Surely a qualified mason has more than one potential employer?
Awful practices being employed towards your dad, there. Hope you can get a resolution about it. Keeping a guy ‘technically employed’ while not paying him and preventing him qualifying for unemployment has to be illegal surely?
For the record I have no stake in either side of this debate.
Gun control can be construed as a bad idea because it limits individual abilities for self defense in extreme scenarios, and also limits the ability if the people to revolt in the event that government became extremely oppressive. Another common counterpoint is that stricter gun control wouldn’t prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns because the measures already in place that are supposed to do that haven’t worked. Illegal guns in the hands of criminals furthers the need for strong individual self defense measures.
As to the second question, the level-headed pro-gun advocates I’ve heard do not advocate “untrained civilians” carrying guns in public, rather they approach gun ownership as something to be taken seriously, i.e. that gun owners should get trained and practice correct protocols at all times, and practice shooting. Coincidentally all the people I know like this are ex- or current LE or Armed Forces, or hunters.
There is probably a somewhat reckless subset of the pro gun crowd that would give less rational responses than the ones I’ve heard
Firstly… I love the username (I assume it’s related to napalm death)
I’ve heard these prior arguments before, I just don’t believe they’re foolproof. The notion of the government becoming extremely oppressive in the 1700s when the Constitution was drafted was legitimate, as of today this is incredibly unlikely. Sure, it happened with Stalin, Nazi Germany some 70-80 years ago… However the situational circumstances behind the rise of these regimes were different… Furthermore not only would the millitary wipe out the civilian populace resisting with ease (you can’t fight a tank with a pistol) an oppressive regime could also cut off electricity, internet, access to food/water, cellular data etc.
As to the extreme self defence scenario… In highly dangerous neighborhoods, sure… But the only reason one would need to be remotely concerned about getting into such a situation is due to the disproportionately high rate of gun violence per capita in America. Even then, you’re odds of being shot are less than being struck by lighting. It’s extremely, extremely unlikely on average that you’re going to be held at gunpoint barring perhaps the most dangerous of neighborhoods
As to guns and criminals… Criminals in Australia frequently don’t have guns, and if they do… It’s typically only high up within organised crime syndicates. When they DO have guns they’re of frequently lower calibre, low magazine capacity (generally less lethal). The same could be said about Japan, South Korea, The Netherlands etc. You’re far more likely to get held at knifepoint and/or beaten up here than held at gunpoint/shot.
Even the strictest of states in the USA are generally far more leniant regarding gun ownership compared to other secular, developed nations.
When I was in the USA, people would come into the synogauge I frequented packing heat. They advocated for everyone to carry a firearm, whether trained or not. The congregation was split on this issue, some thought it was a good idea. Others thought it was crazy.
If America is legitimately on the brink of societal collapse, I could see one rationalising the purchase of a firearm for self defence, especially in neighborhoods with higher homicide rates. However if you seriously have to be worried about getting shot whilst going out to purchase groceries, you’re country probably isn’t in the best state…
For a similar reason that a lot of tactically-minded people don’t like open carry—“Shoot me first!” The unarmed can’t defend the armed, but forcing authorities to go door-to-door in search of arms gives the armed a chance to get organized and fight.
Within secular, developed nations… Very few that I know of have outright barred gun ownership. They take precautions to prevent/try prevent guns falling into the wrong hands.
Authorities aren’t going door to door searching for law abiding citizens who own guns. Furthermore, as I’ve specified… Say America actually does decide to forcibly take away firearms from the civilian populace (and nothing more). If people round up/fight back, the police, the millitary will wipe out any semblance of resistance/potentially impose extremely harsh sentencing upon those caught with firearms (Australia). One could argue the millitary wouldn’t be willing to wipe out their own population, fair enough. But I’d also argue it’s highly, HIGHLY unlikely the American government will ever outright ban gun ownership, gun ownership is culturally engrained… It’d be like raising the drinking age to 21 in Australia… Never going to happen, drinking is unfortunately largely engrained within our culture.
