Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Dec '13 12:12 / 1 edit
    A question for right-wing NRA enthusiasts.

    Unless you plan on frequently discharging an M16 in your backyard for target practice, why would you be acutely concerned about the current price of ammunition? Do you foresee an exponential function in ammo price increases? Personally, I'm not a violent criminal who actually -wants- to have to shoot another human being. Unless you live in an extremely bad area of town (in which case, you probably don't vote, and would vote Democrat if you did), you're not likely to be attacked very often in practice. Owning a gun for personal safety is about being prepared in case of a hypothetical emergency, and doesn't require you to stockpile ridiculously large quantities of ammo.

    Government tyranny? In the 21st century, the U.S. government's arsenal includes biological and chemical weapons, nukes, daisy cutters, stealth bombers, drone strikes, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines; and (according to many right-wing conspiracy theorists) HAARP, if it can be weaponized. Furthermore, the U.S. military has a level of competence, professionalism, training, communications, planning, organization and a centralized command structure that could not be matched by a well-regulated militia of U.S. civilians. Consequently, civilian armed resistance to 21st century government tyranny would be useless; instead, the American people need to rely on the fact that the U.S. government needs a co-operative civilian population of good little worker bees for such things as GDP, food production, etc.

    The NRA and gun manufacturers don't fear government tyranny. They think it's a joke that some gun owners stockpile huge quantities of ammo that they don't need, and they laugh all the way to the bank. The NRA would love to put armed guards on every street corner, while making it legal for violent criminals to buy guns. That way, they get to sell guns to both sides and make lots of profit.

    The main reason for recent increases in the price of ammunition is that paranoid conservative Republicans bought more guns and ammunition around the time that Clinton and Obama were elected. Furthermore, when an African-American named Barack Hussein Obama wins two elections, racist Republicans are inclined to stockpile more ammo. Personally, I'm a welfare capitalist, and opposed to price controls. The recent price increases are largely about increased demand from conservative Republican consumers, who approve of capitalism. Believe it or not, the NRA privately -love it- when Democrats win elections, because it increases gun and ammo purchases, thus making more profit for the NRA and gun manufacturers. The NRA wants demand for ammo to be high, and prices high.

    Personally, in the extremely unlikely event that the government wanted to confiscate my assault rifles or/and handguns, I'd turn them over to the police as requested, and then call my lawyer, or the ACLU or NRA or whoever. I wouldn't resist with armed force, and I'm only interested in shooting rapists, not the U.S. military or police officers. If the occasional far-right lunatic thinks that he (usually) or she has a Constitutional right to use armed force to resist arrest and shoot police officers, then apparently the NRA couldn't care less, as long as they make more profit from spreading propaganda that generates paranoid fears.
  2. 04 Dec '13 12:25
    Every gun is affected by the price of ammunition, not just M-16s. Also most gun enthusiasts regularly visit outdoor and indoor ranges. It is surprisingly expensive to go to the range on a regular basis.

    BTW, I lost my constitutional right to buy a gun in North Carolina because 20 years ago I got in a fight. I didn't beat the guy half to death with a pipe wrench, I mere punched him one time with an empty hand. Was charged with a misdemeanor for it when I was 19, and I have not been in trouble since.

    So, my country can ask me to go off into foreign lands caring military grade weapons and making complex decisions about the use of lethal force, but I'm not allowed to buy a handgun.
  3. 04 Dec '13 13:04
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Every gun is affected by the price of ammunition, not just M-16s. Also most gun enthusiasts regularly visit outdoor and indoor ranges. It is surprisingly expensive to go to the range on a regular basis.

    BTW, I lost my constitutional right to buy a gun in North Carolina because 20 years ago I got in a fight. I didn't beat the guy half to death wi ...[text shortened]... nd making complex decisions about the use of lethal force, but I'm not allowed to buy a handgun.
    wow thats pretty harsh, does not your record get reset after many years?
  4. 04 Dec '13 13:05
    Factory center fire ammo is too expensive to shoot very much, that's why almost all gun enthusiasts hand load.
    Powder, primers, and bullets for reloading are also getting a lot more expensive, but it's still far cheaper than buying factory ammo.
  5. 04 Dec '13 13:15
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Every gun is affected by the price of ammunition, not just M-16s. Also most gun enthusiasts regularly visit outdoor and indoor ranges. It is surprisingly expensive to go to the range on a regular basis.

