Guns, Guns Guns

Regarding this incident I might quote a great American Bob Dylan, who rasped "If you ain't got nothin, you've got nothin to lose".

A society that has a very limited welfare net, and a minimum wage way under a family survival level will naturally have many desperate citizens. Now is when you point out that they weren't only looting food and necessities, and I agree but frustration and a feeling of not being part of the great American dream can explain much.

pokermind wrote:Why citizens need guns to protect their lives and property:

http://toprightnews.com/?p=5136

Poker

We have an interesting way of stopping riots down here, guns free. The mob is sluiced down with watert, and the rioters lose the will to riot. Range, gets multiple people at the same time, and non lethal. And it seems to work too.

And didnt this riot start over the misuse of guns anyway? So, you end up with a riot being started by the misue of guns, then being controlled through the misusing(flaunting and intimidation) of guns. Thats an outsiders main problem with this I think.

Zakharra wrote:
The thing is, a mob won't necessarily be stopped by tasers and clubs. Tasers impact one person at a time and the ones that don't shoot out, require the user to get in hand to hand range, like club users. They can also be overrun fairly easily by a good sized mob (often like a mob can overrun a police line with shields and clubs). But showing guns (pistols, rifles and/or shotguns) can make a mob rethink their looting decisions because a gun can kill -at range-. The users don't have to be in hand to hand combat range to be hurt or worse. That's why guns make an effective deterrent. Because the rioter has to decide if he/she really wants to risk being shot or killed for those rolls of toilet paper and food, or those clothes/electronics. If the Walmart had had gun armed employees outside, it would not have been looted.

The E wrote:Guns do not help in the endeavour to keep a society together. You cannot build a part of your culture on the belief that owning tools made to kill others is a fundamental and inalienable right, and expect everyone to be sane about it.

They are too, here in NZ, but we still manage to abide by our far more stringent gun control laws, and there aren't too many complaining that they are harsh, and we manage to have lower gun crime levels as well. I realise that this may be controversial, but isnt it better to have slightly more restrictive rules that save lives, rather than looser rules that save time?

Guns are also a popular form of recreation and used for hunting. The majority of guns are -not- used in killing humans, but for more mundane purposes such as the aforementioned hunting or recreational shooting, or the gun might be a valuable piece of history and be on display. To think that guns are only for killing humans is missing how the vast majority of gun owners, who are responsible ones, use their guns.

Obama is rightwing to the rest of the world, so I dont know what you are complaining about. Step outside the US sometime, and you'll realise how lucky you are to have such a right wing leader.

And the same goes had a republican been elected. So thats not really a problem, just the reality of a two party state.

To the US, he is left wing though and the US view is what counts here. At least half the country is NOT glad he is President and would have preferred to have seen him lose both elections. He seems to be burning his bridges with the half that did vote for him too, so he's not exactly a popular leader in the US anymore.

Daryl, I'm legally blind living in that safety net. When I went on SSI I had to sell guns I made to get under the property limit I kept one pump action shot gun, believe me this engendered a visceral hatred of the system, especially when I see the abuses of the system by others. I know women with quilts worth more than my guns, but they don't ask about quilts just firearms, RVs, camping gear, stocks bonds, old coins (I had to sell thirty silver dollars I had saved from my allowance as a kid) and vehicles. They make sure you are flat broke, and damn sentimental value. I know one family where the father quit a good paying job to "take care of an autistic boy," why the mother couldn't I haven't a clue, they get free medical, food stamps for a family of four, and SSI payments four times what I get.

The lawbreaking politicians like President Obama who pander to class warfare make me sick!

Quote American Bob Dylan, who rasped "If you ain't got nothin, you've got nothin to lose" end quote, except your life and your self-respect!

@ Spacekiwi they use water cannon here too, but it is 'Politically Incorrect' to use on blacks due to their miss use during the Civil rights Movement leaving people to fend for themselves.

Poker

Daryl wrote:Regarding this incident I might quote a great American Bob Dylan, who rasped "If you ain't got nothin, you've got nothin to lose".

A society that has a very limited welfare net, and a minimum wage way under a family survival level will naturally have many desperate citizens. Now is when you point out that they weren't only looting food and necessities, and I agree but frustration and a feeling of not being part of the great American dream can explain much.

pokermind wrote:Why citizens need guns to protect their lives and property:

http://toprightnews.com/?p=5136

Poker

Spacekiwi wrote:We have an interesting way of stopping riots down here, guns free. The mob is sluiced down with watert, and the rioters lose the will to riot. Range, gets multiple people at the same time, and non lethal. And it seems to work too.

