It's probably indisputable at this point that inviting the citizen gravy seals to deal with real threats will probably result in fewer innocent victims than a professional SWAT force that professionally sometimes rescues hostages while also mostly being used to throw flashbangs at babies and terrorize people at 2am no-knocks over petty crimes.
There's an insane number of police shootings where it turns out the person was looking at an insanely large sentence and they "weren't going back to jail." From that perspective it's not even clear they're acting irrationally -- if the penalty for third-striking for stealing a TV and murder is the same then some criminals are going to make it worth their while.
At the range nearly all casual police interactions like traffic stop happen happen at (<20ft), a knife has to be treated just as deadly as a gun. So even if you remove the guns you'll still have to treat everyone as a deadly threat under such a model.
And yet mysteriously the British police seem to be able to deal with such situations with nothing more than a Taser - and often manage to avoid even using that. And yet, in spite of all the falsehoods being spread about knife crime levels, their mortality rate is much less than that in the US.
IIRC Some parts of argentina allow residents to vote. And you can file a citizenship case on day one of arrival and have it stalled for years until you actually meet the criteria (which due to their constitution which won't change easily, is basically "survive 2 years"). In the meanwhile you can't be deported with an open citizenship case.
You can get citizenship in like 90 days in Vanuatu or something. Nominally it's less democratic / more oppressive than the USA but in reality they barely know what's happening on many of the islands...
Not sure about them, but having lived or spent time in a many other cultures and countries, I found that I'd often start off with a cheery or neutral view of them but then when I get to know them and actually live with them there were points of cultural contention that were a lot less tolerable up close than at an easy distance where they were not my concern and that can often show up as projected as "racism." This doesn't mean they do things the wrong thing, it's just annoying to have to pick up a bunch of new and often incompatible new cultural systems to accommodate immigrants. If you're going to them, that's one thing and comes with the territory; but when they're coming to you and maybe you're already exhausted with johnny keeping you up all night and working enough hour to pay rent that extra effort to accommodate 10 extra different cultures 9 of whom might be unhappy if you treat them all the exact same could obviously be exhausting.
Then you start thinking maybe your mental or even physical burden could be lessened if you just had to deal with one cultural system or at least the previous number of ones you had to deal with. You start thinking maybe something like 1000 new Afghans would be a bit harder to deal with for you than 1000 new Frenchman. I don't think there's much stronger way of bringing about racism than actually getting to know and see other cultures, at a distance you can gloss over about anything as "we're all equal humans who should sing koombaya" but the rubber meets the road when your kid is trying to sleep for school and the local arabs have set up blaring calls to prayer at 2am.
People from any and all cultures do this, I have personally experienced it from black and white
> might be unhappy if you treat them all the exact same could
Depending on how you're going about this, you might find you'd be too, in their shoes?
> I don't think there's much stronger way of bringing about racism than actually getting to know and see other cultures
Then I think you need to go and have a real think about things. Also this sentiment is just not backed up by the data - if anything, more insular societies tend to be more racist/xenophobic than open ones. Ofc not everyone in either society shares the same sentiment, and for the open ones it depends on the cultures in question and how the integration is being handled. But in general it just sounds like you've opted for a more bigoted approach, which is your choice I guess.
AIPAC bought the KY-04 seat by pumping so much money into shows demented boomers watch that they completely upset the usual primary voters in the state by getting truckload of demented people to show up from a 30 second sound blurb played over and over that Massie was selling out Kentucky to the democrats. This despite the fact the votes from last term's primary voters basically did not change at all.
It's actually mind blowing how effective AIPAC is. They managed to upset one of the most popular Republicans in the US house by a genius campaign at non-voting demented boomers by tricking them to believe probably the most conservative guy in the entire congress is secretly a Democrat.
I'm not yielding to your premise but I'll entertain it for a moment. Massive biological differences aside, the rough composition and weight of a deer isn't so much different than a human. An AR chambered in something like 6.5 is one of the most ergonomic and effective deer killing machines you could possibly use. Very light, able to make follow up shots easily, swappable magazines, insane aftermarket availability and cheap ammunition for training because nearly the entire US military uses the parts, etc etc.
That's not determined by the gun but rather the magazine. The 30 round magazine is popular largely because it's often the cheapest and most readily available as the tooling was scaled up for mass production for the military. You can buy a 5 round magazine to put in an AR style gun it's just harder to find and it's not clear you're gaining much beyond maybe a slight hair better ergonomics or mobility from certain shooting positions so most hunters don't buy them.
If you want to single-load cartridges or pin to a 3 round magazine or whatever, have at it. Most of the argument still applies and especially the cheapness and parts availability and intercompatibility with mass after market options. Plus you'll be able to use a larger mag when target shooting. Another plus even if you don't care about magazine size is you can easily swap the barrel (actually upper receiver) without having to legally buy a new gun, so you can train with very cheap .22 ammunition using all the same ergonomics / muscle memory for when you hunt deer.
You know what, I will accept that there's some decent arguments for why hunters would want access to ARs.
Do you think it makes sense that people that don't hunt would prefer for widely, easily accessible weapons to be largely less efficient at killing human beings? It feels like many gun owners and gun enthusiasts struggle to accept any compromise. And I won't say this is particular to them, I think most people have some pet regulatory peeve, but it sure makes it difficult to have conversations about it!
What you're running to in the USA is not a conversation on hunting but rather the 2A considerations, under which a fundamental quality of the weapons is availability of efficiency at killing human beings.
And this is what I'm trying to poke at. These conversations go nowhere with a certain milieux and a lot of it is driven by a values thing that emphasizes not just the 2A but a whole thing about "right to self-defense."
To which I would counterpoise -- self-defense from what? If your society is so degraded and broken that you need to be armed to the teeth you have much bigger problems than the government taking your handguns. That's a sign of a sick and broken society and individual firearms only make it worse. So "gun rights" is frankly the entirely wrong conversation.
Same with the whole thing of "well-armed militias" to defend from government. What? Do these people really think that a few sidearms and some ARs or whatever are going to deter an actual tyrannical regime by force?
That's simply not how any revolution has ever happened. They usually happen when governments lose legitimacy enough that the armed forces and police simply walk away from defending those in power. If you're in a shootout with the armed forces, you've already lost.
So, I also question the 2A people and what their actual motives are and who they intend to use the guns on.
There's actually a shit-ton of deer hunters in the US that hunt with .300 blackout under 16" barrel AR-type weapons that are legally "handguns." In part because the handgun-length barrel makes it less unwieldy when you add a suppressor on the end (if they put a stock on it, it becomes a short barreled [baddy] 'rifle' again but for retarded vestigial legal reasons they put a "brace" on it which does the same thing but magically means you don't need an NFA stamp). Though that was not directly question posed to which I answered.
It's kind of antiquated to use a "rifle"-length barrel for intermediate cartridge nowadays. The military uses a 14.5" barrel as standard issue for the AR-15 type rifle, which is "handgun" length, and most intermediate cartridges are handier and lighter in a legally handgun sized barrel for targets within the range of what you're likely to see in wooded areas. This means to use the most practical intermediate cartridge lengths you actually legally have a handgun with a "brace" on it.
It's my understanding hunters in Canada are often using the SKS for intermediate cartridge hunting, largely because it's/was cheap and wildly available, which was designed for killing people.
reply