    BTW, I lost my constitutional right to buy a gun in North Carolina because 20 years ago I got in a fight. I didn't beat the guy half to death wi ...[text shortened]... nd making complex decisions about the use of lethal force, but I'm not allowed to buy a handgun.
    I'm sorry to hear that. I'm in favor of people in your situation being able to undertake a risk assessment in order to establish low risk of recidivism or gun violence. Such a service ought to be provided by the military, free of charge in return for your service. Actuarial risk measures predict recidivism far better than anything else, so statistical information about you is the government's best means to make a judgement on your low risk of recidivism and potential gun violence.

    Also, the fact that you were unarmed during your incident, and that it involved a misdemeanor, should raise into question whether a firearms license ban, particularly a permanent one, would have been appropriate in your case in the first place. Certainly, such a policy shouldn't exist under -federal- law. Most gun crime is committed by violent criminals with a prior history of serious violent crime or/and assault with a deadly weapon.

    My line about M-16s was meant rhetorically, and I'm aware that ammo prices have increased for other guns as well. As for target practice, replica (airsoft) guns are largely suitable, and obviously involve a different type of ammo than real guns (re: demand and prices). Assault rifles/weapons combined with night vision devices are best to defend against home invasion, whereas handguns are best for concealed carry. Both can be simulated quite well with replica guns, and I suggest that the more important issue is the fact that your heartbeat and other physiological reactions will be different during a real violent incident.
  6. 04 Dec '13 18:00
    Originally posted by karnachz
    I'm sorry to hear that. I'm in favor of people in your situation being able to undertake a risk assessment in order to establish low risk of recidivism or gun violence. Such a service ought to be provided by the military, free of charge in return for your service. Actuarial risk measures predict recidivism far better than anything else, so statistical infor ...[text shortened]... ur heartbeat and other physiological reactions will be different during a real violent incident.
    Airsoft guns do NOT replicate actual target practice for a real gun. Real guns have kick and a round trajectory that is completely different. Even real guns behave differently from each other. If you're going to carry an M9 you should train with an M9.

    Also, the shooting experience (enjoyment) is totally different.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Dec '13 18:49
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    BTW, I lost my constitutional right to buy a gun in North Carolina because 20 years ago I got in a fight. I didn't beat the guy half to death with a pipe wrench, I mere punched him one time with an empty hand. Was charged with a misdemeanor for it when I was 19, and I have not been in trouble since.
    Ah, so you DO have a history with Uther.
  8. 04 Dec '13 18:55
    Originally posted by sh76
    Ah, so you DO have a history with Uther.
    I would laugh but I'm pretty pissed that I lost my right .
  9. 04 Dec '13 21:42
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Every gun is affected by the price of ammunition, not just M-16s. Also most gun enthusiasts regularly visit outdoor and indoor ranges. It is surprisingly expensive to go to the range on a regular basis.

    BTW, I lost my constitutional right to buy a gun in North Carolina because 20 years ago I got in a fight. I didn't beat the guy half to death wi ...[text shortened]... nd making complex decisions about the use of lethal force, but I'm not allowed to buy a handgun.
    "...my country can ask me to go off into foreign lands carrying military
    grade weapons and making complex decisions about the use of lethal
    force, but I'm not allowed to buy a handgun."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    Is the US government asking any more of you than the UK government
    has asked of a British paratrooper? I understand that your grievance is
    within an American (or North Carolina) context. Yet perhaps you should
    know that not every British paratrooper believes that not being allowed
    to buy a handgun in the UK is a cosmic injustice.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    04 Dec '13 22:06
    Originally posted by karnachz
    Government tyranny? In the 21st century, the U.S. government's arsenal includes biological and chemical weapons, nukes, daisy cutters, stealth bombers, drone strikes, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines; and (according to many right-wing conspiracy theorists) HAARP, if it can be weaponized. Furthermore, the U.S. military has a level of competence, profess ...[text shortened]... ive civilian population of good little worker bees for such things as GDP, food production, etc.
    Police and politicians get shot all the time. You are committing an extremely common fallacy - that more weapons means victory.

