Texas is preparing for war with the US Military?

[bacchi]

But we tend to focus on other things - a lot of our nation building mythos focuses on the vastness angle, like the LAST SPIKE!!!  What is the American equivalent of the Canadian Railroad Trilogy?

Eh? The Union Pacific vs Central Pacific feud ended in Utah with a Golden Spike (aka the Last Spike as well).

[MoonShadow]

When you sit back and look at the world, and objectively just compare the numbers, there's two conclusions I can't help but come to.

1.  America is a violent and violent seeking culture.  Both absolutely and relatively.

2.  Very few within that culture are aware of this, and everyone outside of it is.

Uh... I don't agree. I have heard this arguement before. I have seen a little of the world.

While I was in Austraila, I saw three fist fights in three days. Never saw that in the states. Not bashing Austraila. I love Austraila. But I did see a guy get the crap beat out of him in front of McDonalds for looking at another dude. I saw a cat fight at an arcade where a girl dragged another out of the building by her hair while kneeing her in the face. Ect.
Rugby-- not American
Running of the bulls-- not American
Bullfighting-- not American, we just ride them
Then there is war-- we bomb it then build it back. Who does that? Really?

If by violence you mean domination in war. Then for now, yeah.

In his defense, he didn't really claim that other cultures were not violent.  He simply stated that violence is considered a virtue (in certain circumstances) within the US, which is true as far as I see it.  He may also be implying that the US is more violent than it otherwise would be as a result, which is debatable.  But what I was contesting was his assumption that violence, by it's nature, shouldn't be valued.  I value justifiable violence only because it is the only thing that has ever brought unjustifiable violence under control.  I am a 'sheepdog', and I have a violent nature.  I have two boys that could either be 'sheepdogs' or 'wolves', whom I intend to raise as 'sheepdogs'; in part, because there is always a place in a free-ish society for a 'sheepdog', and in part because there is not for 'wolves'.  I'm not even talking about my two teenagers who each own their own rifle.  I'm talking about their younger brothers; who in the past 3 weeks have 1) thrown a rock through a glass door, smashed a basement window with a stick, and one even punched the glass in his bedroom window with his gloved fist and shattered it (that was more than 3 weeks ago), and they have ran away from the house 4 times.  They have been returned by police twice, once by a nearby farmer, and found once by my wife a half mile down our country road walking barefoot.  They are 5 & 6 currently.  The 6 year old is the one who put his fist through my window; when he was 2, he climbed up his dresser and managed to flip it back upon himself.  It broke in half across his face. He cried, of course, but shook it off a half hour later, and we watched him for signs of concussion.  I wouldn't trust either of these boys with a pocket knife, because they fight like Cain & Able, and the thought that one of them might try to kill the other in his sleep someday has occurred to both myself and my wife; independently.  To say these two each have a violent nature is simply stating the obvious, my goal as a father is to teach them to manage their emotions (particularly rage) and focus those violent tendencies in a productive and socially acceptable direction.

Most of society is filled with 'sheep', and that's okay, but the sheep can't tell the difference between the 'sheepdog' and the 'wolf'; so the majority of those who just read that above likely think I'm nuts, and that my whole family should be watched closely by the local police.  The irony is that most of those same police officers were the same way at the same age.

http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

[EDIT]  I have a friend at work who is also a 'sheepdog'.  A former Navy diver.  Our workplace prohibits weapons at work, even though we both have state licenses to carry just about anywhere.  So he has this garden statue of a tiny sheep that sits at the end of his walk, next to his truck, to remind him every time that he leaves his house unarmed, he is a sheep.

[Tyson]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

[MoonShadow]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

Cecil? Is that you?

[forummm]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

I thought this training would Unconditionally involve Fireworks Last Friday Night from those Dark Horse military ops.

[MoonShadow]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

I thought this training would Unconditionally involve Fireworks Last Friday Night from those Dark House military ops.

July 31st? Why?

[Tyson]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

Cecil? Is that you?

Oh, c'mon man, it was a clear reference to Katy Perry!  Haha, I guess you don't have a pre-teen daughter, so I can't really hold it against you :D

[MoonShadow]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

Cecil? Is that you?

Oh, c'mon man, it was a clear reference to Katy Perry!  Haha, I guess you don't have a pre-teen daughter, so I can't really hold it against you :D

Well, I do have a teenaged daughter, but she hates Katy Perry.  I did get the pop culture reference, BTW; I was just making one of my own.

[Tyson]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

Cecil? Is that you?

Oh, c'mon man, it was a clear reference to Katy Perry!  Haha, I guess you don't have a pre-teen daughter, so I can't really hold it against you :D

Well, I do have a teenaged daughter, but she hates Katy Perry.  I did get the pop culture reference, BTW; I was just making one of my own.

Good on ya! 

Poor Cecil. 

[forummm]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

I thought this training would Unconditionally involve Fireworks Last Friday Night from those Dark House military ops.

July 31st? Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_Perry_discography

[Tyson]

Not me, I'm not a sheep, wolf or sheepdog.  I am a Lion and you're gonna hear me Roar.  Ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar, ro-oar.

I thought this training would Unconditionally involve Fireworks Last Friday Night from those Dark Horse military ops.

July 31st? Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_Perry_discography

I see what you did there :D

[nobodyspecial]

How did we get from the US invading Texas to Katy Perry?
And did the government plan this all along ?

[libertarian4321]

it's that they think some small arms would be effective deterrant against an organized military assault with tanks and bombers.  Do Americans know how ridiculous they look to the rest of the world when they do this shit?

Oh how wrong you are.

I'm ex-Army and live in Texas.  I am NOT worried about being invaded during Jade Helm.

But you are waaaaay off when you dismiss the ability of determined, lightly armed guerrillas to wreak havoc with even the largest, best equipped, and best trained professional armies.

Some examples should be pretty obvious: 

How well did the mighty US military do against poorly trained Iraqi and Afghan militia/guerrillas in recent years?  Small numbers of guys with nothing more than small arms and improvised explosives damned near brought the US military to it's knees.
(Snip).

I strenuously object to the gross exaggeration Afghan/Iraqi guerrillas did anything of the sort. Yes, they impacted individual units severely and certainly the government and peoples' will to fight in  Afghanistan/Iraq.  But assure you no Soldier, Sailor, or Marine, General to Private, eyeballs deep in a firefight or chillin' on the FOB, ever said "Screw this. We're Beat. Let's just convert to Wahabbi Islam and call it a day."  Not anymore than the Minutemen utterly destroyed the British Empire after the Revolution.

I will summarize an earlier post that Texans are not Afghan tribesman hardened by decades of poverty and war.  And I'll add they'll not receive support from Mexico and other places as Iraqi guerrillas did from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

You make a huge mistake in assuming that the goal of the Iraqi or Afghan militias was to "convert American soldiers to Wahabbi Islam"- it was/is not. 

Their goal was to GET THE INVADERS (the USA) out of THEIR country.  Their goals were not all that dissimilar to those of American colonists against the British in 1776.

Like the Vietnamese from 1942-1975, or the Americans from 1775-1783, or the Afghans in the '80s, the goals of the Iraqis and Afghans was to get rid of the invading oppressors.

The goal of guerrilla warfare isn't to "convert" the enemy or beat his army in a conventional sense, it's simply to wear him down until he no longer feels the cost of the occupation is worth the effort.

That's what we did to the British.  That's what the Afghans did the to Soviets, and the British (on numerous occasions) and are now doing to the Americans.

And btw, you don't need a nation full of "battle hardened veterans" to make guerrilla warfare work.  The Vietnamese were NOT "battle hardened veterans" when they started working to toss out invading oppressors (the Japanese, followed by the French colonialists and their American allies, then the Americans alone).  Nor were the Iraqis, nor were the Partisans in Yugoslavia.  All you need is a group of nationalists who strongly oppose the oppressive invaders- they will quickly learn how to beat the invaders.  I would posit that since Texas is chock full of former US military folks, many of whom would resist any occupation, that the Texans would be far more effective against the US military than the Iraqis or Vietnamese or Afghans were.

Let me put it to you this way.  Let's hypothetically say Texas was invaded, and some old US Army vet like myself, who knows Army doctrine as well, if not better, than the young troops,  takes up a position and takes out a couple of guys as a sniper (not hard to do in an urban environment).  How would the US military handle that?  They wouldn't catch the shooter, because he'd blend in to the environment.  Hell, he could even pretend to "be on their side" because he speaks "Army." 

What are they going to do, round up civilians and start shooting them as the Germans tried (unsuccessfully) to do?  I don't think so.  It would be a bloody nightmare for the US Army to "invade" any part of the USA.  They'd be nearly helpless, especially since a US soldier is going to be far less willing to "light up" someone who looks, talks, and acts just like they do- it's a Hell of a lot easier to demonize some brown skinned person who speaks Arabic, wears foreign garb, and yells "Allahu Akbar" than it is to shoot some blonde, blue eyed English speaking WASP American who looks and acts like your brother or your best friend.