Say the resistance wins and crushes the existing American government over… Guns… now you’ve got a largely unregulated, lawless, dystopian society. I’m all for personal freedoms as I’ve specified. But allowing the mentally ill/those convicted of violent crimes to purchase and own firearms puts the greater populace at risk. I also believe civilian carry outside of those trained (as facepalm death specified) isn’t necessary, we have law enforcement, we have the millitary/veterans etc.
Allowing civilians to stockpile weapons/not impose limits on rates of firearm purchase (Las Vegas shooting anyone?) Doesn’t seem sensible either. Furthermore, I see no reason as to why the avg person needs an assault rifle…
As I’ve said, the prospect of societal collapse in America, if legitimate (If it’s really that bad) would perhaps warrant buying weapons, and within more dangerous regions even carrying them on you. I’m thinking of countries such as South Africa, wherein gun ownership for self defence is justified. If America deteriorates and becomes equatable with SA, I might even advocate for gun ownership… However precautions should be taken to bar access to criminals, that shouldn’t be disputed
I certainly don’t advocate for Australian levels of draconian regulation… What Canada/NZ has done seems adequate.
Why bother with taking the guns? People are currently confined to their homes without a shot being fired.
For an oppressive government it makes much more sense to let people keep their guns and the illusion of freedom.
Current confinement to one’s home at this point is based on the rational prospect of reducing spread rates. To avoid mass public infection, overwhelming the healthcare systems (and indirectly inducing more deaths via those coming in from myocardial infarction, stroke etc because they can’t be treated) social distancing, house confinement is currently warranted.
Extreme times call for brief authoritarian style measures. Granted if the populace wishes to rebel (spring break etc) they can… At extreme detriment to the rest of those abiding by quarantine protocal.
This isn’t an example of a government becoming tyrannical… It’s an example of "either we force people to abide or a LOOOOT of people are going to die’’
I don’t understand the “illusion of freedom” concept. If I recall you’re a history buff/very educated regarding past historical events. Could you explain the concept of an illusion of freedom using an example from prior historic events? I’d be very interested to learn about such a concept + the history behind said concept @loppar
Most of the pro-gun arguments against “government tyranny” are circular - “we need guns in case the government tries to take our guns away”.
But they argument is much more nebulous when it comes to how this tyranny will be opposed be said guns.
This pandemic is an example how the government (in this case rightly) can restrict your freedom of movement, even in some cases require you to carry papers proving that you have a valid reason to be outside and the vast majority of people will be ok with that.
The concept is exceedingly simple - you seemingly can do everything, but in reality you cannot.
The concept was slowly developing throughout the totalitarian societies of the 20th century with East Germany and more recently China making the biggest conceptual advancements.
The core concept is simple - you can incentivize the majority of people to obey even the most draconian rules by a discreet carrot and stick approach without encroaching too much on visible aspects of daily life.
The “carrot” being economic development and access to cheap consumer goods, while the “stick” doesn’t have to be a camp or a gulag - limiting access to financial services (cash loans, credit cards - how many gun owners worry about their credit score dropping?), white collar jobs or plane tickets is enough to deter most offenders.
Ol’ US of A is a special case due to it’s gun culture that’s an end to itself, as I’ve explained in the previous post. Let’s see how these measures, in this case justified, stack up:
“You can’t leave your house except for work or necessities”
“Ok”
“You have to provide paperwork showing that you’re actually commuting to work”
“A hassle, but ok”
“We’re also gonna be handcuffing parents for bringing their children to the playground”
“I’ll write a disapproving Facebook post, but ok”
“We’ll keep the gun stores open”
“Whew, that’s a relief! For a moment I was afraid you were gonna curtail my freedoms”
Outstanding.
I like the way you laid that out, @loppar.
