Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Aenonar

Data Analyzer

(2,796)

Posts: 7,863

Date of registration
: Dec 16th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 20

  • Send private message

13,511

Sunday, February 16th 2014, 11:22pm

Not totally true; it was also put there for if the United States government itself became tyrannical, so that the people would be able to overthrow it. As Thomas Jefferson once said:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

He also said:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." - Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

and:

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." Thomas Jefferson, 1803. ME 10:365

Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. As you said, anyone foreign to United States concepts of liberty and independence wouldn't get it. Most people in our own country are foreign to it as well, due to the degradation of how our history is being taught.

Part of me wants to move to Switzerland, where these ideals are actually followed. People walk around with assault rifles in public, and gun crime is so low that no records are kept.

Uhm well... Except that those lines are kinda out of context and separated by quite a few years ;o

Quoted

(14:06:57) Riesig: I should stop now. People might get sig material again

hunturk

Owner Of The World's Most Powerful Neck

(1,652)

Posts: 5,756

Date of registration
: Aug 4th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: City of Steel

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

13,512

Sunday, February 16th 2014, 11:24pm

@Ghost

Except that if the government did turn tyrannical, they wouldn't make a difference. Last time I checked m1 abrams>ar-15.

That might be how it works in Battlefield, but reality is often very different. You'd think that with all our military hardware, the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be dust by now, given all they have are ancient AK-47's and caves.
They also have remote terrain, harsh conditions and the ability to blend in with the populace. Please don't try and kid yourself into thinking that a proportion of the population having guns would make a difference if the US government did turn tyrannical.

And so do we. But regardless, this is all very theoretical and doesn't really go anywhere. There's too many variables to iron out. The biggest one being the unlikely scenario that all the men and women in the armed forces would willingly turn guns on their own homes just because some elected official tells them to.

So it's really a fruitless discussion unless you're doing some Harvard paper to study all this. Hence why you never hear anyone actually talk about it.
I wouldn't compare most parts of merica to the deserts of Afghanistan ;)

But yeah, I agree with you 100%. It would never happen. Which is why the whole argument for having guns is so retarded. It literally is just an excuse because people like guns....

I'd go into some geography and cities and stuff like that, but as I said, fruitless discussion.

Not saying it can't happen, just that the idea that every single soldier in the military would decide to take the side of the government. I mean, if I was a Marine, I wouldn't shoot my family just because I was told.

I don't see the reason why we can't have guns, though.
Because more guns = more gun crime?
Personally, i don't take a stance on whether or not there is a creating entity because i'm humble enough to realize, in my fucking insignificance, the concept escapes my comprehension with a lead of 9001 light years.
RIP SRAW

Wadayoutalkenabeet


Oscar and Moe <3

  • "Ghost" has been banned

Posts: 281

Date of registration
: Nov 27th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

13,513

Sunday, February 16th 2014, 11:26pm

-yoink-

Uhm well... Except that those lines are kinda out of context and separated by quite a few years ;o

Not really, I checked context. And I don't understand why when they were spoken matters...

@Ghost

Except that if the government did turn tyrannical, they wouldn't make a difference. Last time I checked m1 abrams>ar-15.

That might be how it works in Battlefield, but reality is often very different. You'd think that with all our military hardware, the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be dust by now, given all they have are ancient AK-47's and caves.
They also have remote terrain, harsh conditions and the ability to blend in with the populace. Please don't try and kid yourself into thinking that a proportion of the population having guns would make a difference if the US government did turn tyrannical.

And so do we. But regardless, this is all very theoretical and doesn't really go anywhere. There's too many variables to iron out. The biggest one being the unlikely scenario that all the men and women in the armed forces would willingly turn guns on their own homes just because some elected official tells them to.

So it's really a fruitless discussion unless you're doing some Harvard paper to study all this. Hence why you never hear anyone actually talk about it.
I wouldn't compare most parts of merica to the deserts of Afghanistan ;)

But yeah, I agree with you 100%. It would never happen. Which is why the whole argument for having guns is so retarded. It literally is just an excuse because people like guns....