As an ex-soldier, I can't think of a worse scenario than trying to invade, occupy, and oppress Americans.  And as I said, a huge percentage of soldiers would simply not comply (Hell, I'll bet a bunch of them would not only not comply, they'd join the "rebels").  And those that did comply would be in for a really, really rough ride.

[libertarian4321]

I have a question Libertarian4321, why do you think that it is that those who are least likely to accept the (formally) professional opinions of trained military personnel; Army in your case, and US Marine Corps in my own, tend to be those whose only military experience is owning a DVD of Saving Private Ryan?

I think a lot of people who have never been in the military think all soldiers are unthinking automatons who obey orders no matter what.

They don't realize that soldiers are us- regular, mostly middle class Americans.  Even those who spend 20 or 30 years in the military are still Americans, and still think for themselves.

And a large percentage of the military are not decades long veterans, they are young guys who've only been in for a short time. 

If I was still an active duty officer, and was given an order to invade some American state, round up guns, and take Americans hostage, I would either 1) simply not obey or 2) pretend to obey and simply "fuck up" the mission.  I'd probably get lost on the way to the objective, lol.

[Cressida]

It would be a bloody nightmare for the US Army to "invade" any part of the USA.

Shit, in that case we'd better warn the Army that their plan is ill-advised. Oh wait ...

[libertarian4321]

it's that they think some small arms would be effective deterrant against an organized military assault with tanks and bombers.  Do Americans know how ridiculous they look to the rest of the world when they do this shit?

Oh how wrong you are.

I'm ex-Army and live in Texas.  I am NOT worried about being invaded during Jade Helm.

But you are waaaaay off when you dismiss the ability of determined, lightly armed guerrillas to wreak havoc with even the largest, best equipped, and best trained professional armies.

Some examples should be pretty obvious: 

How well did the mighty US military do against poorly trained Iraqi and Afghan militia/guerrillas in recent years?  Small numbers of guys with nothing more than small arms and improvised explosives damned near brought the US military to it's knees.

Guerrilla tactics, properly applied, can render those expensive aircraft carriers, bombers, fighters, artillery, and tanks nearly useless.  Essentially, it would come down to soldiers with mostly semiautomatic weapons against civilians with, well, mostly semiautomatic weapons.  And the "rebels" would be able to choose the time and place and type of engagment, every time.  Not a good situation to be in if you are one of those invading soldiers.

How about the Russians in Afghanistan?  Or the French or Americans or Japanese in Vietnam?

How did the mighty Nazi Army fare against partisan forces in conquered territories?

Lest we forget, the USA was born from those kind of tactics.  We used unconventional (at the time) tactics (guerrilla tactics, and Indian tactics) against the greatest military in the world, to pretty good effect.

And I would venture to say that the US Army would fare far WORSE if "invading Texas."  You think the morale of American troops sucked in Vietnam or Iraq?  How good do you think they'd feel if told to invade and kill American citizens, many of whom may have been their friends and neighbors?  I suspect you'd have mass rebellion in the military against any President who gave such an order, and even those who didn't rebel would be largely unenthusiastic.

Also, a lot of those Texas "civilians" would be military veterans who can still put lead on target pretty effectively.

I would be pretty surprised if a bunch of lazy Texan tea partiers found the motivation to sustain an insurrection along the lines of the mujahideen or the Résistance.

Really?  Based on what experience?

Texas has, I suspect, one of the largest percentages of ex-military folks in the nation.  Any invasion force would not be dealing with largely untrained civilians (as they might face in, say, Connecticut), they'd be faced with tens of thousands of ex-soldiers, most of whom (like me) have far more military experience than the average current US Army soldier.  And it wouldn't be just "tea partiers"- even the Democrats down here tend to like their guns and be a bit distrustful of the the Federal government.  The biggest gun nut I know comes from a family that goes back generations in the Dem party.  He's not ex-military, but he's one of the best shots I've ever seen (I'm good, but he makes me look like an amateur by comparison) I'll bet he'd make a heck of a guerrilla fighter.  And this guy is far more "pro gun" than I am.  Hell, he owns enough guns to start his own private Army.

BTW, it' ain't hard to sustain low intensity conflict.  That's the whole point.  Guerrillas do "hit and run" on an occasional basis, then blend back into everyday society.  That's why it's so easy for guerrillas to outlast much larger, much better equipped, much better trained, regular Army units.  Fire 2 shots in 3 seconds, drop 2 invading soldiers before they can even figure out where the shots came from, pack up, hide your weapon, go home, clean up, get a cup of coffee, go to work, and blend into society.  Not that hard, really.  If you aren't caught in the first 10 minutes, odds are you won't be caught at all.  That's what makes being a guerrilla relatively easy, and FIGHTING GUERRILLAS a real bitch- the guys fighting the guerrillas have to work 10 times as hard to achieve far less results.

[libertarian4321]

Are you fucking kidding me? We invaded Canada?

Fur Realz.  Three beavers were killed.  They got even in 1812 by burning our capital building down.

What the Christ? Canada invaded US? MY WORLD HAS BEEN SHATTERED.

No.

First, there was no "Canada" in 1812.  It was still a colony of Britain, and would be for many decades to follow.

The forces that burned DC were British regulars, battle hardened veterans fresh from the Napoleonic Wars who swept aside the largely militia forces around Baltimore and DC.  After fighting Napoleon's professional army, defeating the Maryland militia must have seemed like a walk in the park.

The battles in upstate NY and the colonies of what is now Canada were largely a cluster fuck, inept militia forces dominated both sides.  The Americans tried to invade the British "Canadian" colonies and failed miserably, due more to their own colossal incompetence than any brilliance on the part of the equally inept Canadian militias.  In short, it was "amateur hour" on both sides.

[libertarian4321]

It would be a bloody nightmare for the US Army to "invade" any part of the USA.

Shit, in that case we'd better warn the Army that their plan is ill-advised. Oh wait ...

Lol.  Well, of course there is no invasion.  I've been laughing at the nuts who thought there would be.  I'm just pointing out that if the "conspiracy" was true, it would probably end up a dismal failure.

[EricL]

You make a huge mistake in assuming that the goal of the Iraqi or Afghan militias was to "convert American soldiers to Wahabbi Islam"- it was/is not. 

You make a huge mistake thinking we were over there fighting for.  It wasn't shits and giggles.  The long term goal of Wahabbi Islamic terrorists is to convert the world to a new Islamic Caliphate. It was a joke until 911. Now the GWOT took horrendously strange and sinister paths from there for both sides. I won't debate that since we haven't got room (it's not just another post but an entire board).  But I stand by my statement that our services were never "brought to their knees" by these refugees from the 7th Century.  It embarrasses me to have to tell a fellow Soldier that.

Their goal was to GET THE INVADERS (the USA) out of THEIR country.  Their goals were not all that dissimilar to those of American colonists against the British in 1776. 

The American colonists were British subjects. The whole idea America was separate from Britain was a minority opinion all the way to the end. (Thankfully ~1/3 - enough - backed up by the British government's unequal treatment to emphasize their point.)

Like the Vietnamese from 1942-1975, or the Americans from 1775-1783, or the Afghans in the '80s, the goals of the Iraqis and Afghans was to get rid of the invading oppressors.

Those three wars have similiar themes but many more differences.  The American invasion of Vietnam was a Cold War response to the Soviet Union. The American colonists wanted freedom from unequal taxation.  The Afghans wanted to continue their life of theocracy, ignorance, child molestation, racism, and spectacular patriarchal chauvinism.  Iraqis resisted for a variety of reasons ranging from Wahabbi extremism, loyalty to Sadam, and a cultural antipathy to the U.S.  (We ain't always pretty up close)

The goal of guerrilla warfare isn't to "convert" the enemy or beat his army in a conventional sense, it's simply to wear him down until he no longer feels the cost of the occupation is worth the effort. 

That's what we did to the British.  That's what the Afghans did the to Soviets, and the British (on numerous occasions) and are now doing to the Americans.

True, but again my protest was not about what their motivations were but how they impacted us.

And btw, you don't need a nation full of "battle hardened veterans" to make guerrilla warfare work.  The Vietnamese were NOT "battle hardened veterans" when they started working to toss out invading oppressors (the Japanese, followed by the French colonialists and their American allies, then the Americans alone).  Nor were the Iraqis, nor were the Partisans in Yugoslavia.  All you need is a group of nationalists who strongly oppose the oppressive invaders- they will quickly learn how to beat the invaders.  I would posit that since Texas is chock full of former US military folks, many of whom would resist any occupation, that the Texans would be far more effective against the US military than the Iraqis or Vietnamese or Afghans were.