Societal collapse is practically by definition too late, you need them before society collapses
People having guns, and people knowing people be having guns also helps keep it all together when collapse starts seeming more likely
A populace well armed is at least in part a deterrent in my view
Are you in America? I guess I can only speak for my area of America, but no one is confined to his home here.
I don’t completely disagree with the second point, but that cant really be called oppression. You’re nowhere near the first person to point out that brainwashing works. That’s why most freedom-minded people don’t care for public schools and other sources of propaganda-there’s no doubt it works.
Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
I assume you believe this whole COVID-19 thing is a hoax.
I’m pretty surprised to see you apparently believe this COVID-19 stuff is a hoax. I’ll be honest: you’re one of the last people on here I’d expect to question something like this.
We can agree to disagree. I think “unstable” or “dangerously paranoid”… not “deterrent” when I think of a populace armed to the teeth to protect against a government that isn’t tyrannical to begin with (and likely won’t ever will be). I bitch about The Australian government, but the truth is you or I have no idea as to what it’s ACTUALLY like to live under an authoritarian regime. I may not agree with how The Australian government slightly leans towards authoritarianism, but the truth is they’re still secular, they’re democratic… as a generalisation suppression of civil liberties isn’t the end goal from the liberal/labour parties.
I believe in response to mass panic buying of firearms + social distancing/isolation we will see a disproportionate uptick in firearm related suicides, perhaps robberies/shootings too, only time will tell.
Where does he state this is a hoax? He was describing a hypothetical scenario.
He even states these measures are “in this case justified”.
Gun control is learning about guns, how to handle them, aim, etc. Therefore gun control is good. Most people use the phrase ‘gun control’ in an Orwellian sense that means the opposite of gun control, which is bad because it means being controlled
I like open carry so that people remember guns are not illegal, because people are forgetting
I think conceiled carry is important too, because it just shouldn’t be a crime, but everyone packing always isn’t helpful in my view
I wasn’t talking about the government
"Armed to the teeth’, hah
I also have no clue why some guy in Europe even feels the need to comment on U.S. affairs.
Edit: It’s even weirder to make these comments ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW and then say it’s actually justifiable. “Lot of good them guns is doing you Muricans. You would be in hot wars with your local and state governments right now if guns were of any use. Of course, what local and state governments are telling you to do makes sense.”
Law enforcement, members of the military open carry. If you want to be reminded guns aren’t illegal, why not go hunting/go to a shooting range.
Carrying a revolver tucked in you’re waistband doesn’t remind the general populace of the licit/illicit nature of firearms considering it’s not particularly visible to begin with.
If people were randomly packing heat in Aus I’d be very unnerved. A few weeks ago I was in a parking lot wherein two teenagers (delinquents) tried to start with/scare me (presumably to mug me), as they were closing in I made a dash to my car. Theoretically if I was armed I could’ve pulled out my gun and shot them/threatened them
Is it really worth it? Or would it be more reasonable to just run, take a bruising to my ego
If you’re talking about me… because I lived there for 6-7 years, I have a decent amount of family living there. If you’re talking about @loppar, because he’s highly educated regarding historical events, sociocultural polices within differing societies. I’d argue his opinion is highly valued. You don’t HAVE to be American to weigh in on American politics. about 90% of those living outside of America thing American’s are batshit crazy regarding their policies revolving around guns, just because they’re not American doesn’t mean they’re wrong, it doesn’t mean they’re right either.
One can study a certain culture and make an educated opinion regarding whether said policies are just or not (in their opinion), you can’t disqualify someones opinion on the basis of “he’s not American”…
We are all amenable to our own opinions, you’re pro-gun, I’m neither pro nor anti-gun (used to be more anti than I am now, have realised some certainly do require firearms for legitimate reasons/that a stable, law abiding citizen with say a rifle for hunting isn’t particularly dangerous.), others are anti-gun etc. Who am I to say you’re definitively in the wrong, I can only give my opinion.
I don’t. I just have no clue why he cares. I also don’t trust that he has any interest at all in helping Americans.