I'd go into some geography and cities and stuff like that, but as I said, fruitless discussion.

Not saying it can't happen, just that the idea that every single soldier in the military would decide to take the side of the government. I mean, if I was a Marine, I wouldn't shoot my family just because I was told.

I don't see the reason why we can't have guns, though.
Because more guns = more gun crime?

You're a bit late to the party on that discussion.

Watcher-45

He's watching...

(758)

Posts: 1,804

Date of registration
: May 5th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Tucson

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

13,514

Sunday, February 16th 2014, 11:32pm

Owning and bearing a firearm is your God given and constitutionally protected right.
Disarming the people is the first step towards government totalitarianism. Will they do it? Maybe not. Can they do it? You better believe it...

And btw, the whole reason for the existence of that line in the constitution (bad idea to put it there in hindsight...) was that the nation had just gotten out of a civil war against the English rulers... They could attack yet again for the control of north America so to counter that they wanted all civilians to be armed so that they had a decent army to call upon... It was a duty, but those days are gone. Now it's all just about paranoia against your own people whiiiiiich kinda brings us back to the lunacy part... ;o

You are wrong. Straight up wrong.

When the nation was founded there was already an army of trained soldiers in place to serve to protect the nation from foreign aggressors. It wouldn't matter if the people were all armed, and if the people were to be used as the army it wouldn't be hard to simply arm and uniform the populace. That is NOT why the second amendment is in place. It is NOT the duty of the people to defend the country from foreign aggressors.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The security of the free state is not related to China kicking our door in. The security of the free state has everything to do with preserving the freedom of the individuals from oppressors both foreign and domestic.

And our country has exercised that right. The American civil war was a direct result of the Southern citizens taking up arms to protect the freedom of their states against the Northern oppressors.


In order to keep a free nation where the people control the government, the government should not have more physical strength than the people.

Yes, it is not as ideal as it once was when all we had were cannons and muskets. Back then a citizen could own a cannon, and now a citizen can't own an Abrams. It's no longer fair.

But the fact remains that we need to have guns just for the sole reason that the government should not tell us what to do. We should tell the government what to do.


"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

It's not so I can shoot some Russian in the face if he parachutes into my back yard. It's not to hunt to put food on the table. It's not so I can dress the part and run off to stand with the soldiers of the Army and Marine Corps. It's not even so I can defend myself from some asshole with a knife who wants my wallet in an alley.
It is so that when the government enacts a policy that would serve to take away my rights as a citizen, I can stand and say "No."




I may sound like a loon to people from other countries who don't understand how our country was founded. Great Britain conquered, so the laws of their nations reflect that. America was liberated, so the laws of our states reflect that...
Other countries? Maybe they lived in peace all their lives. Maybe the need to take up arms never existed.

But just because YOU don't have need or want for it, doesn't mean I don't.



And I am not one to force my ideals onto others, I just try to get others to understand my ideals and not try to force their way upon me.
All bike, all the time!

Spoiler Spoiler





  • "Ghost" has been banned

Posts: 281

Date of registration
: Nov 27th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

13,515

Sunday, February 16th 2014, 11:35pm

I just think this entire discussion is a bit silly, given that most people here talking about it are from other countries, so naturally there will be misunderstanding.

But I have to take a shower and run some errands for a few hours. So here.


hunturk

Owner Of The World's Most Powerful Neck

(1,652)

Posts: 5,756

Date of registration
: Aug 4th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: City of Steel

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

13,516

Sunday, February 16th 2014, 11:41pm

You can spout all the facts and figures you want about deaths from gun crime decreasing, but tbh:

Homicides where the murder weapon was a gun in the US (2010): 11,078
Homicides where the murder weapon was a gun in the UK(2010) 835

To account for population, I multiplied the UK figure by 5, because the population is 5 times smaller. The real figure is 165.