And here is where you totally lose me.  In one sentence you say you don't need battle hardened veterans to make guerrilla warfare work.  Then you cite the Vietnamese but make my argument for me by mentioning they fought the Japanese (in WWII to be specific), the French (in the 1950s) and then us. Then you cite all the vets in Texas. Did you not read what you right?

Let me put it to you this way.  Let's hypothetically say Texas was invaded, and some old US Army vet like myself, who knows Army doctrine as well, if not better, than the young troops,  takes up a position and takes out a couple of guys as a sniper (not hard to do in an urban environment).  How would the US military handle that?  They wouldn't catch the shooter, because he'd blend in to the environment.  Hell, he could even pretend to "be on their side" because he speaks "Army." 

I think the police would arrest you.  Unlike overseas, you'd not be "hidden" from foreign authorities confused over language, race and culture issues.  And if they couldn't the "revolt" would turn out pretty much like I claimed in an earlier post.  Catastrophic government win.

What are they going to do, round up civilians and start shooting them as the Germans tried (unsuccessfully) to do?  I don't think so.  It would be a bloody nightmare for the US Army to "invade" any part of the USA.  They'd be nearly helpless, especially since a US soldier is going to be far less willing to "light up" someone who looks, talks, and acts just like they do- it's a Hell of a lot easier to demonize some brown skinned person who speaks Arabic, wears foreign garb, and yells "Allahu Akbar" than it is to shoot some blonde, blue eyed English speaking WASP American who looks and acts like your brother or your best friend.

I sympathize.  Deployments in Iraq/Afghanistan disillusioned/confused/vexed me concerning our alleged values vs. our real values vs. the same in our enemies and the ordinary natives/allies.  If you sort it out, drop me a line.  Again, large scale insurrection = catastrophic rebel win. 

As an ex-soldier, I can't think of a worse scenario than trying to invade, occupy, and oppress Americans.  And as I said, a huge percentage of soldiers would simply not comply (Hell, I'll bet a bunch of them would not only not comply, they'd join the "rebels").  And those that did comply would be in for a really, really rough ride.

At last, a bit of agreement.  This is why fears over Jade Helm are so overblown. 

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I am aware of it.  I don't agree with your assessment that is automaticly a bad thing.  Conflict is the natural state of mankind, it's peace and order that require work and negotiations among parties.  Misunderstandings, offences and prejudices are easy.  But the sad fact is that there will always be a small minority of people who do not wish, or otherwise are incapable, of resolving their conflicts in a peaceful manner.  And because this minority exists, my right to an effective form of self defense exists.  This is not negotiable, as far as I am concerned.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it was understood as an absolute, and that is how I continue to see it.

Humanity is violent.  All of it, no matter how you might view other cultures relative to the United States.  There are exactly two methods to suppress that aspect of humanity; by force or persuasion.  The ideal you advocate, the use of statutory law to compel those like me to alter our methods of self defense, is to choose the force of government action over persuasion.  It has never worked well in any society that has ever tried it, in the long run.  It always leads to those who are attracted to violence and power to seek it within the last place society permits it, the agency of government itself, and this has always led to the violent suppression of some minority culture in the past.  You mean well, I'm sure; but by advocating that society in general surrender the tools of their own defense, in the interests of a less violent culture; you merely advocate for the concentration of power among those who do not surrender those tools.  There is no evidence, historicly speaking, that this leads to a less violent culture.  It might, actually, work someday; but odds remain against it.

I never advocated a position on gun ownership one way or another.  That's why the hippie-liberals as the only ones talking about it frustrate me.  The conversation about violence instantly turns into one about guns.  I can see where you'd be on the defensive and jump to a conclusion about me.  I'm glad you have a gun and I support you owning one.

My home defense weapon of choice is an axe, because it has unlimited ammo.  And it's better at cutting down trees.  Well, pound for pound.  I guess some guns are pretty decent vs. trees.

I'm not at all concerned about guns.  I'd like to have them, the only reason I don't own a gun is that I am far more likely to use it on myself than anyone else (not suicidal, just clumsy).

There are also lots of other violent places in the world.  I don't agree that that makes it OK for us to celebrate violence.

The Russians and Chinese between them managed to starve a couple hundred million people to death? something like that?  Their own people?  That wouldn't excuse us from only letting a million or so starve.  You measure yourself not against the worst examples but against the best.

I don't advocate total non-violence.  I advocate violence as last resort.  You cannot credibly claim that force as a last resort is even on the horizon at this point for us as a culture.

Defend ourselves, absolutely.  Defend those that cannot defend themselves, absolutely.

There were just many many posts on here portraying Texans as somehow outside the norm for Americans, and I don't think that's true.  We're definitely excited about our guns, that's for sure.  I'm bettin' most of us have our rifles cleaned and stowed, just because 100% of gun owners I know that's how they keep them.  Literally none of them has one that could be fired on 2 minutes notice.

I didn't bring up the violence in movies as the cause, because that's nuts.  It's a symptom.  It sells/is available because culturally it is what we want.

Canada has a similar selection of TV and movies available, with the same prudishness regarding sex . . . but we don't seem to have the same violence issues.

Canada's violence statistics look remarkably similar to the U.S. if you compare beatings and non-firearm weapons.  They're super polite until the snow melts and you get 'em drunk.  Same as us.

I personally got punched in the face by two different Canadians in the last 12 months, both in my own house, both were drunk.  I don't really feel like either was warranted, fortunately they were Canadian so it didn't hurt (zing).

Uh... I don't agree. I have heard this arguement before. I have seen a little of the world.

While I was in Austraila, I saw three fist fights in three days. Never saw that in the states. Not bashing Austraila. I love Austraila. But I did see a guy get the crap beat out of him in front of McDonalds for looking at another dude. I saw a cat fight at an arcade where a girl dragged another out of the building by her hair while kneeing her in the face. Ect.
Rugby-- not American
Running of the bulls-- not American
Bullfighting-- not American, we just ride them
Then there is war-- we bomb it then build it back. Who does that? Really?

If by violence you mean domination in war. Then for now, yeah.

Walking down the street in Maryland I had the pleasure of diving over a brick wall to avoid automatic weapons fire that gunned down 2 gentleman walking ahead of me.  2 blocks away from UMD.

That same neighborhood I got to climb down my balcony to the street after a gentleman decided to break into my apartment looking for his girlfriend (he had the wrong place).  This was the safer apartment complex with a vacancy when I moved to town.  The place I opted out of had someone decapitated in broad daylight in the common area 2 weeks before I got there.

I've seen plenty of fistfights at bars in Austin, San Diego, and New York.  Haven't seen that in Houston yet, but I don't really bar hop around here like I do when I travel.

If you find anecdotal evidence helpful.

A disagreement between people born within 2 miles of each other that turns bloody or lethal over circumstances that we find understandable....this IS what I'm referring to.  We hear the story and think "yea I'd have shot him too" or "look at my wife that way and I'll beat your ass too" instead of thinking "I wish they could have worked it out somehow."

Right wrong or indifferent, we'd be better off managing to be good at violence (for self defense) without reveling in it.

It isn't a Texas thing, or a Southern thing, or a white people thing though, it is an American thing.

[forummm]

I'm not at all concerned about guns.  I'd like to have them, the only reason I don't own a gun is that I am far more likely to use it on myself than anyone else (not suicidal, just clumsy).

Then you're like actual gun owners (except they don't realize that having a gun puts them at more risk for being a victim of gun violence):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101532.htm
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Consider the following options:

1.  No home defense at all (you don't choose this).
2.  Good set of locks and anonymity (most of us OK stopping here).
3.  A gun (more risk of being a victim of gun violence).
4.  A cobra (more risk of being a cobra victim).

In general I find gun ownership a more responsible choice than cobra ownership, particularly when it comes to home defense.

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

[forummm]

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

I disagree on both points. Gun enthusiasts are constantly being alarmist about someone taking away their guns. And no one has actually done that, and no one with any power has even suggested it. Which is also counter to your second point. I've never heard anyone with any power suggest amending the Constitution to ban guns. And if they did suggest such a thing it wouldn't matter because it would go nowhere. The farthest policy changes I've heard suggested are closing loopholes so that clearly dangerous people don't get guns and ineffectual changes to the kinds of guns sold so that they are still more than enough to kill everyone in your neighborhood, but it would take you some effort and maybe more time to do it.

Now on the other side, if you have a pool you are required by law (at least in the jurisdictions I'm aware of) to have it locked up at all times unless an adult is present. And the home owner is legally responsible for accidents that happen in their pool. People can go to jail and be sued for negligence.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I thought I felt some gh3y titillation earlier but I was mistaken.  Damn.  Still not forceably converted to Homosexual Marxism (it sounds like fun!)  The gh3y chemtrail sauce from Jade Helm must have been mixed really weak.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

I disagree on both points. Gun enthusiasts are constantly being alarmist about someone taking away their guns. And no one has actually done that, and no one with any power has even suggested it. Which is also counter to your second point. I've never heard anyone with any power suggest amending the Constitution to ban guns. And if they did suggest such a thing it wouldn't matter because it would go nowhere. The farthest policy changes I've heard suggested are closing loopholes so that clearly dangerous people don't get guns and ineffectual changes to the kinds of guns sold so that they are still more than enough to kill everyone in your neighborhood, but it would take you some effort and maybe more time to do it.