And didnt this riot start over the misuse of guns anyway? So, you end up with a riot being started by the misue of guns, then being controlled through the misusing(flaunting and intimidation) of guns. Thats an outsiders main problem with this I think.

Zakharra wrote:
The thing is, a mob won't necessarily be stopped by tasers and clubs. Tasers impact one person at a time and the ones that don't shoot out, require the user to get in hand to hand range, like club users. They can also be overrun fairly easily by a good sized mob (often like a mob can overrun a police line with shields and clubs). But showing guns (pistols, rifles and/or shotguns) can make a mob rethink their looting decisions because a gun can kill -at range-. The users don't have to be in hand to hand combat range to be hurt or worse. That's why guns make an effective deterrent. Because the rioter has to decide if he/she really wants to risk being shot or killed for those rolls of toilet paper and food, or those clothes/electronics. If the Walmart had had gun armed employees outside, it would not have been looted.

They are too, here in NZ, but we still manage to abide by our far more stringent gun control laws, and there aren't too many complaining that they are harsh, and we manage to have lower gun crime levels as well. I realise that this may be controversial, but isnt it better to have slightly more restrictive rules that save lives, rather than looser rules that save time?

Guns are also a popular form of recreation and used for hunting. The majority of guns are -not- used in killing humans, but for more mundane purposes such as the aforementioned hunting or recreational shooting, or the gun might be a valuable piece of history and be on display. To think that guns are only for killing humans is missing how the vast majority of gun owners, who are responsible ones, use their guns.

The water cannons only work for rioters facing police. Looters tend to hit areas where there are no police, to loot the stores. That's where a show of force by gun wielding store owners and employees can make a difference (it'd be kind of nice if the laws on allowing looters to be shot were will in effect too. But a difference of opinion there I think with people). A mob of looters (say 100 people) are more likely to attack store defenders if they have clubs than if they have guns. Clubs and such won't stop a angry mob very well, since clubs and/or tasers are close in weapons (and the wire tasers are one shot then they are useless) while guns will make them rethink their looting desires because at least -some- of the mob will be wounded or killed before they ever come close to the store. Looters want loot, so most if not all will likely bypass gun protected stores.

I'd also rather have citizens the means to protect themselves. If that means m guns, that's a good thing. Most gun owners are responsible ones, so what's the problem? I constantly am at a loss to explain why people think that to punish the criminals, guns should be removed from the law abiding citizens. The actions of a few bad people shouldn't be reason to punish all of the people.


NZ didn't have as much of a gun culture, nor were they as important to the history of the country as they were with the US. For most of the settling of the US, guns in the hands of civilians was -very- important for protection.

Daryl wrote:Regarding this incident I might quote a great American Bob Dylan, who rasped "If you ain't got nothin, you've got nothin to lose".

A society that has a very limited welfare net, and a minimum wage way under a family survival level will naturally have many desperate citizens. Now is when you point out that they weren't only looting food and necessities, and I agree but frustration and a feeling of not being part of the great American dream can explain much.

Yeah, that´s definitely part of it at least.

Looting by mobs is almost an unheard of thing here.

Zakharra wrote:To the US, he is left wing though and the US view is what counts here.

I don´t think you get it, it doesn´t matter what you think, because if you look at definitions from a neutral point of view, US politics is ALL rightwing.

It doesn´t matter that he is "left" compared to USA, because that doesn´t make him any less rightwing.

Zakharra wrote:They can also be overrun fairly easily by a good sized mob (often like a mob can overrun a police line with shields and clubs).

Guns does not protect you from being overrun by a mob. It just means the mob has to be more vicious to succeed.

Even machinegun nests supported by multiple interlocking fire from other MGs can and have been overrun despite constantly firing for effect.

Zakharra wrote:But showing guns (pistols, rifles and/or shotguns) can make a mob rethink their looting decisions because a gun can kill -at range-. The users don't have to be in hand to hand combat range to be hurt or worse. That's why guns make an effective deterrent.

No it isn´t. And there are lots of things that can kill at range.

Pokermind, I do not know how you survive on disability because I can not survive on it. It's impossible to survive on it without supplemental income. My heart and prayers go out to you and your family.

