Connecticut massacre fallout

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about firearms; never had a particular interest in them, and no real desire to own one. So, since a lot of you are gun owners, I'll ask you-

Do you think a limit on number of guns someone who is not commercially involved in firearm sales may own is a good idea, and if so, what would that number be?

I understand there is a lot of argument over what constitutes an "assault" weapon. As a non-gun person, my question is over the necessity of a private citizen owning something that fires a large number of rounds in a short amount of time, as it seems to me the purpose of such a weapon is to hit a large number of targets in a short amount of time, which doesn't seem to me, to be useful either in self-defense or in recreational shooting (where, I assume, developing the skill required to shoot accurately is part of the appeal). Basically, other than as a item to brag about or to have swiped by someone planning to carry out a large-scale assault on a movie theater or school or whatever, can someone explain to me under what circumstances a private citizen would actually have use for a high capacity, rapid discharge firearm?

Again, sincerely asking.

And for the record, "To defend oneself against the guvmint" is not an acceptable answer, as the guvmint, should it decide to come against a private citizen, will be able to do it. To my knowledge, we've only had one citizens' uprising on a scale that had any chance of success and it ended in 1865 with the government winning.

Actually, I think we had two. One was called The Revolutionary War. The government did not win that one.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

Actually, I think we had two. One was called The Revolutionary War. The government did not win that one.

Yeah, but the revolutionaries were bankrolled by another government. Though his own people got pretty pissed at him for that. Heads rolled over that decision, I hear. (ba dum dum)

Showing once again, if you want to overthrow a government, talk to the French.

[dellinger63]

There are 250 million plus guns out there.

How many, white, from middle class and above families, males, between 12-27, who are loners and whose classmates consider them strange are there in the U.S.?

Kind of like focusing on animals with teeth following a bear attack. IMO

Guns don't need to be controlled, lunatics do.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeah, but the revolutionaries were bankrolled by another government. Though his own people got pretty pissed at him for that. Heads rolled over that decision, I hear. (ba dum dum)

Showing once again, if you want to overthrow a government, talk to the French.

You could be right. I think the French practically invented revolution. Can't think of the French thinkers though that expounded on the right of the people to over throw an unjust government. Will have to look that up.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

You could be right. I think the French practically invented revolution. Can't think of the French thinkers though that expounded on the right of the people to over throw an unjust government. Will have to look that up.

And I should know that- the book I recorded on the history of Western Europe discussed it. Sigh. Memory fail.

In Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (which really is a pretty decent doc- it discusses the culture of fear in America and how that contributes to gun violence) he interviews a former member of British Parliament who talks about the difference between Americans and the French. He said the difference is that in America, the people fear the government and in France, the government fears the people.

I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons France ended up with such a strong social safety net and such generous benefits- history has shown that when the French populace feels the government has pushed too hard, they will burn that sh*t down. So best to keep them content.

Though the National Front movement is pretty creepy. And it seems to be gaining strength there.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And I should know that- the book I recorded on the history of Western Europe discussed it. Sigh. Memory fail.

In Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (which really is a pretty decent doc- it discusses the culture of fear in America and how that contributes to gun violence) he interviews a former member of British Parliament who talks about the difference between Americans and the French. He said the difference is that in America, the people fear the government and in France, the government fears the people.

I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons France ended up with such a strong social safety net and such generous benefits- history has shown that when the French populace feels the government has pushed too hard, they will burn that sh*t down. So best to keep them content.

Though the National Front movement is pretty creepy. And it seems to be gaining strength there.

Such things happened here in the 60s. Don't you remember "burn baby burn"?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

Such things happened here in the 60s. Don't you remember "burn baby burn"?

I was not yet here. But of course, you know what they say- if you remember the 60s, you weren't really there.

In all seriousness, Rick Perlstein's Nixonland goes into great detail about some of the riots of that decade. We certainly weren't learning about THAT in my Central PA Social Studies classes...

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I was not yet here. But of course, you know what they say- if you remember the 60s, you weren't really there.

In all seriousness, Rick Perlstein's Nixonland goes into great detail about some of the riots of that decade. We certainly weren't learning about THAT in my Central PA Social Studies classes...

Sorry, I sometimes forget that everyone's not an old coot like me.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And I should know that- the book I recorded on the history of Western Europe discussed it. Sigh. Memory fail.

In Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (which really is a pretty decent doc- it discusses the culture of fear in America and how that contributes to gun violence) he interviews a former member of British Parliament who talks about the difference between Americans and the French. He said the difference is that in America, the people fear the government and in France, the government fears the people.

I sometimes wonder if that's one of the reasons France ended up with such a strong social safety net and such generous benefits- history has shown that when the French populace feels the government has pushed too hard, they will burn that sh*t down. So best to keep them content.

Though the National Front movement is pretty creepy. And it seems to be gaining strength there.

I think the one I was thinking of was Jean-Jacques Rousseau.