Off Topic Poker Forums

What are you talking about my friend? So Americans don't enjoy BBQs, drinks, parties, meaningful work, and sex, and instead sit around thinking about owning more guns and rising up against the government all day everyday?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are hyperbolizing here.

I, for one, truly don't think that the the majority of Americans do this. Which is why when it suddenly becomes the central argument in favour of gun control I am left shaking my head. It makes me wonder who is actually doing the hyperbolizing.

If I felt so strongly that I and other citizens needed firearms to protect us from the government/gangs/cartels I'd probably just move to any other civilized country that doesn't seem to have these problems.

If I felt so strongly that I and other citizens needed firearms to protect us from the government/gangs/cartels I'd probably just move to any other civilized country that doesn't seem to have these problems.

Yeah but you have no friends, mitch. It's harder for other people to just uproot their lives.

I wasn't talking about visibility, though that would play a part. I don't think I have to tell you that a gunfight is an extremely high stress situation. Most people without proper training would be unable to perform correctly. Physically putting a bullet on a target in that type of scenario is much, much harder than you probably think.

I do want to make it clear that I think people should be able to carry guns, with certain restrictions, but most people severely overestimate their abilities, in a situation that could prove deadly. Even if you are carrying, you are almost always better off finding cover and waiting it out.

I think a person's self preservation drive along, and adequate training (most people with CC permits tend to shoot a LOT more then random killing spree psychos).

Personally I don't carry, but ONLY because most of the places I frequent either don't allow weapons, or it's irresponsible to carry them in such places.

Casino, and on campus both prohibit firearms.
Places with alcohol not such a good idea.

However I shoot my pistol at least once a month (usually twice). I practice strong arm, weak arm, from the holster.

The higher end pistols are really only accurate to 25-50 yards. I generally practice at 10-20, as that's the likely distance you'd really encounter someone.
If I can make 3 inch groupings from the holster unsupported, I'm sure I could hit center mass on a 2 foot wide target in a stressful situation.

Vest or not taking 2 .45 rounds to the chest is going to put you down.

By completely re-envisioned you mean just tell the Government to fuck off? Because that's what they need to do, they can't do a damn thing right. Alcohol prohibition didn't work so how in the world is Marijuana prohibition going to work with it being a less harmful substance? Just goes to show you how much they prefer killing you while turning a profit, there is not any logical reason why tobacco and alcohol are legal and weed isn't. Spain has it right with their drug laws. We likely won't follow suit though because certain people make too much money of off the prison system and the harsh drug laws, not to mention how the people running America love them some institutionalized racism.

What's Spain's drug policy?

...and yes I agree that marijuana should certainly not be illegal if tobacco and booze are!

I want to argue on both sides of this because no one is making strong points. I believe that we should be able to own guns, with some rules. However, the idea that limiting access has no effect on supply is absurd. Especially since we're on a poker forum, where a large percentage of us can no longer play online because it was prohibited (though not even, really).

What's Spain's drug policy?

...and yes I agree that marijuana should certainly not be illegal if tobacco and booze are!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

edit: That's portugal, although I believe their drug laws are very similar I could be wrong though.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

edit: That's portugal, although I believe their drug laws are very similar I could be wrong though.

Hmm yeah none of those outcomes are surprising to me.

I would like to see more countries try methods like these with both the drug and sex industries.

Good luck getting anything like this passed in the USA

Oh and by the way: Check out this ridiculous testimony by the Chief Admin. of the DEA:

"I'm Just Asking You As An Expert Is Heroin Worse For Someone's Health Than Marijuana?"

Ooooh:

and this one too!


Sorry for the brief derail people, we'll get back to guns at some point... but this is a definite part of the equation.

It's ok I can really get behind the drug decriminalization debate. The gun debate just made me want to shoot myself anyway. Luckily I didn't have a ready access to a hand gun.

I love this guy from Colorado.

Holy crap they really rip her a new one. LOL, did anyone brief this woman?

Holy crap they really rip her a new one. LOL, did anyone brief this woman?

She's like..... the Chief... the one who should be able to brief others!!!

