy for defending oneself and one's family.

For starters, defence is first and foremost about firing a warning shot which requires no aiming (and does not accidentally kill your daughter coming back from a date late at night).
Second, in the case when this doesn't suffice in one way or another, the combat range will still be less than 10 metres in almost all self defence scenarios. I'd rather want a handgun with a clean, long and straight upper side for natural aiming than any kind of reddot sight in such a situation.

That is the beauty of an AR-15 as I described, it is dual purpose. Good for tyrants and hoods.

It's good for or against neither. Someone who wants to kill you can kill you, and knowing you have an AR-15 will only tell him to attack you when you don't carry it.
If I wanted to kill somebody, I would spend 99% of my preparations on getting away with it, as the kill itself is quite simple (independent of the person being gun nut or not).
When on the other hand someone wants to steal from you, then he wants to steal and the proper defence is to scare him away, leaving him a route of escape.

In regard to "tyrants"; ridiculous. This is not the 18th century where army troops had inferior muskets while farmers had Pennsylvania rifles. Even then, the Whiskey tax revolt clearly showed what to think of people who believe that individual firearms give them the ability to resist the (then still weak) government; the rebels disappeared when Washington arrived with the well-regulated, musket-armed militia (which was used to oppress the tax revolt, not the other way!).


Those people who talk about AR-15s being an insurance against government overreach are either selling guns, nuts, loudmouths or simple fools.
Spend your energy better on pushing for good governance than dwelling in individual power fantasies.

[carl]

I just read Steve's post so I deleted everything I wrote. Thank you Steve for saying a good thing and I apologize for the part I had in making things less than they should be.

[Fuchs]

This explains your comments about optics like Red Dot - you really don't have a clue about firearms, let alone using them in any sort of life or death situation. Now I'm actually surprissed you didn't make some equally silly comment about "shoot to wound" or "shoot the gun out of his hand."

And again you're living in fantasyland. I served in the military, "you really don't have a clue about firearms" is hardly a defensible statement.
You have no clue whatsoever about my firearms knowledge or experience, and still you blather on as if you weren't ignorant.

The latter part of your statement was of course a strawman, reinforcing the negative impression about the level of your contribution here (and about how much you're living in fantasyland; reality surprises you).