Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Well you're wrong about the civil war part for sure. There is no huge issue big enough to unite the country's factions on either side of said issue to be fighting about.

there's no slavery or states rights to be arguing on about. health care and abortion just arent' as important/don't have the pull that slavery and states rights did.

As for this right-wing stuff brainwashing the dude:
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110110/cm_ac/7577804_jared_loughner_portrait_of_the_tuscon_safeway_shooter_1

also:


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/jared-lee-loughner-gabrielle-giffords-shooter_n_806243.html

Last one:

Source: and its MSNBC lulzhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/


So can we put the right-wing mindcontrol or whatever to bed now?

Too bad he won't get off on an insanity plea.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

There's a difference between mudering someone for a reason known only to yourself and eating dog shit because the fairies told you to.

He may be out of the normal frame of mind of most people, but he's not far enough out that he deserves an insanity plea.

Not that i for a minute thought anyone here thinks he should get off on an insanity plea.

Jubber, you're taking Washington's quote out of context. He lived in an age in which the most deadly firearm was a musket that weighed more than a modern rifle, had a one-minute reload, couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at fifty paces, and wasn't usually lethal even at point blank. He had no idea that man-portable weapons of such destructive power would become available, and his views reflected the world he lived in.

Also, Washington isn't talking about gun ownership, he's talking about the actual use of guns, as opposed to sabers. In the 18th century, guns still coexisted with melee weapons, and in many situations, melee weapons were much more effective.

More than that, many officers back then (there were no military professionals as we understand them today) still had this very romanticized view of war and weaponry and regarded guns as crude and artless.

Both the practical reality of the limitations of guns and the distorted perception of the utility and romantic implications of the saber endured for nearly 150 years after Washington was dead, until after the first few, incredibly brutal, months of World War I.

Washington was a revolutionary, and part of his ideology was the kind of utilitarian, populist vision that has defined America ever since - for example, American soldiers have generally never worn the kinds of outrageous costumes other nations do. Washington here says guns are awesome because they get the job done.

If you want to read more about this, some of my favorite books are The Guns of August (which describes the grossly distorted view of guns that Europeans had right up to WWI), All Quiet on the Western Front (describes a battle in which everyone throws away their guns and just whack each other with spades because they are more effective than guns or sabers), or Utopia (in which More describes his model civilization and makes a point of noting that they do not use swords because they do not romanticize war, instead they use a kind of club-axe).

Gandhi was a pacifist so taking one of his many rhetorical/ironical quotes out of context to support gun control is ludicrous (people have taken similar quotes out of their original ironic context to allege that Gandhi was pro-Hitler or a Communist).

The Swiss own guns for national defense and not personal defense, which is my entire point. Switzerland is a mountainous and isolationist country with a strong society and homogenous population and so this system works very well for them. The Swiss like to boast that the last person to conquer them was Julius Caesar and only narrowly; they were invaded several times during the Middle Ages but always managed to drive the invaders out.

Contrast that with America being invaded in 1812 and our militia getting roflstomped and the White House burned down by evil Canadians. We have a professional army and do not run conscription anymore because we are no longer an isolationist power, therefore gun ownership for national defense is obsolete. If Chinese T-72s are rolling down Main Street and MiG-29s are screaming overhead, the rifle you have under your bed will not protect you.

Your academic piece is an opinion piece presented at a pro-gun seminar, and its easy enough to find some lawyer, doctor or doctorate who will sign off on anything on an ideological basis.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The Wild West didn't exist, huh?

Skipped the gun debate part of the thread (pretty much most of the thread actually) and just wanted to note that for those of you who think either party or their spokesholes own any responsibility for what this kid did, then you need to take a close look at how you feel about:

violence in video games causing kids to kill
movie depictions of violence towards women causing men to rape
words in classical literature like nigger, fag, kyke inciting racism/hatred

The argument that rhetoric incited this guy to kill really isn't any different.

The politicians and their spokesholes are certainly shoveling an awful load of crap, but I really don't think it's anymore than I recall hearing over the last 15 years I've actually cared to notice.

If you want someone to blame, try the guy that sold him a gun, or dad for not locking it up, or mom for not taking him to counseling, or perhaps the murderer himself.

edit: i can haz speeling?

Those muskets you seem to be scoffing at were the "assault weapons" of their time. They weren't just carried by ordinary citizens, they were also the standard issue of military forces of the time. You may seem to think that you can choose how to frame the context, but you can't. If you want to put his quote "in context," then link the work the quote is lifted from and we'll read it. Otherwise, Washington's point is very clear: guns are good.



Then let's examine the unabridged version of the quote...



"The citizen's firearms," Aestu, not "the state's firearms," or "the militia's firearms," but "the citizen's firearms." The meaning, even to us poor schlubs who have never looked down from the parapets of an ivory tower, is quite plainly about the positive effect of the vast majority of the populace possessing firearms.

Not a mention of anything about sabers there, either, but I'll tell you what. Let's duel. You can have the "vastly superior" saber, and I'll take a musket. We'll give ourselves the standard fifty paces and see what happens. Even if I miss you with my single shot, muskets made a pretty good bludgeon, and were even more effective in close quarters combat when affixed with a bayonet.



You don't get to opine that "guns are bad, m'kay, and you shouldn't have them in your house, m'kay" and then proceed to hold up the Swiss as some model of public safety without acknowledging that...BAM...the Swiss keep guns in their homes. The idea that the Swiss aren't comparable because they're a "homogenous population" only serves to highlight why policies that work in the UK and Australia, where there is a dominant national culture at work and they are not as divided by regional/religious/cultural differences as we are, are a bad fit for the US.