Wow that lady is an absolute idiot. That makes me feel good about our DEA...

You got to love the circular logic used to justify drug enforcement in the U.S. "It's a schedule 1 drug, it's dangerous" Why is it a schedule 1 drug? "Because it's dangerous".

Also:

Schedule 1 Drugs:
Heroin
GHB
MDMA
Marijuana
Peyote

Schedule 2 Drugs:
Cocaine
Opium
Oxycodone
Morphine
PCP

Schedule 2 is less somehow is it?

So..... coke is a whole category LESS than weed?

Madness. Sheer madness.

Schedule 2 is less somehow is it?

So..... coke is a whole category LESS than weed?

Madness. Sheer madness.

Basically the difference between a Schedule 1 drug and a Schedule 2 drug, is that a Schedule 1 drug has no acceptable (by DEA standards) medical use.

The blessed and adored State doesn't have the power to snap it's fingers and make all guns disappear just like it doesn't have the ability to snap its fingers and make everyone stop using drugs or drinking alcohol, despite its utterly embarrassing attempts at doing so.

No but it does have the power to limit access to guns - they do so in other countries and there are less murders - it does not matter that there may be other factor - ofcourse there are other factors. People don't just shoot each other without reason - but easy access to guns obviously increases the liklih

Mix an unarmed public and a powerful State and you have an exponentially worse combination.

Are you in to conspiracy theories?

This is a fairly tale Statist Utopia land. Sure, if it was possible to go back in time and magically prevent the knowledge of how to create guns, I could get behind that. But the knowledge and ability is out there. The street gangs and cartels will get the damn guns.

The right to self-defense is a natural God-given right of every person, and guns are a huge part of that.

Further, you don't need a firearm to just defend against others with firearms. You need a firearm to defend against other with knives. Or to defend against someone twice my size and strength. Or to defend against someone who knows martial arts and wants my wallet. And so on.

Sure - when you have a violent society where you cannot function without needing to produce a gun to defend yourself. I would think a very small % of the US is like that. How many times you used your piece brother????


It's not obvious at all. See my above post about mixing correlation with causation.

Yes its obvious. Lessen guns and you will reduce shootings. Solve other societal issues as well.

The right to self-defense is a natural God-given right of every person...

No.....self defence is a necessary function of living as part of an ecosystem with competition for limited resources...

Yes its obvious. Lessen guns and you will reduce shootings. Solve other societal issues as well.

How do you suggest we go about lessening guns?

Free high quality education with a strong focus on science, medical care and a good welfare system is the best strategy against crime.

Where should the money come from? Start by reducing the budget of the military by 50%.

ahhhhh the voice of reason.

I live a few blocks from the movies that were shot up the other night. In fact, I was up at when it happened and heard the sirens from all directions. After that, couldn't sleep. This really hits close to home quite literally as this was the movie theater I would frequent (low prices & really close by).

With that caveat, my opinions:
Let's ramp up the control as soon as we start winning that war on drugs
In all seriousness though, I can't advocate eliminating the purchasing of pretty much anything he bought including the assault rifle and the 100 round clip. The purpose for the 2nd Amnd wasn't to have weapons for self-defense, the purpose was for the populace to be a threat (but I don't want to debate this really, so don't latch onto this one comment and derail) - really this is the only "questionable" weaponry he purchased IMO.
The most dangerous weapons were the ones in his apartment. If he wanted, he could have just tossed several home-made grenades into the seats and would have killed and maimed scores more than he did.
If someone in the theater was armed, perhaps that person could have slowed the attack.

Not to be results oriented

Free high quality education with a strong focus on science, medical care and a good welfare system is the best strategy against crime.

the shooter was a Phd student in neuroscience at the university hospital; came from what appears to be a fine middle class upbringing, and even won a scholarship/federal grant to study (but perhaps not enough to make it "free"... if anything, his education made him MORE dangerous.
But generally I agree, education will help reduce crime in general.