Now on the other side, if you have a pool you are required by law (at least in the jurisdictions I'm aware of) to have it locked up at all times unless an adult is present. And the home owner is legally responsible for accidents that happen in their pool. People can go to jail and be sued for negligence.

Well, your points of "people do want gun control" and "don't worry, it will be ineffectual" but "gun people are alarmist"...  Either there are people out there trying to restrict the ownership of guns, or there aren't.  It doesn't make sense to argue that you want to change things to prevent a problem, but that any changes you propose will be inadequate.  You are being disingenuous in your argument. 

2nd amendment folks believe:  The plan is to ban this first, then from there to ban this, and then this other, and slowly, bit by bit, as each little piece isn't overturned, we change the whole conversation.  It's not crazy to believe this, that is and has always been the way progression works.  Right down to rebranding itself with the root "progress."  The exertion of will over others via whatever self-righteous justification is fashionable at the time.

President Obama has publicly stated he would have liked to have done more about the "gun problem."  It's the president of the United States?  There's a little power there.  http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9031771/louisiana-theater-shooting-obama

What "gun enthusiasts" are responding to is that many of those advocating restrictions do not like gun enthusiasts.  You aren't really concerned for their safety.  But you won't come right out and say it.  Dishonesty is really easy to pick up on.

Right now it is legal for you to buy and own sunglasses.  There's no law that says it is legal, but you can do it (lost and found at a waterpark might be a more mustachian place to start).  When the sunglass murderer bludgeons everyone leaving the mall to death with his Oakley's, there's no national call to ban sunglasses, there's no national news story calling the Oakley's factory workers evil.  You don't have to wait 3 days to buy a pair of Oakleys.  Guns are way way better at the job than Oakleys.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners (99.99%) never has and never will use them to hurt another person is just totally left off the fact sheet.

So maybe some sort of consumer protection effort is warranted?  I mean, I need a license to get a car, and there's all kinds of stuff I gotta do to buy an airplane.  Axes and chainsaws don't require any special protections, dude comes at you with a chainsaw and you're pretty boned.

But guns are afforded some constitutional protection.  I think the well regulated militia part could be a bigger part of the conversation, but it is difficult to reconcile the very real need to protect yourself from a hostile government with the inability to park an F-16 on your driveway.  And yes I know that right now I don't need to protect myself from a hostile government, but from time to time the British are indeed coming.

What's silly to me, is that further restrictions aren't welcomed in the name of safety at this point, given that "gun enthusiasts" have basically ignored what they should have been fighting for, the right to own AEGIS destroyers and cruise missiles.

When a rifle was the most advanced piece of hardware the military possessed, the constitution made it legal for anyone to own one.  Where's the case law protecting my right to own an ICBM?  Mutually assured self-government.  2nd amendment folks have woefully failed to protect the actual intent of the law.

Some places have made progress on the pool issue.  I guess.  One difference between me and you is that I don't see that as actual progress.  I see it as one more reason to own a gun.  With some limited exception, your right to tell me what to do really ought to end at my property line.  I know we've gotten pretty far away from that.  But the casualness with which you will strip me of freedom for the tiniest bit of safety is terrifying to quite a few people.

You can try to understand that, or not.  Entirely up to you.  If you do embrace compassion you might find it easier to talk to the other side and get some insight into how to actually address the problem.

Banning/restricting pools/guns is a violent act.  The use of force through the state.  Persuade people they don't need guns or pools.

I do not own a gun and likely never will.  If you restrict my freedom to do so you have committed an act of violence against me, and I did nothing to you (and intended nothing towards you).

The gun enthusiast is coming from a place of having their freedom threatened.  Whatever motivations you actually have, the true force and effect of what you are trying to accomplish is an act of violence against them.  Literally at the point of a gun, will you take their guns.  The threat of state sponsored force is behind all capitulations.

An F-16 in my driveway though, that's what the conversation should be about.  This is a battle lost long ago.

First they took our aircraft carriers, then they took our high explosives and tanks.  I'm drawing the line at my grandpa's old hunting rifle?  Declare victory and move on.

[Philociraptor]

2nd amendment folks believe:  The plan is to ban this first, then from there to ban this, and then this other, and slowly, bit by bit, as each little piece isn't overturned, we change the whole conversation.  It's not crazy to believe this, that is and has always been the way progression works.  Right down to rebranding itself with the root "progress."  The exertion of will over others via whatever self-righteous justification is fashionable at the time.

This is exactly how conservatives in legislatures around the country have been fighting their battle against abortion. And they're winning.

[forummm]

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

I disagree on both points. Gun enthusiasts are constantly being alarmist about someone taking away their guns. And no one has actually done that, and no one with any power has even suggested it. Which is also counter to your second point. I've never heard anyone with any power suggest amending the Constitution to ban guns. And if they did suggest such a thing it wouldn't matter because it would go nowhere. The farthest policy changes I've heard suggested are closing loopholes so that clearly dangerous people don't get guns and ineffectual changes to the kinds of guns sold so that they are still more than enough to kill everyone in your neighborhood, but it would take you some effort and maybe more time to do it.

Now on the other side, if you have a pool you are required by law (at least in the jurisdictions I'm aware of) to have it locked up at all times unless an adult is present. And the home owner is legally responsible for accidents that happen in their pool. People can go to jail and be sued for negligence.

Well, your points of "people do want gun control" and "don't worry, it will be ineffectual" but "gun people are alarmist"...  Either there are people out there trying to restrict the ownership of guns, or there aren't.  It doesn't make sense to argue that you want to change things to prevent a problem, but that any changes you propose will be inadequate.  You are being disingenuous in your argument. 

2nd amendment folks believe:  The plan is to ban this first, then from there to ban this, and then this other, and slowly, bit by bit, as each little piece isn't overturned, we change the whole conversation.  It's not crazy to believe this, that is and has always been the way progression works.  Right down to rebranding itself with the root "progress."  The exertion of will over others via whatever self-righteous justification is fashionable at the time.

President Obama has publicly stated he would have liked to have done more about the "gun problem."  It's the president of the United States?  There's a little power there.  http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9031771/louisiana-theater-shooting-obama

What "gun enthusiasts" are responding to is that many of those advocating restrictions do not like gun enthusiasts.  You aren't really concerned for their safety.  But you won't come right out and say it.  Dishonesty is really easy to pick up on.

Right now it is legal for you to buy and own sunglasses.  There's no law that says it is legal, but you can do it (lost and found at a waterpark might be a more mustachian place to start).  When the sunglass murderer bludgeons everyone leaving the mall to death with his Oakley's, there's no national call to ban sunglasses, there's no national news story calling the Oakley's factory workers evil.  You don't have to wait 3 days to buy a pair of Oakleys.  Guns are way way better at the job than Oakleys.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners (99.99%) never has and never will use them to hurt another person is just totally left off the fact sheet.

So maybe some sort of consumer protection effort is warranted?  I mean, I need a license to get a car, and there's all kinds of stuff I gotta do to buy an airplane.  Axes and chainsaws don't require any special protections, dude comes at you with a chainsaw and you're pretty boned.

But guns are afforded some constitutional protection.  I think the well regulated militia part could be a bigger part of the conversation, but it is difficult to reconcile the very real need to protect yourself from a hostile government with the inability to park an F-16 on your driveway.  And yes I know that right now I don't need to protect myself from a hostile government, but from time to time the British are indeed coming.

What's silly to me, is that further restrictions aren't welcomed in the name of safety at this point, given that "gun enthusiasts" have basically ignored what they should have been fighting for, the right to own AEGIS destroyers and cruise missiles.

When a rifle was the most advanced piece of hardware the military possessed, the constitution made it legal for anyone to own one.  Where's the case law protecting my right to own an ICBM?  Mutually assured self-government.  2nd amendment folks have woefully failed to protect the actual intent of the law.

Some places have made progress on the pool issue.  I guess.  One difference between me and you is that I don't see that as actual progress.  I see it as one more reason to own a gun.  With some limited exception, your right to tell me what to do really ought to end at my property line.  I know we've gotten pretty far away from that.  But the casualness with which you will strip me of freedom for the tiniest bit of safety is terrifying to quite a few people.

You can try to understand that, or not.  Entirely up to you.  If you do embrace compassion you might find it easier to talk to the other side and get some insight into how to actually address the problem.

Banning/restricting pools/guns is a violent act.  The use of force through the state.  Persuade people they don't need guns or pools.

I do not own a gun and likely never will.  If you restrict my freedom to do so you have committed an act of violence against me, and I did nothing to you (and intended nothing towards you).