Gun Control is really about 3 issues. Does the majority have a right to self-defense and protection of a person's home/business? St. Louis, MO, USA demonstrates the conclusive need for right to bear arms. Did the the government stop the rioting in a timely fashion? No! The businesses that survived had people with guns protecting them. They did not shoot anyone but their businesses were not destroyed! The rioters just went to unguarded businesses to loot. The second issue is control. Does a person become a victim by being defenseless or does the government empower the people to protect themselves in a bad situation? That's the real question is does a person become a sheep/lamb or a badger. (A badger is small animal that is extremely deadly when cornered or in their lair. A bear will avoid cornering a badger.) I have been a victim and decided I would rather be a badger. Better to shot as a wolf than slaughtered like a lamb. The third issue, their are times when civilization breaks down, anarchy rules, and evil walks the Earth. Look at Iraq, I would be dead now because I would not renounce the Lord. The issue in this case is self-defense and self-protection against the government (tyrants) or would usurpers.

This is an interesting development.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... touch=true

Too many people are engaged in a rme chair quarterbacking on this case, especially if their arm chair is in New Zealand or Australia.

The facts of the shooting are in dispute. The scenario cited by the police that a simple stop for jaywalking became a robbery investigation which then escalated into a struggle for the officer's gun. Given this scenario, the idea that it was a misuse of a gun that was the problem is not valid. Judging by the video, this subject was quite capable of killing the officer without use of the gun.

I am less sanguine about the police response to the riots. They FUBARed. We know all about water cannon for riot control in the US. Police used them extensively during the civil rights era. As a result, using them escalates rather than deescalates a riot by African-Americans.

The same pattern that occurred during the Rodney King riots seems to have occurred. The police went AWOL which allowed the protest to escalate into a riot, then cracked down with their full militaristic arsenal. Right now I think the police might be a bigger threat to public safety than the rioters.

The Missouri State police took over and have calmed things down.

One obvious lesson here is that Jesse Jackson Jr (3 Js) and Al Sharpton should be flogged then shot, then flogged again. These two poverty pimps make a living off of creating racial discord.

Different approaches. Our national Aged Pension is paid at the same rate as the national Disability Pension at around $25k a year single rate plus various supplements. I administer the financial affairs of two very separate elderly relatives both of who have lived alone in their own homes. Despite only having this pension both have increased their bank balances over the past five years. Yet I know other friends who are professionals on over $100k a year who are always in financial trouble. My theory is that if people were to live at a 1970s lifestyle level of no take away foods or SUVs or multiple modern toys and so forth, they would all live well.

On the gun discussion, if I was a small businessman in some parts of the USA I would also keep guns for protection. As it is I'm glad that our society does not require that I do. My guns are for hunting and sport, as it would take too long for me to get them out of mandated separate storage in the unlikely event of an armed burglary. Mind you I just happen to have several display swords around & the razor sharp one and a half hand bastard broad sword would be my first choice.

On survivalist topics; I didn't plan it but just happen to live on a defensible hill, with a 200mtr drive way, own water, sewerage and electrical power, stocks of food plus large vegetable gardens. Come Armageddon I'll stick it out initially then relocate to my sister's outback place that is similar but much more so.

smr wrote:Pokermind, I do not know how you survive on disability because I can not survive on it. It's impossible to survive on it without supplemental income. My heart and prayers go out to you and your family.

Gun Control is really about 3 issues. Does the majority have a right to self-defense and protection of a person's home/business? St. Louis, MO, USA demonstrates the conclusive need for right to bear arms. Did the the government stop the rioting in a timely fashion? No! The businesses that survived had people with guns protecting them. They did not shoot anyone but their businesses were not destroyed! The rioters just went to unguarded businesses to loot. The second issue is control. Does a person become a victim by being defenseless or does the government empower the people to protect themselves in a bad situation? That's the real question is does a person become a sheep/lamb or a badger. (A badger is small animal that is extremely deadly when cornered or in their lair. A bear will avoid cornering a badger.) I have been a victim and decided I would rather be a badger. Better to shot as a wolf than slaughtered like a lamb. The third issue, their are times when civilization breaks down, anarchy rules, and evil walks the Earth. Look at Iraq, I would be dead now because I would not renounce the Lord. The issue in this case is self-defense and self-protection against the government (tyrants) or would usurpers.

At least until the Grand Humungous of the Road Warrior movie series comes to call

Poker