Start by reducing the budget of the military by 50%

I think the USA can cut back by over 75%, but banish the thought as such a proposal would be political suicide. Not to worry though, give it about 5-10 more years and the cut backs will be mandatory (IMO)

The purpose of the second amendment doesn't apply anymore, nor was it for the populace to be a threat. Its purpose was to provide for a citizen soldier, who could also police his locality. We have professional soldiers now, and police for localities.

No one can say what would've happened if there was someone armed in the theater, but the guy apparently planned for that, being geared up in body armor. Sure, someone could've shot him in the eye, or someone could've shot 5 other people trying to shoot him - the latter more likely than the former.
5 people could've jumped the guy as soon as he started shooting, but they didn't. Two people took down the guy who shot an AK-47 at the white house when Clinton was president.

People earlier made it sound like the Saddams and Khmer Rouges existed because they first disarmed their populace, which is not in the least bit true. Putting AK-47s in the hands of those who wanted one and could afford one doesn't stop totalitarian regimes from forming or operating. One can look at Syria now and see that having arms is not the same as having equal firepower vs a government.

All that said, one can't tell me that I'm better off not being able to defend myself or others. Some statistic that shows a person is x% more likely to die from guns in the home vs a theater is not relevant. If I'm in that theater with my family, I'm not better off because my family has been saved from a few points higher possibility of accidentally shooting themselves with my gun.

As for fighting the government, shooting an AK at the predator drone the government has recently allowed to fly our airspace is not going to do anything except possibly make you feel better. That much is true. Small arms fire is not going to be that important. That said, it is very hard to control a population that is armed and decentralized. Guerrilla or terrorist tactics do work in disrupting (not overthrowing, disrupting) the traditional force. One wouldn't be fighting to win, but one could fight for the sake of fighting.



I agree that the first thing on the chopping block should be military spending and I agree, good luck if you think you can convince Americans of that.

the latter more likely than the former.

Yeah, this is always the big argument. Better to have one guy with guns instead of a few people with guns. I've thought about this before, and I'm selling, not buying.
In this particular case, it's actually the opposite of what you say - MUCH more difficult to make matters worse. The reason is because of the stadium seating. Dude comes in and has a captive audience that cannot get out; he had both exits covered and you had to go towards the shooter to get away (but it turned out there's a door at the top I thought I read about... but I've watched movies in that exact auditorium and didn't know this)... so really, not a whole lot of crossfire to be had IMO.
And yeah, body armor up the ying yang - probably better to just sit there and take the ass whooping like a man. Far superior choice. Better to let the guy shoot off a few hundred rounds unencumbered than to actually attempt anything.

Come to think of it, better to just let the hijacker have what they want than to stage a rebellion leading the whole plane to go down.

I've thought about the tackling idea. One of the killed was in the military and these are the only types I'd expect to have some sort of conditioned response to try something like that. In a few of the high school shootings, there have been students that have done this. I believe Kip Kinkle was tackled by a football player. Huge difference though in size and scope of the treat. Easy to take down a 120 pound schmuck with a ruger than a guy decked out in tactical gear, shotgun, two pistols, and an assault rifle that's firing off rounds at you as you make the attempt. Far more difficult in this particular case for those reasons plus the layout; not so easy to come up from behind when he has that covered.
Had he used his homemade grenades, non of this would have been an issue; the causalities would have been so severe it wouldn't have been worth talking about.

As for the constitution, I'm of the belief that we should either follow it or not. IMO, we'd be better off following it... BUT, we don't, so no need to cherry pick, just scrap it and decide how you want society to be. An unarmed people that poses no threat, fine. That worked out well for Jews in 1930s Germany. Also seems to work fairly well for modern day Chicago.

I do agree with you in that we can't defend ourselves against the government if needed (obviously an extreme scenario). Since the advent of the tank, I think the people have been completely out equipped. The real insurance is that the military is made up of everyday people and commanding those people to fire upon their kin would pose a moral dilemma. Of course, this is all just theoretical hypothetical stuff... but stuff I do think about from time to time... and I do not own any firearms but have considered buying one for years (doubtful that I'll ever do it though, since owning is far more dangerous than leaving oneself defenseless)