The gun enthusiast is coming from a place of having their freedom threatened.  Whatever motivations you actually have, the true force and effect of what you are trying to accomplish is an act of violence against them.  Literally at the point of a gun, will you take their guns.  The threat of state sponsored force is behind all capitulations.

An F-16 in my driveway though, that's what the conversation should be about.  This is a battle lost long ago.

First they took our aircraft carriers, then they took our high explosives and tanks.  I'm drawing the line at my grandpa's old hunting rifle?  Declare victory and move on.

Dude, you're all over the place. And I feel like you didn't read what I said. All I said is that gun enthusiasts are the only ones (with any power) who are talking about anyone banning guns and taking away guns. A Constitutional amendment to ban guns would maybe have like 6 people in Congress vote for it. It's absurd to even discuss it as a possibility. And I also said that the only reforms that anyone with any power are talking about are incredibly minor ones, and even those won't get passed. So they are nowhere near taking away anyone's guns. Fact.

I think the reason that gun control advocates don't like gun enthusiasts is that they know that the gun enthusiasts make life more dangerous for everyone.

The difference between guns and sunglasses is that guns are intentionally designed to kill people. That's their only job (other than hunting). And we don't have mass sunglass murders every week. If we had mass sunglass murders every week, there would be some kind of regulation to make sunglasses less dangerous or restrict their availability.

[regulator]

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

I disagree on both points. Gun enthusiasts are constantly being alarmist about someone taking away their guns. And no one has actually done that, and no one with any power has even suggested it. Which is also counter to your second point. I've never heard anyone with any power suggest amending the Constitution to ban guns. And if they did suggest such a thing it wouldn't matter because it would go nowhere. The farthest policy changes I've heard suggested are closing loopholes so that clearly dangerous people don't get guns and ineffectual changes to the kinds of guns sold so that they are still more than enough to kill everyone in your neighborhood, but it would take you some effort and maybe more time to do it.

Now on the other side, if you have a pool you are required by law (at least in the jurisdictions I'm aware of) to have it locked up at all times unless an adult is present. And the home owner is legally responsible for accidents that happen in their pool. People can go to jail and be sued for negligence.

Well, your points of "people do want gun control" and "don't worry, it will be ineffectual" but "gun people are alarmist"...  Either there are people out there trying to restrict the ownership of guns, or there aren't.  It doesn't make sense to argue that you want to change things to prevent a problem, but that any changes you propose will be inadequate.  You are being disingenuous in your argument. 

2nd amendment folks believe:  The plan is to ban this first, then from there to ban this, and then this other, and slowly, bit by bit, as each little piece isn't overturned, we change the whole conversation.  It's not crazy to believe this, that is and has always been the way progression works.  Right down to rebranding itself with the root "progress."  The exertion of will over others via whatever self-righteous justification is fashionable at the time.

President Obama has publicly stated he would have liked to have done more about the "gun problem."  It's the president of the United States?  There's a little power there.  http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9031771/louisiana-theater-shooting-obama

What "gun enthusiasts" are responding to is that many of those advocating restrictions do not like gun enthusiasts.  You aren't really concerned for their safety.  But you won't come right out and say it.  Dishonesty is really easy to pick up on.

Right now it is legal for you to buy and own sunglasses.  There's no law that says it is legal, but you can do it (lost and found at a waterpark might be a more mustachian place to start).  When the sunglass murderer bludgeons everyone leaving the mall to death with his Oakley's, there's no national call to ban sunglasses, there's no national news story calling the Oakley's factory workers evil.  You don't have to wait 3 days to buy a pair of Oakleys.  Guns are way way better at the job than Oakleys.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners (99.99%) never has and never will use them to hurt another person is just totally left off the fact sheet.

So maybe some sort of consumer protection effort is warranted?  I mean, I need a license to get a car, and there's all kinds of stuff I gotta do to buy an airplane.  Axes and chainsaws don't require any special protections, dude comes at you with a chainsaw and you're pretty boned.

But guns are afforded some constitutional protection.  I think the well regulated militia part could be a bigger part of the conversation, but it is difficult to reconcile the very real need to protect yourself from a hostile government with the inability to park an F-16 on your driveway.  And yes I know that right now I don't need to protect myself from a hostile government, but from time to time the British are indeed coming.

What's silly to me, is that further restrictions aren't welcomed in the name of safety at this point, given that "gun enthusiasts" have basically ignored what they should have been fighting for, the right to own AEGIS destroyers and cruise missiles.

When a rifle was the most advanced piece of hardware the military possessed, the constitution made it legal for anyone to own one.  Where's the case law protecting my right to own an ICBM?  Mutually assured self-government.  2nd amendment folks have woefully failed to protect the actual intent of the law.

Some places have made progress on the pool issue.  I guess.  One difference between me and you is that I don't see that as actual progress.  I see it as one more reason to own a gun.  With some limited exception, your right to tell me what to do really ought to end at my property line.  I know we've gotten pretty far away from that.  But the casualness with which you will strip me of freedom for the tiniest bit of safety is terrifying to quite a few people.

You can try to understand that, or not.  Entirely up to you.  If you do embrace compassion you might find it easier to talk to the other side and get some insight into how to actually address the problem.

Banning/restricting pools/guns is a violent act.  The use of force through the state.  Persuade people they don't need guns or pools.

I do not own a gun and likely never will.  If you restrict my freedom to do so you have committed an act of violence against me, and I did nothing to you (and intended nothing towards you).

The gun enthusiast is coming from a place of having their freedom threatened.  Whatever motivations you actually have, the true force and effect of what you are trying to accomplish is an act of violence against them.  Literally at the point of a gun, will you take their guns.  The threat of state sponsored force is behind all capitulations.

An F-16 in my driveway though, that's what the conversation should be about.  This is a battle lost long ago.

First they took our aircraft carriers, then they took our high explosives and tanks.  I'm drawing the line at my grandpa's old hunting rifle?  Declare victory and move on.

Dude, you're all over the place. And I feel like you didn't read what I said. All I said is that gun enthusiasts are the only ones (with any power) who are talking about anyone banning guns and taking away guns. A Constitutional amendment to ban guns would maybe have like 6 people in Congress vote for it. It's absurd to even discuss it as a possibility. And I also said that the only reforms that anyone with any power are talking about are incredibly minor ones, and even those won't get passed. So they are nowhere near taking away anyone's guns. Fact.

I think the reason that gun control advocates don't like gun enthusiasts is that they know that the gun enthusiasts make life more dangerous for everyone.

The difference between guns and sunglasses is that guns are intentionally designed to kill people. That's their only job (other than hunting). And we don't have mass sunglass murders every week. If we had mass sunglass murders every week, there would be some kind of regulation to make sunglasses less dangerous or restrict their availability.

I am sure I will regret opening my mouth, but...

Yes, any attempt to remove the second amendment would quickly go down in flames.  Statists know this and therefore their efforts have been incrementalist over the years.  They have largely conceded defeat at the Federal level and so now the battle is state by state.  You may not own a magazine with capacity over X rounds.  You may not own a specific type of rifle.  You must jump through hoops to buy a handgun.  You may not use a certain type of ammunition.  Chip, chip, chip and pretty soon the face of Teddy Roosevelt has been chopped off Mt. Rushmore.  It is very clear this is the agenda, so don't be shocked when those who believe the right to keep and bear arms is important react loudly and frequently.  Otherwise you keep giving inches and one day you wonder why you are a mile away.

Guns have lots of uses/jobs.  Hunting, obviously. Deterrent value.  Self defense.  Murder.  Military use.  Target shooting.  I have lots of fun shooting trap.  If you do not like them, don't own one.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I had another pretty long post typed out, but I'm going to try a different tact, mostly because, you know, internet arguing.

My original claim is that if we as a cultural became much less tolerant of violence, we'd be better off.  That was taken as me being anti-gun, I tried to bring it back to the original point, which was taken as being pro-gun?  I respect both sides and what they are trying to accomplish, I think the ongoing struggle serves a purpose, I'm status-quo when it comes to guns.  I don't think any of the problems in the world today would go away if you removed each and every gun.  I think some people would be surprised at how quickly some situations got worse.  And I don't know of any solutions proposed by GCA's or by GE's that really addresses the other's concerns.

And alot of that is GE's jumping to the conclusion that people who say they want to ban their guns want to ban their guns (I can't imagine why they would believe that).

And alot of that is GCA's saying stuff like GE's make life more dangerous for everyone.  A blatantly false and disrespectful statement given that the vast overwhelming majority of the 300 million privately owned guns in this country have never and will never harm or kill a human being.

For a long time now, both sides of that particular debate need to have a goodly amount more compassion and respect for the other side.  One side wants to protect the other from the dangers they are worried about.  So does the other.

[forummm]

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument wrt gun control. We're so far from anything slippery. But that's a matter of opinion.