    Communists, the Mafia, street gangs, militias, the IRA, Al Quaeda, suicidally enraged individuals etc all use their guns effectively despite being outgunned by the Green Berets. Stealth bombers and Predator drones did not keep Gabbie from being shot in the head.
  11. 04 Dec '13 23:35 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung to karnachz
    Police and politicians get shot all the time. You are committing an extremely common fallacy - that more weapons means victory.

    Communists, the Mafia, street gangs, militias, the IRA, Al Quaeda, suicidally enraged individuals etc all use their guns effectively despite being outgunned by the Green Berets. Stealth bombers and Predator drones did not keep Gabbie from being shot in the head.
    If one side has *enough of much more advanced weapons*,
    it has a much greater chance of winning a battle.

    Whatever happens, we have got
    The Maxim gun, and they have not.
    --Hilaire Belloc (on a British military advantage over the 'natives' )

    At the Battle of Omdurman (2 September 1898), the Ansar (Sudanese
    Dervishes), a force of about 50,000 men, were some of the bravest
    warriors (as Winston Churchill acknowledged) ever sent into battle.
    They outnumbered their enemy, the British-Egyptian-Sudanese army,
    by about 2-to-1. But the Ansar was decisively defeated, suffering tens
    of thousands of casualties, while killing only 47 of their enemies. Why?
    The British-led army had a decisive technological advantage in weapons
    (including the Maxim gun, an early machine gun), and the Ansar's tactics
    magnified that British advantage. The Ansar could have resisted longer
    by waging guerrilla warfare against the extended British lines of supply.

    Occasionally--this is the exception, not the rule--a technologically far
    inferior force can win a battle, such as the Zulu victory over the British
    at the Battle of Isandlwana (22 January 1879).

    Would you like to put a militia armed with late 18th century muskets
    against a modern professional army?
  12. 04 Dec '13 23:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...my country can ask me to go off into foreign lands carrying military
    grade weapons and making complex decisions about the use of lethal
    force, but I'm not allowed to buy a handgun."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    Is the US government asking any more of you than the UK government
    has asked of a British paratrooper? I understand that your grievance is
    wit ...[text shortened]... h paratrooper believes that not being allowed
    to buy a handgun in the UK is a cosmic injustice.
    British citizens don't have a right to bear arms under their own constitution. I'm sure if they did, and a British paratrooper chose to exercise that right and was denied for trivial reasons, he would feel the same.
  13. 04 Dec '13 23:49
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Police and politicians get shot all the time. You are committing an extremely common fallacy - that more weapons means victory.

    Communists, the Mafia, street gangs, militias, the IRA, Al Quaeda, suicidally enraged individuals etc all use their guns effectively despite being outgunned by the Green Berets. Stealth bombers and Predator drones did not keep Gabbie from being shot in the head.
    Oh the hell you say, police are hardly shot and politicians almost never, compared to the civilian population. Go work in a convenience store on the graveyard shift, they are holding down the most dangerous job in America.
  14. 04 Dec '13 23:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    British citizens don't have a right to bear arms under their own constitution. I'm sure if they did, and a British paratrooper chose to exercise that right and was denied for erroneous reasons, he would feel the same.
    USArmyParatrooper, I can understand your sense of grievance.
    But hasn't the law (good or bad) been applied properly in your case?
    If you object to a North Carolina law preventing you from buying a
    handgun, then you should consider attempting to change that law.

    P.S. I note that you changed your original 'erroneous reasons' to 'trivial
    reasons'. Again, that's an issue that you should ask your political or
    legal representatives to consider.
  15. 05 Dec '13 00:07
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    USArmyParatrooper, I can understand your sense of grievance.
    But hasn't the law (good or bad) been applied properly in your case?
    If you object to a North Carolina law preventing you from buying a
    handgun, then you should consider attempting to change that law.

    P.S. I note that you changed your original 'erroneous reasons' to 'trivial
    reasons'. Again, that's an issue that you should ask your political or
    legal representatives to consider.
    That's my entire point that the current laws in North Carolina are far too restrictive, despite the current narrative that guns are too easily accessible.

    I'm a responsible adult of sound mind with formal training in multiple weapons and gun safety, and I can't buy a gun because 20 years ago I got in a fight when I was in my late teens.