Job Discussion Forums

[simon_porter00]

[oipivo]

[Master Shake]

[quote="ecocks"]

[ecocks]

[ecocks]

[quote="Master Shake"]

[NilSatis82]

[ecocks]

[the_roads_of_poland]

[simon_porter00]

"Assault weapon" is not my term, rather one which is popularly used in today's world. I believe it comes into the concept of what I tell my students "developing language" in which new terms are used and accepted (rightly or wrongly). As for the definition, I'm sure a 10 second look on google under the search heading "define assault weapon" will tell you.

And no, I don't see the inherent fallacy.
A gun (as most Americans would say) is a tool of defence, certainly that's the meaning behind the second amendment. If you're defending yourself (using the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment because as Shake pointed out, if the US government wanted to blow you away they'd hardly call up the 7th armoured to do so) then you're defending yourself either at home or on the street against the government assassins who might be out to kill you.

Now, I'm no gun expert, but I've seen my fair share of movies and it seems to me that it might be easier to conceal, withdraw and fire a pistol which has an effective range of say up to 50 metres (as I said, I'm no expert) which is where I would consider the most likely attack would come from i.e. someone close to me.

Lugging around an AK47 is difficult. Not only does not fit under the average person's jumper, getting it out, bringing it to a firing position and firing it would take longer and the longer it takes to 'defend' yourself, the more likely it'll be too late.

The only obvious flaw I can see in my argument is that everyone lives on a ranch and the closest person to everyone else is at least 1 mile away. That should give you enough time to get the AK47 ready I would have thought.

You might of course say 'aha, but with an AK47 you can fire many more bullets and so you're more likely to defend yourself - a question of numbers/power, Simon' and yes you'd be right. But then the amount of collateral damage that could potentially be caused would also be massive. I presume in defending yourself, you don't want to put your whole street / innocent parties at risk.

A student of mine, when I asked him about this and the difference between drugs, alcohol, gun ownership etc said he could justify gun ownership over the others as with the others you can't defend yourself.

I personally think this is missing the point. IMO, the issue is not one of usefulness of the item but a question of harm. All of those cause harm both to yourself and other but the numbers are limited. If you drink alcohol and take drugs the circle of harm is relatively small (I'm not justifying this as OK though). With a gun, the circle of harm is potentially quite large as any massacre in any country will evidence. You simply can't cause that much harm with drugs/knives/alcohol.

[dragonpiwo]

I've got a jam jar older than America...I think you'll find Plato and Socrates were around long before the Americans gave us political theories. Then there's stuff like the wheel, modern medicine,derived from Islamic scholarship, the tv, the phone, nuclear physics, gravity, relativity......could go on. Ya didn't even invent the machine gun.

I like America and I like Americans generally but all this bull about the second world war gets on my goat as it was the Russians who did the real damage in Europe.

Back to guns.......sure go hunting with a bolt actions rifle or a shotgun but you can't really argue that an AK47 or an M4 are really necessary.

It's all wrapped up in the amendment they never will change.

What's wrong with centrally controlled magazines....say at local police stations?

America has been around as a state for a relatively short period of time Ecocks...don't be so arrogant.

[iknowwhatiamtalkingabout]

All this talk and nobody has answered two very simple questions.

1) Why do Americans feel they need to be protected from their own government (especially since nobody else in the first world seems to feel this need)?

2) Do they really think their gun cabinet would keep them safe in an alternative universe where the American government decided to turn its military power on its own people?

All this talk of citizenship and rights is pretty weak stuff that just fills the air because Americans know deep down that there's no justification for a normal person to own a firearm in a civilised country.

[ecocks]

[ecocks]

[ecocks]

[iknowwhatiamtalkingabout]