And alot of that is GCA's saying stuff like GE's make life more dangerous for everyone.  A blatantly false and disrespectful statement given that the vast overwhelming majority of the 300 million privately owned guns in this country have never and will never harm or kill a human being.

This is just blatantly wrong. Did you look at any of the 8 links I provided this afternoon? It's not also just that individuals who have guns are more likely to be involved in a violent death, but it's also countries with lots of guns have lots more murder. Japan has a murder rate literally 15 times less than the US. Canada and the UK have murder rates 5 times less.

Your statement fallaciously conflates the factual assertion that more guns is correlated with more murder to mean that most people who have a gun have shot some person. That's wholly different than what anyone has said. And not a sound use of logical reasoning. A small fraction of people with guns have shot someone. Just like a small fraction of people who have driven drunk have actually killed someone. And a small percentage of swimming pools have had drownings occur in them. But these three activities are associated with increased rates of death.

[regulator]

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument wrt gun control. We're so far from anything slippery. But that's a matter of opinion.

Whether you agree with it or not, that is how it appears to me and a lot of people who believe in RKBA.  Anticipating the reactions of gun owners to the upcoming election season, I have made darn sure to make sure I have on hand whatever I feel the need to own in the way of ammunition and reloading components.  Guessing there will be a panic next year leading to serious shortages.

As an aside, I believe we have had a lot of freedoms stripped away over the past 15 years.  I don't plan on letting this one go.

[forummm]

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument wrt gun control. We're so far from anything slippery. But that's a matter of opinion.

Whether you agree with it or not, that is how it appears to me and a lot of people who believe in RKBA.  Anticipating the reactions of gun owners to the upcoming election season, I have made darn sure to make sure I have on hand whatever I feel the need to own in the way of ammunition and reloading components.  Guessing there will be a panic next year leading to serious shortages.

As an aside, I believe we have had a lot of freedoms stripped away over the past 15 years.  I don't plan on letting this one go.

Gun enthusiast fears have been intentionally stoked by gun manufacturers and their lobby (the NRA) for years. The result has been huge profits as people have stocked up on guns and ammo, year over year. And at the same time, no one has come for anyone's guns. Yet the scaremongering continues and the amount of guns pile up and the manufacturers get richer.

[regulator]

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument wrt gun control. We're so far from anything slippery. But that's a matter of opinion.

Whether you agree with it or not, that is how it appears to me and a lot of people who believe in RKBA.  Anticipating the reactions of gun owners to the upcoming election season, I have made darn sure to make sure I have on hand whatever I feel the need to own in the way of ammunition and reloading components.  Guessing there will be a panic next year leading to serious shortages.

As an aside, I believe we have had a lot of freedoms stripped away over the past 15 years.  I don't plan on letting this one go.

Gun enthusiast fears have been intentionally stoked by gun manufacturers and their lobby (the NRA) for years. The result has been huge profits as people have stocked up on guns and ammo, year over year. And at the same time, no one has come for anyone's guns. Yet the scaremongering continues and the amount of guns pile up and the manufacturers get richer.

Don't patronize me.  I am bright enough and cynical enough to see various interest groups for what they are and form my own opinions.  There are dozens of attempts at incrementalism every year.  It never stops, but sometimes things reach a peak.  A few years ago my state enacted some truly stupid laws in the name of gun control, some of which are unenforceable and some of which are redundant.  That was the best case, as unconstitutional laws were on the table.  I look forward to the repeal of the very dumbest of these laws.  But in the meantime, I will ensure that I have what I want/need and continue my membership in state and national groups that defend my rights.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument wrt gun control. We're so far from anything slippery. But that's a matter of opinion.

And alot of that is GCA's saying stuff like GE's make life more dangerous for everyone.  A blatantly false and disrespectful statement given that the vast overwhelming majority of the 300 million privately owned guns in this country have never and will never harm or kill a human being.

This is just blatantly wrong. Did you look at any of the 8 links I provided this afternoon? It's not also just that individuals who have guns are more likely to be involved in a violent death, but it's also countries with lots of guns have lots more murder. Japan has a murder rate literally 15 times less than the US. Canada and the UK have murder rates 5 times less.

Your statement fallaciously conflates the factual assertion that more guns is correlated with more murder to mean that most people who have a gun have shot some person. That's wholly different than what anyone has said. And not a sound use of logical reasoning. A small fraction of people with guns have shot someone. Just like a small fraction of people who have driven drunk have actually killed someone. And a small percentage of swimming pools have had drownings occur in them. But these three activities are associated with increased rates of death.

Alright.  You said that gun enthusiasts make life more dangerous for everyone.  Even if it were true that 99 out of 100 of those gun enthusiasts owned a gun that was used for any malicious purpose or accidental purpose which cause harm, the remaining one is slighted by your comment.  The FACT that 40-50 million gun owners have never and will never do anything wrong with their firearm, despite never doing anything helpful with it either, is what I was saying.  I didn't say anything aside from pointing out what you implied.

I looked at all the links, lets go through them all.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101532.htm :

This is about how it more likely to cause harm to have a gun in your home than benefit.  I already knew that.  I never asserted that gun ownership was not something that is associated with an increased rate of death (and a whole host of other things).  You don't seem to realize that it can be true for something to be dangerous and also true for someone who is appropriately managing those risks to responsibly pursue it.  It does not automatically have the same moral hazard associated with it that drunk driving does.  That was...an inappropriate comparison.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full :

This is a breakdown of the odds comparison of death in a home with a gun vs. without.  As many of these articles, it is establishing a link between dying and owning a gun.  As with virtually every study it very carefully talks about the increase in chances of death, without talking about the overall chances of death.  And this statement, though it doesn't appear in the study, is true:  The odds of dying as result of a homicide committed using a firearm are vanishingly small, despite being more likely if you own a gun.  You are far far more likely to die from some other cause.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full

This was one of my favorites, because it looked specifically at handgun purchases.  So if you bought a handgun recently, you were more likely to die in a violent death than if you didn't buy a handgun recently.  Buying a handgun didn't increase your safety (therefore, I guess we conclude).  It's an interesting idea, but drawing conclusions from it is a little nuts.  The most rational policy initiative I can think of, is that anyone purchasing a handgun be offered 24/7 police protection (someone is coming for me, I need to protect myself), a job (I need a gun to go steal some stuff I can't afford), or a chill pill (I need to go kill someone!).  Oh wait, these aren't people who committed a crime, these are people that presumably were the victim of a crime.  So I guess we're supposed to conclude that buying a handgun, regardless of your exposure to risk factors that would make one feel necessary, will increase your risk of violent death.

There's just so many places to go with that data, it's hard to attach any particular conclusion from it other than: our data shows that we have data.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490 :

Another study examining the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot wound in a home with a gun vs. one without.  Surprise surprise, it's higher if there's a gun in the home.  I'm a little curious how you accidentally get shot in a home without a gun, I guess it comes in from the neighbor's house?  What ought to be terrifying about this is that scenario, but they don't talk about that.  Also, still no mention of the overall likelihood of dying from a gun, in particular, nothing about how other people owning guns affects my mortality rate.  4 more to go!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/ :

Different data same conclusions, I have the same response.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ :

I really liked that one.  Basically all of the arguments that presumably I and every other gun enthusiast could possibly make are false.  Guns aren't actually used for self defense, criminals get shot by other criminals not law abiding citizens, and having a gun in the home makes you far more likely to use it to intimidate spouse/partner/child/friend.  Except that I did know all that.  It is possible to know that and still respect the right of a gun owner to own his gun.  Using that gun illegally, even within their own home, still illegal.  You're going to have a hard time finding anyone to disagree with that.  It doesn't change the reality that existing gun control has done little to curtail criminal access to guns or such abuses within the home, while greatly increasing the costs for legal ownership for lawful purpose.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association :

So here we begin to see your problem.  You wanted to have an argument about this, where you could trot out how I was wrong.  But none of these are reasons I support gun ownership.  I support gun ownership because it is one of the pillars that created a free society.  I know that many gun owners make the arguments you were geared up to tear down, but I didn't make any of those arguments.  The way in which gun control advocates use this data is arriving at the conclusion they want though.  It isn't a given that a world in which you are too afraid to enter the dark alley unarmed, and therefore are not harmed because you didn't go into the alley, is necessarily a world that is better than the one where you felt safe because you were armed and got harmed.  Do you not see that both situations are awful?  Being afraid, as a law abiding citizen, is bullshit.  Take care of that problem, and you persuade the gun enthusiast to forego ownership.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check :

I read this article a couple of years ago and I still remember liking it because of how obvious it is in omitting the next part of the conversation.