I wonder if anyone made that "gun under bed won't be worth a shit" argument to members of the French underground? Probably not, or they might not have bothered. It's a shame they were ignorant of your enlightened way of thinking, or they might have done something crazy like feeding intelligence to the Allies, or sabotaging their enemy, or any number of things that gun under their bed shouldn't have allowed them to do.



Really...I would think a scholar would have done some actual research (or as we say here, "nice google,") before making a statement like that?

I do not know whether the study I linked was every presented at a pro-gun seminar, or a gun show, or Gander Mountain or Brass Pro Shop on a Saturday afternoon, but I do know that it was published in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995. I also know it was reviewed by the late Dr. Marvin Wolfgang in the same volume of said publication. I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves whether or not Dr. Wolfgang was some sort of an idealogue, but if you read either the biography I linked or any of the others that are available online, you'll see that he was highly regarded in his field. This is what Dr. Wolfgang said about the study I linked...



Now, I'll grant that the research may have been superceded by more recent studies, as this was published in the mid-90s. However, this is the last piece I read on the topic, and I read it, at the time, because I was considering purchasing some weapons to keep in my home during a spate of break-ins in my neighborhood. I was married at the time, and had my wife and her son from a previous relationship in my home, and I was concerned about their safety, but also did not want to introduce a factor into our home that would put them at greater risk. It was not something I would have considered years earlier, but I was still mildly debilitated by some very serious injuries I suffered earlier in the decade, and I wasn't confident in my ability to drop a couple of knuckleheads while my physical capacity was impaired.

However, I'm not going to make your counter-arguments for you, so if you want to make the case that the information is out of date, please do so. If you want to break the study down for yourself and find fault with it, feel free. If you want to ignore it and not talk about, it wouldn't make you a bad person, but don't suggest, as seems to be par for the course, that just because you choose to disagree with the findings that somehow your disagreement is in and of itself evidence that the study must be the result of paid operatives in the employ of the gun lobby.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Guns dont kill people! Dangerous minorities do!


seriously though, this isn't a gun control issue.


get off it, both of you.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

Basically it's very difficult to do an accurate survey of such a rare event. Probably nobody has really accurate numbers for how often guns are used in self defense, but it's unlikely to be as high as suggested in the paper you linked.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

I'm inclined to agree with that, mainly because it's hard to randomly select a sample large enough to get an accurate representation while still using accepted methods for accounting for 'unreported' incidents...which, if I understood correctly when I read it, is what accounted for the figures of 2 to 2.5 million instances of successful defense.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Not really. no.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

There were no assault weapons back then. America didn't have a professional army until the mid-19th century. So - no.



...all of which is based on the fact that guns - back then - were a safeguard for democracy because they were fundamentally democratic. Today, in a world with automatic weapons that can mow down unarmed people but are useless against tanks and aircraft, that arithmatic doesn't work.

It was the same when medieval knights made the citizen-army obsolete...until the development of crossbows and guns.


It's perfectly valid to point out that the Swiss don't own weapons for self-defense.

Australia and the UK are very chaotic societies - Switzerland is not. This has been a defining reality for all three cultures for hundreds of years. It is also a major factor in why England became a world power and Switzerland did not. Imagine what the world of Dickens would be like if automatic weapons had been widely available.

Both Australia and the UK have come under threat of invasion in ways Switzerland never has because they have had powerful enemies due to their non-isolationism.



It would have made absolutely no difference because even with a gun under every Frenchman's bed, if it wasn't for the US, today they would all be speaking German.

There's actually a part of The Guns of August about this, too. Before the First Battle of the Marne, it seems very likely that the Germans will march on Paris, seize the city and win the war. The Germans make several critical mistakes, amongst them diverting troops to fight a non-existent Russian threat, getting tied down in Belgium, and exhausting their troops, preventing this very real possibility from materializing.

So the French ministers are hastily debating what to do - whether to fight or surrender. Then, one of the ministers speaks up and says, "You want to open the city to the Germans so we will be spared a slaughter. But if you do that, when they march through our streets, a shot will ring out from every window in the working quarters. And then I will tell you what will happen - Paris will be burned!"

With this, the argument ends, and the French decide to fight on the Marne, preventing the Germans from seizing Paris and ensuring four years of bloody stalemate.

There's another book, "Is Paris Burning?" set 30 years later, when the Americans liberate Paris, and De Gaulle sends one of his flunkies to grasp Eisenhower by the ankles and beg him to let the French enter Paris first, "because we want to appear to be responsible for our own liberation". Eisenhower rolls his eyes and agrees. Hitler then sends orders to burn down Paris - hence the title of the book. It doesn't materialize because by then the orders were impossible to execute because the US army was everywhere.

You're making the argument that gun ownership enables an effective resistance in the event of foreign invasion. It doesn't. It didn't work in 1812, it didn't work in 1914, it didn't work in 1943, and it doesn't work now.

Hypothetically, if the US were conquered, gun ownership would result in the same outcome it does in Iraq or Afghanistan or Ireland or Judaea - spiraling violence that doesn't make a difference in forcing the invader out. And unlike us, the Chinese or any other likely opponent besides the EU wouldn't shirk from resolving the problem by just wiping out the offending populations from the air.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Did you know that spiders are the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom?

Sarah Palin's subliminal kill command map:



Completely Innocent map from the Democrat Leadership Committee that merely denotes where resources would best be allocated:




Map from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee showing proposed locations for new Target stores and giant stove-pipes.



I think it is obvious that we need to get some law enforcement on those other crosshairs...and be ready for the construction surge that is going to usher in a new era of giant stove pipes dotting the American landscape.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I like how you edited out the names those targets belong to. Just because the Democrats did something wrong doesn't make it suddenly ok for you to do it to. I think most of us learned that when we were 4 with a story involving a bridge.

Dvergar /
Quisling