I'm sorry but in my opinion more guns = more gun crime.
Personally, i don't take a stance on whether or not there is a creating entity because i'm humble enough to realize, in my fucking insignificance, the concept escapes my comprehension with a lead of 9001 light years.
RIP SRAW

Wadayoutalkenabeet


Oscar and Moe <3

Watcher-45

He's watching...

(758)

Posts: 1,804

Date of registration
: May 5th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Tucson

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

13,517

Sunday, February 16th 2014, 11:59pm

You can spout all the facts and figures you want about deaths from gun crime decreasing, but tbh:

Homicides where the murder weapon was a gun in the US (2010): 11,078
Homicides where the murder weapon was a gun in the UK(2010) 835

To account for population, I multiplied the UK figure by 5, because the population is 5 times smaller. The real figure is 165.

I'm sorry but in my opinion more guns = more gun crime.


I don't think anyone is arguing against that. It's simply a statistic.

More motorcycles means more motorcycle accidents. DUH!
More lakes means more drowning related deaths. DUH!
More drug dealers means more drugs. DUH!


But look at homicides on the whole!

More guns may mean more gun crime, but more guns means overall LESS violent crime.



And gun crime is on a decline.

According to the FBI, gun related murders have decreased 15% from 2006-2010.
All bike, all the time!

Spoiler Spoiler




This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Watcher-45" (Feb 17th 2014, 12:07am)


C0llis

Up and down. Bounce all around

(3,334)

Posts: 3,100

Date of registration
: Apr 15th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

13,518

Monday, February 17th 2014, 12:09am

Correlation does not imply causation.

Things people said

And reading Youtube comments still gives me Turbo Cancer.

It really is quite frustrating when Helen Keller sets up her LMG in the only doorway in/out of an area.

What kind of question is that? Since when is cheese ever a bad idea?

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

  • "Ghost" has been banned

Posts: 281

Date of registration
: Nov 27th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

13,519

Monday, February 17th 2014, 12:11am

You can spout all the facts and figures you want about deaths from gun crime decreasing, but tbh:

Homicides where the murder weapon was a gun in the US (2010): 11,078
Homicides where the murder weapon was a gun in the UK(2010) 835

To account for population, I multiplied the UK figure by 5, because the population is 5 times smaller. The real figure is 165.

I'm sorry but in my opinion more guns = more gun crime.

Of course there's less gun murders in the UK, as they have strict gun laws. It only makes sense. But does that mean less overall crime?

Like I pointed out in my linked post, no. Every single thing I referenced pointed to the contrary. Despite heavy gun control in the UK, it has about 125% more rape victims and 133% more assault victims per 100,000 people than the United States does. So clearly, guns aren't the problem.

As for "mo' guns mo' gun crime," again, like I referenced, the United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.

So in your opinion, more guns = more gun crime. But in objective reality, more guns =/= more gun crime.

Now I need to go do those errands. Here's some more JonTron:


hunturk

Owner Of The World's Most Powerful Neck

(1,652)

Posts: 5,756

Date of registration
: Aug 4th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: City of Steel

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

13,520

Monday, February 17th 2014, 12:40am

So...when I say more guns = more gun crime..you argue against it...when I post stats..you say well yeah duh ofc more guns = more gun crime...but less violent crime..

When did I ever mention that more guns = more overall crime...never.

Trying to beat violent crime in general (<- first mention) by putting more guns into the mix is a bit dumb. More people are going to get killed, and that doesn't solve anything.

In 2010, 85 people died every day from gun related incidents. That's not necessarily crime, (suicide, accidents etc..)
How many of those deaths could've been prevented if there were stricter gun laws?

At the end of the day, if you guys want guns, by all means..but I disagree highly with the mentality. Just like I disagree with capital punishment, killing people for killing is ultimately pretty fucking retarded.

Carrying guns to fight against people with guns isn't as effective as not letting those people have guns in the first place.
Personally, i don't take a stance on whether or not there is a creating entity because i'm humble enough to realize, in my fucking insignificance, the concept escapes my comprehension with a lead of 9001 light years.
RIP SRAW

Wadayoutalkenabeet


Oscar and Moe <3