From the article: myth 1, they're coming for your guns.  The claim is that with 300 million guns out there, they can't possibly take them all back.  Forgetting for a minute that if you passed that law, quite a few people would turn them in (because JFC we are law abiding citizens!), guns wear out.  Restricting the purchase sunsets the ownership.  It's playing the long game and gun enthusiasts are not stupid.

myth 2: guns don't kill people, people kill people.  This is one of the better claims, and they get points for being right, but the presentation is all wrong.  The author is accidentally right.  The actual data cited presents and supports the counterfactual.  What the article means to say is that more people die (total) in states with high gun ownership rates.  That's true.  But what it actually says, is that when you die in those states, it's just more likely to be from guns.  You're dead either way.  Like I said, I understood what they meant to say.  It's tricky using statistics when you're bad at math.

myth 3: an armed society is a polite society.  I don't know where this came from, I'd never heard of it (the theory or the counter).  The data to refute the myth is all over the place random stuff about road rage.  And a thing about texans concealed handgun license which is almost proof positive that Texans are very law abiding when it comes to getting licensed.  Doesn't seem to demonstrate to me what they think it should.

myth 4: good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.  Yup, I agree with the authors.  It isn't about civilian law enforcement.  I'm sorry I wasn't making these really stupid arguments for you to easily tear apart.

Etc. etc. etc.

Nothing in any of those links supports your assertion that gun enthusiasts make life more dangerous for everyone.  There's a ton of data to support that having a gun in your home increases YOUR mortality rate, with the overwhelming majority of THAT risk being from shooting yourself (accidentally or on purpose).  Your overall mortality rate is [undetermined] based on your cited data.  I looked it up on my own and it's tiny.  At least in the short term.  As time goes on though it becomes, you know, probability =1.

So as long as the collective "everyone" stays the fuck out of the gun enthusiasts house, they're good to go.

What's irritating about the body of data you cited is the manipulative way the data is presented.  Everything is recast in terms of multiples and relative comparison, instead of the absolute values being shown.

What percentage of homes with a gun have a gun-related homicide?  I don't know from reading your data, neither do you.
What percentage of homes without a gun have a gun-related homicide?  I don't know from reading your data, neither do you.

But it's 3-5 times more likely if you have a gun in the home.  It's telling that it is presented in only that way.  If they presented it another way, the reader might automatically ask the question, with such a small rate, is there something else that might account for what you're seeing?  And also, with such a small rate, why the hell are you making such a big deal out of it?

The truth, deep down, is that gun control advocates don't like gun enthusiasts.  But it's criminals that are the problem, not gun enthusiasts.  Living with the kind of person who would go out and buy a gun to intimidate you increases your chance of living with that type of person.  By you know, 100 percentage points.  The gun enthusiast that buys the nickel plated revolver with the ivory grip, and then locks it in a display case, with no ammo for it in the house, that guy doesn't increase anyone's mortality rate.  Like, at all.  Zero.  The guy who buys a gun because he's surrounded all day every day by criminals who also have guns, yea, that guy is more likely to die in a gunfight.  This isn't significantly relevant information to your point.

Applying the data like that is a gross misuse of statistics.  It's not why the data was assembled, but it is definitely why it was reported in that way.

What actually increases your risk of dying due to a firearm?  I mean what choice can you make to dramatically increase your odds?

Become a criminal.
Enter law enforcement, particularly in areas with a lot of gun violence.
Become a soldier.

If the fact that it increases your mortality was genuinely a factor in your decision making process, I presume you:
Do not drive a car, ever.
Do not go swimming, ever.
Do not consume anything but a purely vegetarian diet.
Exercise at least a half hour a day, but preferably maintain a light level of activity all day.
Avoid all travel to foreign countries.
And avoid all contact with men.

Any one of these behaviors is associated with at least a sixteen-fold decrease in your chance of dying vs the decrease from not owning a firearm.

I made that up! But there's some statistic like that, it's late and I'm going to sleep.

[MoonShadow]

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

I disagree on both points. Gun enthusiasts are constantly being alarmist about someone taking away their guns. And no one has actually done that, and no one with any power has even suggested it.

Oh, really?  Not a student of history, are you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[EricL]

 Wheee! We fiinally made it to gun control.  Nobody's gonna change anybody's opinion on THAT subject here. So this is where I eject. See y'all on another thread somewhere.  I still got to find out why regular index funds beat dividend funds anyways.

[MoonShadow]

I still got to find out why regular index funds beat dividend funds anyways.

I would like to see the evidence that they do, before I even look for an explaination.

[forummm]

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

I disagree on both points. Gun enthusiasts are constantly being alarmist about someone taking away their guns. And no one has actually done that, and no one with any power has even suggested it.

Oh, really?  Not a student of history, are you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The fact that you have to point to a law over 80 years old proves my point. No one is (i.e. the present tense) coming to take your guns away. I realize the quoted says "has", but the context was clearly the current era where the fearmongering is taking place and any policy going forward would have to be implemented. And the NFA was just a tax.

[forummm]

Wheee! We fiinally made it to gun control.  Nobody's gonna change anybody's opinion on THAT subject here. So this is where I eject. See y'all on another thread somewhere.  I still got to find out why regular index funds beat dividend funds anyways.

It's actually more inane than that. No one is advocating for gun control. But the very factual assertions that numbers of guns present increases risk of death (e.g. US murder rate is 15x Japan's, 5x Canada's, 5x UK's, etc) and that no one is coming to take people's guns away invoke the emotional responses as though someone was advocating for gun control.

[GuitarStv]

The same logic put forward for reasons to own a gun can be applied to legalizing ownership of a thermonuclear device.

- I'm a responsible bomb user, I'd never harm others with my weapon of mass destruction.
- 99/100 people who own nukes wouldn't use them to hurt people, therefore nukes shouldn't be banned.
- A nuke is about as useful for hunting as a handgun.
- If a gun is a deterrent, a nuke is a much bigger deterrent.  Therefore nukes are useful for self defense.
- Only criminals or terrorists with nukes are a problem.  I'm not a criminal or a terrorist, so why should ownership be restricted?  If I don't own a nuke, I'll just be terrorized by a criminal who'll get one from Russia.
- Nukes will be more useful to defend our country from the king of England.
- I like to carry around my nuke concealed in a backpack.  Y'know.  Just in case.  Would would you try to take away my security?
- If you don't like nukes, don't own one.  Nobody's making you.
- Nukes don't kill people, people activating nukes kill people.
- Statistically, far fewer people are killed by nukes than other means.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima together killed about 200,000 people . . . but 1.3 million die in road crashes around the world each year.  Nobody's talking about banning cars.

[dachs]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/some-nervous-texans-are-stockpiling-ammo-hiding-weapons-just-in-case-as-jade-helm-begins

So, the army is doing a military drill . . . and Texans decide that this is really a secret invasion . . . and start stockpiling guns and ammo in order to fight them off?  OK, a few nutjobs being crazy, that's nothing new.  The Governor of Texas has ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor US military training activities (to help prevent the potential invasion).  WTF?

The fact that people think that their own army is going to invade their homes isn't the funniest part of the story . . . it's that they think some small arms would be effective deterrant against an organized military assault with tanks and bombers.  Do Americans know how ridiculous they look to the rest of the world when they do this shit?

Don't take a gun to a drone-fight ;)

[TheOldestYoungMan]

The same logic put forward for reasons to own a gun can be applied to legalizing ownership of a thermonuclear device.

- I'm a responsible bomb user, I'd never harm others with my weapon of mass destruction.
- 99/100 people who own nukes wouldn't use them to hurt people, therefore nukes shouldn't be banned.
- A nuke is about as useful for hunting as a handgun.
- If a gun is a deterrent, a nuke is a much bigger deterrent.  Therefore nukes are useful for self defense.
- Only criminals or terrorists with nukes are a problem.  I'm not a criminal or a terrorist, so why should ownership be restricted?  If I don't own a nuke, I'll just be terrorized by a criminal who'll get one from Russia.
- Nukes will be more useful to defend our country from the king of England.
- I like to carry around my nuke concealed in a backpack.  Y'know.  Just in case.  Would would you try to take away my security?
- If you don't like nukes, don't own one.  Nobody's making you.
- Nukes don't kill people, people activating nukes kill people.
- Statistically, far fewer people are killed by nukes than other means.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima together killed about 200,000 people . . . but 1.3 million die in road crashes around the world each year.  Nobody's talking about banning cars.

And that's where the difference between the two sides can be seen.  I respect the rule of law, and the constitution is the law of the land.  The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to own a thermonuclear device.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That arms, which is derived from armaments, which would include any weapon at all, are restricted in any way, regardless of any justification you want to provide, is a violation of this right.  I am not disputing that with significant arms controls there are more people left alive at the end of the day.  I'm disputing that 'more people being alive at the end of the day' is the only thing that is relevant to the conversation.

There is MASSIVE arms control in this country.  A constant lobby supported by virtually ever gun owner is necessary to maintain ownership of guns.  But we definitely lost the right to own armed tanks and bombers.  Nukes were probably always out of our price range.  I think there is legislation preventing us from owning nukes, it would be interesting to see how that case law played out.  I certainly would love to see the majority decision "while the constitution absolutely empowers us to strike down this law...no, just no."  And the dissenting opinion "yea...no."  It hasn't come up because once you have enough cash to buy a nuke, as a responsible person, you go ahead and do not buy a nuke.

And unsubstantiated statements like "gun enthusiasts make life more dangerous for everyone" and comparing gun owners to drunk drivers, is disrespectful.

Lots of people drink alcohol.  A small subsection of drinkers drink enough to get drunk.  A much smaller subsection of those drive drunk.  Only this last bit is doing something wrong (assuming you don't have a moral objection to legal activities, if you don't like alcohol consumption on principle I guess this analogy isn't going to work either).  Legislation that targets and punishes them is great.  Efforts to get them to stop doing that have worked pretty well (designated driver, free cab ride, etc).  That's after significant evidence that drunk drivers were causing significant harm to others.  Problem identified, solutions proposed.

Gun control advocates go after everyone, not the small subsection of the small subsection of gun owners who are the actual problem.  And it's because gun control advocates aren't trying to deal with the actual problems, they just want to get rid of guns.  If they were trying to deal with the actual problem then they'd say things like "irresponsible gun owners make life almost immeasurably slightly more dangerous for everyone and dramatically more dangerous for themselves."

 But the very factual assertions that numbers of guns present increases risk of death (e.g. US murder rate is 15x Japan's, 5x Canada's, 5x UK's, etc)

There are more guns, and there is more murder.  If the US had 15x as many guns as Japan, then that statistic still wouldn't mean what you are claiming.  That the US has like a million x as many guns as Japan and only 15x the murder rate ought to tell you that there's more to the story.  Like maybe we're a little more cavalier with violence in general.  The gross abuse of statistics on the GCA side of the argument hurts their agenda so much.

You didn't look for more though (and it is out there).  You got the statistics from media/lobbies that absolutely would ban all guns in the US.  That they haven't done that yet because of constant organized resistance against them is not the same thing as nobody trying to ban them.

[RetiredAt63]

CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Spike_%28Canadian_Pacific_Railway%29
I guess back then they liked the photo op of driving in the last spike of these big projects.

It was important, a trans-continental railway was a condition of BC entering confederation .

But we tend to focus on other things - a lot of our nation building mythos focuses on the vastness angle, like the LAST SPIKE!!!  What is the American equivalent of the Canadian Railroad Trilogy?

Eh? The Union Pacific vs Central Pacific feud ended in Utah with a Golden Spike (aka the Last Spike as well).

[RetiredAt63]

As I posted above:
"Twice, actually.  Almost three times.  Once in the Revolutionary war (Quebec), and then again in the war of 1812-14 (of Laura Secord fame - the moral of that story is to not talk about attack plans while your unwilling "hostess" is serving your meal and can hear your plans).  Then there were the Fenian Raids, which were not official but did a lot to push us into Confederation.  Plus "Manifest Destiny" has made us nervous more than once."

The first time the US wasn't a country either, just a bunch of revolting states.
Second time, yes the territory that was to become Canada was still British colonies, that were well on their way to self-government.  So the US had invaded a foreign country, whose nationals fought back.  Militia helped with the fighting in US territory, and a lot of the British forces ended up settling in the colonies. 

Fenian raids were not discouraged by American authorities.

All of this reinforced the determination of the colonials to go their own way, instead of joining with their southern neighbour.

No.

First, there was no "Canada" in 1812.  It was still a colony of Britain, and would be for many decades to follow.

The forces that burned DC were British regulars, battle hardened veterans fresh from the Napoleonic Wars who swept aside the largely militia forces around Baltimore and DC.  After fighting Napoleon's professional army, defeating the Maryland militia must have seemed like a walk in the park.

The battles in upstate NY and the colonies of what is now Canada were largely a cluster fuck, inept militia forces dominated both sides.  The Americans tried to invade the British "Canadian" colonies and failed miserably, due more to their own colossal incompetence than any brilliance on the part of the equally inept Canadian militias.  In short, it was "amateur hour" on both sides.

[MoonShadow]

What percentage of homes with a gun have a gun-related homicide?  I don't know from reading your data, neither do you.
What percentage of homes without a gun have a gun-related homicide?  I don't know from reading your data, neither do you.

But it's 3-5 times more likely if you have a gun in the home.  It's telling that it is presented in only that way.  If they presented it another way, the reader might automatically ask the question, with such a small rate, is there something else that might account for what you're seeing?  And also, with such a small rate, why the hell are you making such a big deal out of it?

What actually increases your risk of dying due to a firearm?  I mean what choice can you make to dramatically increase your odds?

We actually do know this, but the numbers are still misleading.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

Total murders by firearms in 2013 was 8,454.  That about three per 100,000 or better.  Overall, the odds of being shot (not murdered) are about three times as high in a household with a firearm than one without; but those odds are not continuous.  It's about twice as high for a white country family, but about 8 times as high for a single black woman who lives in the city.  But corrolation is not causation, and that same single black female is about 15 times less likely to be a victim of some other violent crime, if the gun is her own. 

The single largest study on this topic is a book called More guns, Less Crime by John Lott.  The title is pretty much an effective summary.

[MishMash]

Locks are strictly a psychological barrier, they can all be picked, heck, most of them can be picked with a bobby pin, even the most secure door locks can be opened inside of a minute with just a few pieces of metal or a well placed kick...heck, I learned how to do it for fun (and for the fact that I am infamous at locking myself out).  The most advanced non biometric house locks are pretty much jokes are pretty much jokes, I assure you.

Consider the following options:

1.  No home defense at all (you don't choose this).
2.  Good set of locks and anonymity (most of us OK stopping here).
3.  A gun (more risk of being a victim of gun violence).
4.  A cobra (more risk of being a cobra victim).

In general I find gun ownership a more responsible choice than cobra ownership, particularly when it comes to home defense.

Gun owners ought to be forgiven their defensiveness at this point.  Having a swimming pool in your home is more likely to kill your child than having a gun, but you don't see calls to rewrite the constitution so you can't have a swimming pool.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Locks are strictly a psychological barrier, they can all be picked, heck, most of them can be picked with a bobby pin, even the most secure door locks can be opened inside of a minute with just a few pieces of metal or a well placed kick...heck, I learned how to do it for fun (and for the fact that I am infamous at locking myself out).  The most advanced non biometric house locks are pretty much jokes are pretty much jokes, I assure you.

Yea after the fourth time I got to hang out shirtless at wal-mart waiting on a friend with a spare key to show up I actually opted for the "don't own anything valuable" and "never lock the door" strategy.

[regulator]

- A nuke is about as useful for hunting as a handgun.

Not sure where you get this.  I carry a handgun the vast majority of times when I am hunting.  If I am hunting with a shotgun and wound prey, I usually finish it off with the handgun (much less messy/loss of meat).  Sometimes I hunt with just a handgun.  It is fun, less bulky, and much more challenging.  Making a good hit on a squirrel at 25 yards with a handgun is about as hard as it gets.  I don't swing that way, but many states (including mine) allow handgun hunting of large game (deer) and there are quite a few hunters out there doing just that.  Since they generally have to get a lot closer to their prey to make a shot, I am perfectly happy to have them doing so since there is way less chance they will not see me than when making a 300 yard rifle shot.

[GuitarStv]

- A nuke is about as useful for hunting as a handgun.

Not sure where you get this.  I carry a handgun the vast majority of times when I am hunting.  If I am hunting with a shotgun and wound prey, I usually finish it off with the handgun (much less messy/loss of meat).  Sometimes I hunt with just a handgun.  It is fun, less bulky, and much more challenging.  Making a good hit on a squirrel at 25 yards with a handgun is about as hard as it gets.  I don't swing that way, but many states (including mine) allow handgun hunting of large game (deer) and there are quite a few hunters out there doing just that.  Since they generally have to get a lot closer to their prey to make a shot, I am perfectly happy to have them doing so since there is way less chance they will not see me than when making a 300 yard rifle shot.

I always use a nuke to finish off wounded prey.  It is fun, less picky about direction of aiming, and more challenging to leave the animal dead from the shock-wave but not entirely vaporized.  Sometimes I hunt with just a tactical nuke for the challenge.

You're making the argument that a screwdriver is a great hammer substitute.  Sure, it can be used that way . . . but you're absolutely using the wrong tool for the job.

[Tyson]

Canada's violence statistics look remarkably similar to the U.S. if you compare beatings and non-firearm weapons.  They're super polite until the snow melts and you get 'em drunk.  Same as us.

I personally got punched in the face by two different Canadians in the last 12 months, both in my own house, both were drunk.  I don't really feel like either was warranted, fortunately they were Canadian so it didn't hurt (zing).

I'd just point out that getting punched in the face twice is a much better outcome than getting shot in the face twice.  That's why it's best not to have guns around.